Why Were Stealth Ships Invented 70 Years Before Radar?

Рет қаралды 176,606

Жыл бұрын

💥Download War Thunder for FREE and get your bonus!
► Use my link - wtplay.link/casualnav
My eternal thanks to the community for supporting this video: / casualnavigation
Check out the Director's Commentary for this video: / 79690503
✩ABOUT THIS VIDEO✩
In this video, we take a look at why modern stealth ships look like civil war era ironclads. Although both were designed in very different times, they have ended up looking remarkably similar.
✩JOIN OUR COMMUNITY✩
/ casualnavigation
The community is our space for anyone that wants to get even more from Casual Navigation. I am eternally grateful for all members of the community as you are the ones that help me and continue to drive this channel forward.
When you join, you’ll instantly become much closer to the channel, with a range of perks and rewards depending on the tier you select.
➼ Ad-Free
➼ Early Access
➼ Bonus Content
➼ Get Involved
✩WITH THANKS✩
➼ ARTISTS
Vladimir Grbic, David Jarvis, Royce Nicdao, Rob Farnworth
➼ Images used under license from shutterstock.com
Cannons - Looper / Shutterstock.com
✩DISCLAIMER✩
All content on this channel is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the content is accurate and up to date, it remains the responsibility of the viewer to determine its accuracy and validity. The content should never be used to substitute professional advice or education.

Пікірлер: 259

@CasualNavigation Жыл бұрын

💥Download War Thunder for FREE and get your bonus! ► Use my link - wtplay.link/casualnav

@seegurke93 Жыл бұрын

wow 2 out of 7 minutes is ADs.

@Mechanized85 Жыл бұрын

No thanks

@FriedrichHerschel Жыл бұрын

@@seegurke93 Oh noes, the creator has to somehow make a living ... the audacity!

@eldsprutandedrake Жыл бұрын

I must admit that the game looks intriguing, but I get the feeling that it's just another "pay to win game". Is that so? Is it one of those game where you can just buy better gear with actual money or is it a game with a fixed price and/or monthly cost and then you have to earn your in game items with actual game progression and playtime?

@FriedrichHerschel Жыл бұрын

@@eldsprutandedrake It is free to play. The income they generate mostly comes in two forms: either you buy a premium account (for a set amount of days, so basically the subscription model, but it does not automatically continue to cost you money) to get more "XP" and "money" to progress faster (if you start from scratch and you want to get the newest shiniest vehicle, that can take you a while), or with selling "premium vehicles", that also offer XP and money bonuses. Those premium vehicles can be pretty evil, but do not have to be. For the newest high ranking vehicles it's mostly because they already come with all the availabe modifications while everybody else has to still research those. All can be countered in at least many situations in some way, at least later when you have the knowledge/research necessary. If you just want to play a few WWII vehicles, the grind is bearable and you can get along very very well without spending a single cent on it.

@mattd6085 Жыл бұрын

Explains why no Ironclads were ever spotted on radar during the civil war

@WindRyder757 Жыл бұрын

Underrated comment 😂

@nothingtoseeheremovealong598 Жыл бұрын

And also why no Zumwalt Class Destroyers were ever damaged by canonballs

@WhoeverThisManIs20.14 Жыл бұрын

RADARS never existed in the 1860s.

@forsakenplant Жыл бұрын

🤣

@kelleren4840 Жыл бұрын

🤣🤣

@christopherg2347 Жыл бұрын

The battle of hampton roads was almost comical. They shot each other for _literal hours_ without relevant damage, nevermind casualties. The people watching from shore actually got bored. Viriginia ran aground for a while, but nothing was made of it. The Monitor lost it's captain and retreated for a moment. So Viriginia declared victory and drove off. Then Monitor came back, found no Virginia and declared victory. But virginia did spend a month in Drydock afterwards, while monitor stuck around off shore. So it definitely got the worse of the "duel".

@adamcetinkent Жыл бұрын

How did they lose their captain without casualties?

@christopherg2347 Жыл бұрын

@@adamcetinkent There was like 3 death and 16 wounded over those several hours. Every so often a shell did manage to explode. And a few times some spalling paint paint hit someone, somebody leaned against that section of armor as it got hit or some shrapnel went through a port. Those are laughable numbers given just how many hundreds of shots were fired.

