Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "The Drydock - Episode 174" video.

On a Knox class (early 1970s) we simply formed a bucket brigade from the shore to the magazine for 5"/38 shells and charges. Underway replenishment deposited flats of ammo on the deck and the sailors manhandled it below, again by bucket brigade.
32
I listened as I went about my day, pausing when I left the house. Enjoyable.
4
The Mutsu went up/down at 10 minutes past noon. Bet a lot of kids were sitting on the hillside, eating O-bento, dreaming of the day they'd be old enough to serve on board he-BADABOOM!
2
K class FTW. Cold, wet, unstable, miserable-just like the seabound Escort ships. If we'd given the project to Hughes he would've come up with the Glomar Flying Liner . . . grab U-Boats right out of the water.
2
@edwardvincentbriones5062 I venture an opinion here: The USN never did it again, leaving such exploits to UDT (Underwater Demolition Teams) ahead of regular landings and amphibious assault.
1
Not an expert here: Both Graf Spee and Bismarck were cursed by trouble with their fuel filtration systems. That was with naval crude. Diesel (which Spee also had need for) is more refined than crude. That refining reduces viscosity and improves homogeneity to the point where the oil doesn't clump, guaranteeing better and more even combustion. Kerosene is more refined, and gasoline/petrol/benzine is the bomb-as well as being the most process intensive fuel to produce. Boilers which can burn crude are designed to deal with the extra soot and residue without breaking down. It helps to filter it a second time if it's been laying in bunkers a while. Tolerances looser, so to speak. Diesel requires a consistent fuel quality finer than naval crude. Diesels are designed to a closer tolerance standard, leaving them at risk when they try to burn cruder fuel oils. Their advantages are higher energy density and cleaner burning.
1