If only it wasn't so long and loud

@@AgentTasmania booooooooooooo. I wish it never stop. It’s now in my head and I have to dance. It’s just enough clinker… riveting. 🧐

@@AgentTasmania the axe? The song is the best. He avoided the axe and thank goodness. Wouldn’t be hearing the song.

FYI: the tune is "Wat Dat Dee" by TeknoAXE's Royalty Free Music, with a couple of additions (the hammer and horns).

@@michaelkarnerfors9545 it’s a remix of cab calloway. Great tune. You should hear the original with lyrics. It’s so old it’s passed the copyright years haha

As a fellow Oregonian (until I moved for work at 30), I concur.

The only ship that has spent longer than Oregon in a drydock is HMAS Supply. (A joke for australians.)

Good point. Another is that the real world has something called weather, which includes something called 'sea state'. DK Brown has tables on this in the ship design section of Nelson to Vanguard. One of the tables suggests that the weather in the North Atlantic is nasty about 40% of the time averaged across the year - and worse in certain seasons. We see confirming data in the Osprey book Walcheren 1944 by Richard Brooks which mentions the weather was typically bad three days in four during the time of year they were planning the amphibious assault on the Scheldt fortifications. Destroyers are going to forced to slow down when the waves get higher. If I'm reading the data in DK Brown correctly, he suggests that destroyers are probably going to have to slow down to ~18knots in a lot of conditions, a huge drop of speed for a vessel normally capable of 30+ knots. They will also have more difficulty operating their weapons if the waves are high. Big ships are far less affected in both respects. The net effect is that for much the year, if waves are high but visibility is still good, secondary armament will more time to engage because the destroyers can't close to torpedo range as quickly - and the destroyers will have reduced maneuverability as well as reduced speed, making them easier to hit. Secondary armament also has the advantage of having a much higher rate of fire, which helps a lot when trying to hit highly maneuverable targets, and also helps a lot when visibility is a problem, hence you have targets that suddenly appear out of the mist, out of the rain, or out of a smoke screen. In these situations, getting some hits with smaller shells on unarmored targets may be far more valuable than getting no hits at all with primary armament (which might not even be facing the right direction and can be slow to turn!). All it takes is a single hit in the right place to wreck a destroyer ...

Imagine how bad the 2nd Pacific Squadron had it

The nasal passages would dry up quickly. Did you spray water into the air to try and prevent it?

"Yes and no." and "It depends." All of which are OK. Absolutes in history are sometimes few and far between. 🇺🇸

Because

Accompanied by a pregnant pause.

"neither here nor there" and "albeit"

I know some people whom I suspect would be incapable of doing that, even at temperatures much lower than 140°F. 😈

Battleships were pretty much obsolete after bismark

@@christophersayers598 Somewhat before, even. It’s just that nobody knew.

​@@christophersayers598 They at least still had the advantage of being around (if they weren't sunk or scrapped), so you would want to have some of yours nearby because what if it comes to a relatively close range battle where long range artillery can result in damage. Who was sent (after waiting way too long) to intercept Center Force off Samar? The US fast battleships with Vice admiral Lee (truly a tough enemy for the Japanese, and then there were also the battleships he brought with him). Because when your enemy attacks you with battleships, you want to fight him with one of the only ship types that can relatively reliably sink another battleship while surviving. Especially when it comes to ships in the range of a battleships guns. So after the war you have basically just future NATO with competitive battleships (US, UK, France, Italy), while the USSR had some who were outdated af. And judging by the condition of HMS Royal Sovereign/Arkhangelsk when she was returned from a 5 year lease to the Soviet navy where she was scrapped basically immediately, they were also not in a condition to fight effectively. So you got a bunch of battleships that won't have the enemy they were build for anymore, marking their usefulness end. Not surprising most of them were decommissioned in the 40s already, some like the Littorio class were already scrapped too. Although the Iowa class showed that battleships could evolve. But considering the minor return on investment they brought compared to purpose build newer ships, it's obvious why new ones were never build. They would have become floating missile batteries anyway like the Kirov class. Or the proposed guided missile battleship Kentucky was planned to be converted into (because hey, we got that more or less finished Iowa class hull lying around). But their best job was propaganda and the effect the have on the enemy and that only improved the fewer they were. Especially with the Iowas in the 80s as the last ones in service. How many other ships received a surrender by enemy soldiers when they saw their spotting drone?

@@christophersayers598Bismarck was obsolete when she was built. She was a sorry excuse for a battleship

@@Constance_tinople Excluding extreme examples like 28cm armed Scharnhorsts or 21kt WW1 hulls pretty much every battleship was potentially dangerous to another battleship in a 1 on 1 engagement at least at the time Bismarck was built. It often boiled down to who scored the first hit and every hit could be crippling. Bismarck was an inefficient waste of resources, yes but she was still dangerous to any (battle)ship she could potentially face. And she could theoretically outrun any RN battleships except for the battlecruisers which in turn she outgunned.