@BeKindToBirds Жыл бұрын

268 men died and two ships were sunk at Hampton roads. It also changed naval warfare forever. The Monitor was rushed to finish to counter the Virginia with a crew that had never sailed together and an experimental design that hadn't had sea trials. The Virginia withdrew first but made more sorties into hampton roads for the next two months but the Union blockade was not broken and the Confederacy was eventually forced to scuttle the Virginia when they lost Portsmouth. The noise and smoke of the duel was the most epic sight of naval warfare thus far, men were being deafened, blinded, hit with splinters, hot shrapnel, and molten iron. It is a very important part of the history of Naval Warfare and a massive tribute to the sea power of the United States of America today.

@chaosXP3RT Жыл бұрын

My favorite part of the battle was that The Monitor's turret got stuck spinning, so they could only take a shot at the CSS Virginia once every revolution! Lmao I'm surprised nobody got dizzy!

@MatthewChenault Жыл бұрын

You forgot to mention that the Captain of the CSS _Virginia_ was wounded on March 8th for standing on top of said ironclad and trying to take pot shots at the union shore batteries with his carbine.

@yoonseongdo3303 Жыл бұрын

very few people talk about ironclads, they're sorta forgotten, being stuck in between world war ships and sailing ships.

@burnstick1380 Жыл бұрын

just like noone talks about predreadnaughts.

@gargravarr2 Жыл бұрын

@@burnstick1380 Which is ironic when the single most decisive naval battle between metal ships was fought by predreadnoughts.

@rx6588 Жыл бұрын

@@gargravarr2 tell me more, what is this battle you are talking about I am interested

@gargravarr2 Жыл бұрын

@@rx6588 The Battle of Tsushima, 1905, which decided the Russo-Japanese War. Russia had sailed its Baltic fleet of 8 predreadnought battleships and 3 coastal battleships all the way around Eurasia to defeat Japan in the east. Japan, with a fleet of 5 battleships plus a larger supporting force, crushed them in the Tsushima strait between Japan and Korea. They sank 7 Russian battleships and captured the other 4 for the loss of only 3 torpedo boats. Russia sued for peace soon after. The consequences for naval warfare were far-reaching. The battle had demonstrated that accurate long-range heavy gunfire was the way to win at sea. This ushered in the Dreadnought revolution. Having won the war with a decisive naval battle, Japan's naval doctrine in World War 2 was based on the idea of forcing and winning another decisive clash of fleets - at which they ultimately failed.

@ChrisNoonetheFirst Жыл бұрын

@@burnstick1380I’ve never talked about predreadnaughts

@treverjohnson9931 Жыл бұрын

Another thing about sloped armor is that the effective thickness is increased relative to perpendicular armor.

@user-gi5el4sc3t Жыл бұрын

I'm not sure if that's useful when shell comes to you at 30+ degree angle from above, as shells going at high parabolic trajectories at the distances of a naval fight.

@Mincecroft Жыл бұрын

@Сергей Кленовский You are right in the sense that if the projectile hits at an angle perpendicular to the sloped armour, it acts as if there was no slope. However you can account for this when designing the slope.

@jerithil Жыл бұрын

@@Mincecroft It is why on latter era battleships that used sloped armor it angled inwards causing arching shells, to hit at even great angles.

@michaelkaldwid1595 Жыл бұрын

A point worth mentioning about angling. Another reason to angle surfaces up is to prevent radar signals from bouncing off the water. if hull surfaces are angled down, the hull and the water will also create a cat's eye effect, making it show up more easily on radar. I think you actually mentioned this on a different video (something about flared vs. tumblehome bows if I recall). That's why aircraft carriers don't really bother with any radar dampening features the way destroyers do. The most important feature of an aircraft carrier is deck space, because it directly effects how many planes you can carry and how fast they can deploy. There are exceptions, but those exceptions are smaller carrier/destroyer hybrids used by small navy's or for clandestine opps rather than large scale deployments. Making something like a nimitz class carrier "stealthy" would require a ship with such a wide hull at the water line that it would be impractically slow and difficult to maneuver missed

@xxnightdriverxx9576 Жыл бұрын

You can absolutely make carriers more stealthy. The US has decided not to do it with their newest class. But the UK has. Just compare a few pictures of the British Queen Elisabeth class carriers to the US General R. Ford class carrier. It is quite clear that the Royal Navy tried to make the QE a bit more stealthy, as they have a ton of flat angled surfaces, and they have hidden the irregular stuff that shows up big on radar as much as possible. Yes many of those flat surfaces are angled towards the water, because otherwise the compromise for the carrier functions would be too much. However that is still much better and more stealthy than not having those angled surfaces at all. A little bit of stealth is better than no stealth. Of course a carrier will never reach the same values as a destroyer, but as will all stealth things it is not about being invisible, it is about being detected later. It does make a big difference in strategic positioning and tactical defense weather you are detected at 300km or 400km distance. Might not look like a lot but in this case that is 70600 km² vs 125600 km² of detection area, so the ship with 300km detection range occupies 56% less area where it is detected compared to the ship with 400km.

@tandemcharge5114 Жыл бұрын

Well, actually, aircraft do bother with radar dampening features. F-35 and F-22 have iconic nose lines that have been purposed placed there to bounce radar signatures away from the source

@ZaHandle Жыл бұрын

@@tandemcharge5114aircraft carriers my dude

@beardedchimp Жыл бұрын

With the massive amount of satellite surveillance, slow moving ships are easily spotted and tracked irrespective to their radar stealth. But even if we know where a stealth destroyer is, radar guided anti-ship missiles will struggle to find that target. That was part of the rationale behind LRASM. It doesn't rely on any single targeting mechanism. We know where the enemy ship is and we can provide continuous guidance to the missile during its flight. When it has reached that general area it doesn't need radar, a camera with relatively simple recognition systems will hit the target. It has many other mechanisms that achieve the same aim that don't require radar.

@pavelslama5543 Жыл бұрын

I have a better question: Are civil war ironclads stealth?

@clockworkowl6248 Жыл бұрын

No radars of the era ever detected them

@FerdinandFake Жыл бұрын

Paint em blue and maybe you can fool the hot air balloons

@879PC Жыл бұрын

With that big round exhaust column? Not a chance.

@paladinboyd1228 Жыл бұрын

I'm actually wondering if they could deflect radar scans given their shape.

@kubauhlir1730 Жыл бұрын

They'd have to be cleaned up 😄

@cheezitz6730 Жыл бұрын

it's not just that sloped surfaces deflect things, but often it has more to do with the fact that it sort of makes things "thicker", because of trigonometry. while i could definitely see it doing more deflecting back in olden days when the force of projectiles were much smaller, deflection becomes harder as you get cannons that fire faster, heavier shells.

@1224chrisng Жыл бұрын

Well that's the usual explanation I've heard, that you can get away with thinner armour, but now you'd have to use more armour since it's sloped, so it's not necessarily lighter

@yidingliu8663 Жыл бұрын

TLDR: sloped surfaces deflect things

@Jin-Ro Жыл бұрын

I'd love to have seen the battle between the Monitor and Virginia. I think I read somewhere that the battle went on so long with nothing happening that site see'ers started to go home lol. Don't know if that's true, or who the source was.

@danguee1 Жыл бұрын

"Sightseers". You truly mangled that word.

@Ramosway2 Жыл бұрын

It was the battle of hampton Roads, and when the 2 ironclads fought it was like 2 people in armor trying to hurt each other with sticks

@eaglescout1984 Жыл бұрын

I love the technology of the Civil War. And the ironclads are one of if not the most impressive things to come out of the war. Before the Monitor arrived, the Virginia had the run of the harbor and sunk /caused the retreat of 3 wooden vessels. That day signaled the end of the wooden warship and made the naval fleets of all other nations obsolete overnight.

@filanfyretracker Жыл бұрын

Civil War was the free preview of the world wars as well, Being maybe the biggest industrial war before the world wars

@The_Professor_ Жыл бұрын

Also keep in mind that angling the armor increases the thickness when impacting at an angle!

@nf1nk Жыл бұрын

The Merrimac was in dry dock when she was burned which made salvage much easier. That dry dock is is Dry Dock #1 at Norfolk Naval Ship Yard and it is still in service.