Mind, the main issue for France was non-nobles rarely had the education to compete for senior leadership roles. Admirals had to be reasonably skilled in the language arts and mathematics to serve in the ever-more bureaucratic militaries of the age. Generally it was only the nobility and pseudo-noble technocrats of France who learned these skills to start with, let alone to the level demanded by Le Roi to be one of his senior soldiers or sailors. In the Netherlands, between Protestant notions of literacy (every man should read his own Bible) and a larger population of urban people who found education useful or necessary to make livings, it was more common for a "commoner" to have basic education enough to build on to become an admiral.

The Danes ended up being a pretty successful group of "Vikings", so they had to have a fairly good and ... useful array of weapons. You know gotta be to be able to *take* and *defend* territories, or battles. Thanks for mentioning our Danish cousins, a grateful (25 %) Norwegian (American). p. s. Double Thank You for also saying that you were watching _Das Boot_ , I am ready to also (re)watch that thrilling and emotional movie! and, I need to look up films about the U S Navy capturing the *_U - 505_* , _'Attack And Capture' : The Story Of U - Boat 505_ .

@@PalleRasmussen reported as spam, has nothing to do with the video

was the Scottish Burling , the last iteration if the " longship"?

@@williestyle35 they are sadly not on par with German war movies. All Quiet, Das Boot, Stalingrad and Die Brücke lacks any sort of Hollywood glamour. All heroism and suffering is in vain. Most people die. The only two other movies compare to those are Battle of Algiers, and Come and See. Though I do like Full Metal Jacket too, and I have not seen The Cruel Sea yet, which is supposedly very good.

@@hughgordon6435 I do not know, cause I do not know it, but I do know that on the Faeroes, they still use clinker-built ships that are 90% identical to those of the early middle ages.

Huzzah!! 🍞🧀🍷 from 🇺🇸

To answer this, you could start by looking at the Deutschland-class cruisers made by Germany before WW2 - which did use diesel engines - and scale the design up a bit (somewhere between 2-4x to take a 14k cruiser up to a 35-45k battleship, should be plenty of room to take 6x11 inch guns up to 9x11 inch or maybe even more/larger guns). My guess is the ship would have a lower maximum speed than a fast battleship, and about 2x the range. Otherwise much the same as other battleships. Diesel engines tend to weigh more per unit, but are more fuel efficient (hence the range advantage). Ship length tends to dominate over weight when it comes to speed so the extra weight won't be as big of a penalty as it might otherwise - and it's low in the ship so it won't adversely affect stability or seakeeping. A lot depends on the qualities of the diesel engines available. Also, your question is a bit ambiguous because 'battleship' is not well defined. These days we consider Scharnhorst and Gneisenau to be battleships, so you might look at their specs as well (these are not diesel propelled but at least give you some idea of one 'definition' of what a 'battleship' might look like in terms of characteristics - then you can decide if that's the 'definition' you want). In general diesels require lower maintenance. There might be some special requirements for maintenance, not sure. You might be able to get away with a smaller crew (but you'll probably lose some or all of the advantages of that by the increased weight of the engines). You could also look at modern container ships and super tankers, which do use diesel engines, to get some ideas on issues that could affect the design, though military and civilian stuff isn't always the same.

Interesting. I think that your best bet would be a pre-dread as they have less bulk to move and usually carry a pair of substantial pole masts to which you can jury-rig yards. My choice would be the 2nd class pre-dread HMS Swiftsure. She comes at only 11,800 tons (as against 14,000 to 16,000 for contemporary RN ships) and you might even be able to rig sails on her cranes.

Sorta looks like him. Though the other guy doesn't look like Bing.

Presumably Dorothy Lamour was the one taking the photo.

In the boiler room? Nah, she's havin' a drink in the lounge with Bing.

you and me. (presuming you pay taxes.)

K13.

I'm a native Castlemaniac (I lived there for my first 17 years) and I was there, although I wasn't manning the guns.

Here you go: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z8CqpMygm9C0goU.html

Huh?

@@WALTERBROADDUS supine. Yaknow. Lying on yer back. Get a dictionary. At least you didn’t laugh. I was worried someone would think that’s a silly question….

@@WALTERBROADDUSisn’t it a myth that an upside turret would fall right out ? Could they shoot upside down?

@@kkupsky6321 it's not a myth. Many turrets are designed that way. As for shooting upside down? No.....

@@kkupsky6321 we would call a ship in that position as, "capsized."

General Kenobi...

Pretty sure renown was rebuilt with heavier armour, not sure what repulse received in her 30s rebuild

For a casual viewer, yes... Some of us get it before then

DESTROY