@robbabcock_ Жыл бұрын

Fascinating! Congrats on the growth of this channel, up over 500k now!😎🔥🙌

@VraccasVII Жыл бұрын

Might be a good idea to put the 5 criteria of how well ships reflect as a word onto the screen while you are explaining each one

@nmccw3245 Жыл бұрын

Deflecting cannon balls and deflecting radar energy is eerily the same.

@bc-guy852 Жыл бұрын

As always, Your continuing producing great episodes is what keeps me coming back, (and you say that keeps the channel going - win-win-win!) Thanks for your efforts.

@naerbo19 Жыл бұрын

I feel like the iron clads as depicted here is more like u-boats or submarines in that they move everything they can as low as they can. The Monitor is a good example as the round tower translates into a sail or conning's tower.

@tHebUm18 Жыл бұрын

Do stealthy ships also do similar things below the water line to avoid sonar? Or does sonar not work that close to surface?

@aryansapra6080 5 ай бұрын

I dont know, but i think they do it below water also

@keiyakins Жыл бұрын

One thing I always wondered, do warships designed to minimize radar return carry radar reflectors they can deploy during peacetime? It seems like it'd be a good idea, and it's just kinda funny to engineer in both directions at once.

@glennrishton5679 Жыл бұрын

I'll be the first to take a guess and say : No. For navigational purposes there is still some radar return so while they may be lost on a 24 mile scale on radar they will be apparent when they are within 12 or so miles. Within 12 miles in clear weather the navigation lights will be visible. Also once the stealth ship sees another vessel on their radar or visually there is radio communications as well as electronic identification, AIS. However if you are in a war zone just keep a sharp lookout since there will be no AIS and no nav lights .

@ktigerj Жыл бұрын

Another awesome video. Glad you are getting some sponsors too.

@CMDRSweeper Жыл бұрын

Love the cannon animation, never expected there to be very fitting metallic clunking sounds with the cannon shells. I guess we can say it is this attention to detail that have made your channel so special.

@terran9264 Жыл бұрын

Literally the backbone of my Soviet coastal fleet in war thunder is consisted of ironclad river boats (currently the Pr. 1124 late and Pr. 191). Fun times having to sail in choppy water with no stabilizers on my main guns ;-; Another thought: If those stealth ships ever got close enough, maybe they could consider ramming the enemy ship? We're all too familiar with the destructive power of those chisel shaped bows...

@timhuester7721 Жыл бұрын

Unless a ship or vehicle is especially designed for ramming (eg ancient galleys), ramming is never the answer. Way too risky.

@arrowghost Жыл бұрын

The Zumwalt is one of a kind that is designed like that

@21mozzie Жыл бұрын

From a performance perspective, there are big advantages to keeping a ship low, especially with weaker, less efficient steam engines. Also weight up high in ships is bad, so keeping heavy armour as low as possible is good. Also sloping the sides in reduces the width of the heavy deck, and is good for seakeeping as well.

@GGN-92 Жыл бұрын

Very interesting as usual. Thanks for sharing and take care of yourself.

@koharumi1 Жыл бұрын

Maybe military ships should be built more like nacro subs. Low profile semi submersible combined with stealth materials. Making it close to invisible to radar.

@rilmar2137 Жыл бұрын

The guys from USS New Jersey did a video on all those antennas on warships, comparing Iowa and USS Hornet in this regard. I wonder how stealth ships go about some connections they do need

@wojtek4p4 Жыл бұрын

This might not be a full answer, but IIRC most modern ships use phased array radar rather than traditional rotating-antenna radar. Instead of having large antennas pointing at things, they use a large array of small omnidirectional sensors, and the direction of incoming radio waves is measured by the slight differences in timing. A similar same method is used for sending pulses of radio waves. That eliminates a lot of large antennas that old warships had (e.g. for battleships: surface search radar, air search radar, fire control radars (both for primary, secondary and AA fire control directors)). Unfortunately I don't know if communication antennas use similar techniques, but looking at photos of some modern stealth ships, a lot of them feature "traditional" antennas or large white spheres which hide antennas underneath.

@Shaker626 Жыл бұрын

@@wojtek4p4 Many types of antenna for different wavelengths now use that phased array structure, even those for SATCOM or UHF radio. I don't know if the long antennas of SW radios can be replaced like this though.

@melinda5777 Жыл бұрын

Loved this! Best I've seen! 👍

@MineTrain Жыл бұрын

This is one of the few things i already knew, befor waching one of your Videos :O Grad job, as always

@danielkarmy4893 Жыл бұрын

First thought - 'hey, that's Warrior!' I mean, I see her across the harbour every day anyway, but still...that's a fantastic digital likeness of the old girl!

@besserwizard Жыл бұрын

I knew the answer and still watched the entire video. Says a lot about your great channel. Always looking forward to your great explanations about maritime related topics :)

@Ralphieboy Жыл бұрын

another related parallel: Sloped walls of Japanese and European fortresses. Vauban forts in Europe had sloped sides to deflect cannon fire. Japan did not use much heavy artillery, but their castle walls are sloped, but in their case it was to provide better stability against earthquakes.

@mrs6968 Жыл бұрын

Great video

@franzfanz Жыл бұрын

Do stealth ships raise a radar reflector when they're in locations where lots of other ships are operating and the risk of collision is greater? For example, when docking at a busy port.

@xxnightdriverxx9576 Жыл бұрын

Yes. Unless it is wartime they pretty much always have radar reflectors equipped. Not only for safetly around civilian vessels but also to hide their true radar signature from vessels of rivaling nations. The same goes for stealth planes

@franzfanz Жыл бұрын

@@xxnightdriverxx9576 Awesome. Thanks for that.

@wolftng359 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for using her correct name of CSS Virginia

@kilianortmann9979 Жыл бұрын

Size is not directly related to radar crossection but a bigger vessel has of course more rough spots, round surfaces and corners to reflect radar energy back.

@apexbrothers1815 Жыл бұрын

Clicked instantly, dont want to miss a video!

@joshuabessire9169 Жыл бұрын

Step 1: fool enemies by building USS Zumwalt. Step 2: enemies build fleet of monitors to counter. Step 3: nail 'em with Harpoons and F-18s from 70 miles away.

@MarcinSporysz Жыл бұрын

I have a soft spot for these majestic buildings, these are essence of the sea. I would give much to play light keeper for a month or two. Thanks for a video

@clockworkowl6248 Жыл бұрын

If my knowledge is correct, the tumblehome hull shape - subject of discussion here - also have disadvantageous seakeeping properties, the reason why it wasn't prevalent in WW2(or modern civilian ships, for that matter). Being detected in modern warfare is so deadly that it is an acceptable tradeoff, even if the warships have to employ other design features to reinforce stability.

@gargravarr2 Жыл бұрын

The main disadvantage of the tumblehome was instability if flooded. Three Russian tumblehome battleships sinking at Tsushima in 1905 made navies stop building them. In 1915, the French tumblehome predreadnought Bouvet capsized and sank in two minutes after hitting a mine during the Dardanelles campaign.

@xxnightdriverxx9576 Жыл бұрын

This tumblehome design is only used by a single ship class. The US Zumwalt class of 3 ships, as shown in the video. ALL other modern warships use more traditional hull shapes. Even the next generation of US destroyer/cruiser, the DDG (X), which is still in the design phase, will use a traditional hull. The tradeoffs are simply not worth it, even when you try to make the ships as stealthy as possible, as the US Navy has realized (again).

@mikebrown3772 Жыл бұрын

You correctly said "fired from nearby vessels", as the range at which warships engaged increased the shells could hit at at much steeper angle making angled armour lose its advantage, apart from its effect on seakeeping.

@msromike123 Жыл бұрын

You got the way armor works against High Explosive wrong. It does not deflect it necessarily (though it can.) The angle increases the effective thickness of the armor based on the cosign of the angle of the armor divided into the the thickness. So 10mm plate angled at 45 degrees has an effective line of sight thickness of 14.14 mm. Great channel and I rarely find a mistake, but this is one. EDIT: Thanks to everyone pointing out my error. Sloped armor only helps with penetration of kinetic rounds.

@KingTFD Жыл бұрын

Penetration only deals with objects. The pressure wave from HE will reflect

@Estok8805 Жыл бұрын

Isn't that the way it works for penetrating rounds, not high explosive? For high explosive, as the force of the explosion is what's getting through the armor the angle doesn't matter. The explosion pushes in all directions equally and so part of it will always be pushing perpendicular to the armor. There is no line-of-sight advantage against explosive because the explosion's 'line-of-sight' is in all directions, right next to the armor plate.

@burnstick1380 Жыл бұрын

the pressure wave doesn't care about effective thickness. It does not care about angle its basically a sphere. Oh and thick armour doesn't always help because explosions may cause splinters on the inside. Basically the armour isn't penetrated but on the inside parts of the armour splinters of and well hurts, kills, damages and destroys interior things

@burnstick1380 Жыл бұрын

@@KingTFD No explosions go in spheres

@KingTFD Жыл бұрын

@@burnstick1380 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

@William_Bryant Жыл бұрын

Union Captain: “We’re burning down the Merrimack so the Rebels can’t use it!” Confederates: “Oh no! Anyway…”

@strudelninja Жыл бұрын

You forgot to mention that angled armor also has a higher effective thickness than the actual thickness of the plating.

@daftbence Жыл бұрын

QM2 makes it into another video - nice!

@SchwarzeBananen Жыл бұрын

And the angled sheet makes the sheet itself thicker in regard of a obrject penetrating it in a straight line.

@dedasdude Жыл бұрын

literally playing warthunder with this in the bg. spooky

@jaredharris1970 Жыл бұрын

Subs are the true stealthy vessels u don’t know they are there until u get sunk lol

@FizzleFX Жыл бұрын

3:10 *again you forgot to mention* the EFFECTIVE THICKNESS GROWS... its not just the angle but the amount of steel it has to dig through grows.... (aka thicker profile)

@rantanen1 Жыл бұрын

It's not the thickness but how you use it, that's what I always say

@Eliphaser Жыл бұрын

That depends on the kind of shell that hits the armour; if it's an armour piercing round (HEAT, APDS, APFSDS, whatever), then sure, but if it's something like a purely explosive warhead, there's a lot less care about that whole "effective thickness" as the explosion would be unidirectional and hit the armour about as much regardless of the angle.

@Erik_Taurus Жыл бұрын

It took a while for the tanks to get sloped armour, that is quite interesting IMHO.

@ilfarmboy 11 ай бұрын

the monitor was only firing 30 lb charges of black powder the guns she had was able to fire 60 lb charges but the military was scared the guns would blow up if 60 labs was used things would of been MUCH different during the battle

@davidcroxton8306 Жыл бұрын

Surely roading sound barriers could benefit from the same concepts to break up noise

@benderbendingrofriguez3300 Жыл бұрын

Can you make a video about the Monitor Huscar?

@CharChar2121 Жыл бұрын

Tumblehome hulls come and go every few centuries, it seems.

@ryanu6424 Жыл бұрын

Can you explained video of “ship’s propeller and water jet thruster”.

@nyosgomboc2392 Жыл бұрын

If I remember correctly, some ironclad's armor was made of train tracks they had around. That shape would've worked as a sort of radar reflector not making the ship stealthy.

@theromanorder 10 ай бұрын

1:00 design of this union ship, 2:15 angled armor 3:35 design of another 4:20 defecting radar 4:50 normal ships defecting

@calebbrown6735 Жыл бұрын

They also are doing a new event in April where you can play as amoured mechs... Yeah I know...

@zachbrenner9959 11 ай бұрын

War thunder added the killer egg? Guess I'm gonna start playing it now

@asn413 Жыл бұрын

angle of incidecence = angle of deflection. useful bite of physics:)

@mbvoelker8448 Жыл бұрын

It's all about the bounce.

@sarahputz1591 Жыл бұрын

Please make a video about the SS America

@m1a2abramsmainbattletank58 Жыл бұрын

USS Zumwalt, Lead ship of the Zumwalt-class destroyer

@crazycatlady39 11 ай бұрын

So, the design still works because it's for helping repel projectiles. They just went from physical projectiles to electronic ones.

@SofaKingShit Жыл бұрын

Perhaps they should have named one of the ironclads "The Alabi." Or possibly not.

@firepowerg Жыл бұрын

Whoo!

@ObviousPizza547 Жыл бұрын

Yes then you’ll see similar things in tanks around ww2 for example russian t34 hulls were angled to help deflect shots and increase the effective thickness of the armor plates by having to go through more material

@jaredharris1970 Жыл бұрын

I think the iron clad ships were the granddaddy to battle ships the share similar traits

@voterfraud4creepyjoe60 Жыл бұрын

Yea, those turn of the century ironclads were so stealthy, they were completely invisible to radar! We can’t even imagine! It would take radar all the way to the 1930’s to detect these slow ironclads.

@orppranator5230 8 ай бұрын

You mean halfway between two turns of centuries?

@Kualinar Жыл бұрын

It's all : Different purposes leading to similar shapes.

@deathhog Жыл бұрын

Mayhaps give a shout out to Drachinifel, who did a *very* good overview of the ironclads.

@thekidd423 10 ай бұрын

1.5 minute ad on a 7 minute video in addition to the ads youtube spams. Cmon

@ironsimonx4221 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the interessting Video! One question: Why is the F35 stealth bomber from USA than everywhere curved?

@pavelgrussmann3314 Жыл бұрын

You mean the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the stealth 5th gen multi-role fighter? Because the "stealth" evolved. Look for example at F-117 Nighthawk, the surface was all made from straight "panels". It is a group of technologies working together in order to lower the radar detection. Using surface shape to deflect the light (radar wave) is one "technology" in this group, another can be for example absorbing the light (by using specialiazed materials and coatings). Surface has to be still aerodynamic, especially of quick-moving and maneuvring fighter jet. Nighthawk was a rather light-weight carrying bomber, thus the high-speed and maneuverability was not required nor achieved.

@operationscomputer1478 Жыл бұрын

2:01 the elevon movement is greatly exaggerated and not in time with the aircraft roll - that much deflection would give a 300' per second roll in a plane like that.

@-NGC-6302- Жыл бұрын

The Virginia got its iron from a bunch of railroad tracks, right?

@GumbasBannor Жыл бұрын

Convergent evolution, not coincidence.

@blazetube80 Жыл бұрын

Ironclad vs F22 raptor pls

@mirror452 Жыл бұрын

Could have used a prettier ship as an example though. Like the Type 055.

@Lillspratt Жыл бұрын

No it copies the Visby klass corvette

@erichammond9308 Жыл бұрын

So why do people think that the sloped armor of the CSS Virginia had ANYTHING to do with stealth when radar wouldn't be invented until almost 75 years later? Actually it had everything to do with the stability of the vessel and sloped armor deflecting shot better.

@angry4rtichoke646 Жыл бұрын

160 years as “ancient” feels pretty clickbait

@saemoursaeless6242 Жыл бұрын

they deflect cannon fire and radar upwards, same principle different purpose.

@Milxfanta Жыл бұрын

I wish I started warthunder through these links. But no. I’m even better than the bonuses

@hzgl Жыл бұрын

The video in your ad is way too long.

@funkenjoyer Жыл бұрын

ironchads

@kashunbb Жыл бұрын

Ironclad stealth

@panoskappos2735 Жыл бұрын

so the ironclads where the first stealth thing we ever build ?😅😅😅

@orppranator5230 8 ай бұрын

Because bad then we had LIDAR

@AaronShenghao Жыл бұрын

Ironclad? They look more like those dreadnought battleships…

@sparkyfister Жыл бұрын

Federalist?

@mrwinemaker Жыл бұрын

Wait War Thunder is a video game??? This whole time I thought they were a classified documents dump. Oops

@mateuszcielas3362 Жыл бұрын

can anyone explain why ships hull is sometimes wrinkled and ugly?

@Train115 Жыл бұрын

I respectfully disagree with the name of the video, good video as always though.

@sghsdhdkfh Жыл бұрын

T 34 in sea

@Chrisey96. Жыл бұрын

Do they?

@frankschmidt2303 Жыл бұрын

USS Monitor made by a Swedish design

@badmacdonald Жыл бұрын

re the stealth ship. why is the metal skin better?

@captainhindsight8779 Жыл бұрын

Ah yes, the ancient United States Navy, oldest in the world 🤌🇺🇸

@thijsrikkerink6333 Жыл бұрын

Those confederates were so ahead of their time, already thought about radar reflection before it was even invented.