Comments by "John Fisher" (@johnfisher9692) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1.  @EslayerTM  Well it wasn't a ram, but in 1940 HMS Cossack came alongside the German supply freighter Altmark while it was attempting to reach home waters. The crew of Cossack boarded the ship to rescue 299 merchant sailors captured by the Graf Spee. Those men were delighted to hear the ringing cry of "The navy's here"
    2
  2. Thanks Drach Wonder just what sort of comments were made by USN officers when they saw the open bridge of these ships? Probably nothing that could be written here without getting into trouble 😉
    2
  3. Thanks Drachh for a detailed and thorough analysis of a most tragic event. As you have previously said, one of the luckiest shots to ever occur but that is what happens in war and life. As it was said in one of the Predator movies "Shit Happens"
    2
  4. Thanks Drach, an great video describing ships which were an excellent design for their role. It's interesting to compare how tough they were and how they stood the tests of battle and sea keeping compared to their opponents who couldn't equal either.
    2
  5. There are other problems with the RN using Baden than covered in the video. German ships were designed for limited duration North Sea voyages and had very cramped quarters for the crew. This was considered acceptable as in Port, German sailors left the ship and lived in barracks ashore whereas in many other navy's, the ship is the sailors home. Most large German ships didn't even have water distillation plants for fresh water, just replying on the water they can carry due to their planned limited duration voyages. This equipment was considered essential in other Navies. Another point against Baden in the strange German love of the triple screw design which the British never used. Most others used either twin or quad screw designs to enable steering with the engines if the rudder was damaged. This isn't possible with the triple design (as Bismarck found out). According to my research the Triple design is the worst possible, with its advantages outweighed by the disadvantages. So why the German Navy loved it so much is a mystery to me. Though they did use quad screws for their BC's, go figure.
    2
  6. What a pleasant surprise to see yet anohter drydock so quickly. You really are dedicated to us (your loyal viewers) and we certainly appreciate it. I just have to get my poor brain to accept all this information, maybe it needs to be dry docked for upgrades :) Putting the two together you're only the 42 seconds for a two hour episode. Ah that magic number 42
    2
  7. Thanks Drach You efforts in keeping us entertained and educated in Naval history is very much appreciated. A second live stream?? I love them but don't want you to burn yourself out, or have Lady Drach get upset with the amount of time this takes away from her. Due to time differences Live Stream is way way too early for me so I wait and watch them after/ You should watch one yourself and run your cursor along the time bar and see your movements sped up to insane levels, it is very funny.
    2
  8.  @philipprucz3099  Poor quality shells is a small part of the problem. What people are forgetting is that the fight took place at (what was for the time) very long range and high speed. This was the first time such conditions had been seen in battle and it was a learning curve for the BC's. The Germans having learned from the battle of Coronel. And as Drach explained, the Germans were lucky to have the wind in their favour which hindered the BC's gunnery Also something not many realize is German ships seemed to be tougher because they were designed for short duration voyages with far greater water tight integrity but also far less habitable conditions. Other navy's (the British especially) had to be capable of long duration voyages and HAD to have more comfortable living conditions. A British ships had to be able to operate in sea's ranging from the Arctic to the Pacific at short notice, not something usually expected of a German built ship.
    2
  9. Thanks Drach These were tough and well built ships that gave sterling service. Amazing that Britain, France and the US could build ships that complied with Treaty limits yet other countries just couldn't seem to abide by treaties they signed.
    2
  10. Given the sheer power of large naval rifles and the very large amount of propellant used to fire them, what if any procedures were in place to deal with the problem of a gun which failed to fire? Would they have another go at it and if that also failed could the breech be safely opened and propellant removed?
    2
  11. You make good points about most of these ships but I disagree with Seydlitz. In boasting about her durability at Jutland you have to take into account the fact the shells which hit her were defective, little better than HE and she did sink due to combat damage and later salvaged. So she should be considered a combat loss. In contrast to HMS Tiger, though a larger ship she had much thinner armour, was hit by almost as many shells with did function as fully effective AP shells, yet after the battle is still combat effective but is still at sea, looking to continue the fight while Seydlitz is creeping home, hors de combat. The German ship also had other design advantages, being built for short duration voyages and therefore the crew facilities were far less than most other Navy's ships.
    2
  12. Poor Eagle suffered from the problems of being an experiment when people had to learn just what a carrier was and what it was supposed to do.
    2
  13.  @Gingerbreadley  Japan NEVER obeyed the Washington Treaty with regards to the weight of its ships. If you examine the true displacement ALL their ships averaged 20+% over what was declared. Even their first such vessel Yubari was massively over what Japan told the world, the Mogami's being one of the worst examples where Japan declared their tonnage as 8,500 when the Japanese thought they would be 9.500 but when finally fit for service were over 12,000. Japan simply lied, hardly an honorable act. They did the same with their carriers, they lied so much it appeared they had enough tonnage left to build Soryu when in fact they did not. Japan withdrew from the Treaty system and all ships laid down after 31/12/1936 were not restricted in size though they did expend massive resources and efforts to hide the true size of the Yamato class.
    2
  14.  @mikearmstrong8483  Well said Billy Mitchell's 'demonstration' was completely unrealistic and his assertion that it was easier to hit and sink ships underway at sea than it was when they were unmanned and at anchor is completely ridiculous.
    2
  15. That was an extensive rebuild Wonder if it would have been faster and cheaper to just purchase a new ship?
    2
  16. Thanks Drach In the segment about many lighter guns Vs fewer larger gun I was wondering the the slightly faster rate of fire of the smaller guns would eventually add up to counter the greater individual weight of hte larger weapons.
    2
  17. Sorry to hear about your future job loss but at least they have the decency to let you know it's happening. I've heard of people being surprised at suddenly losing their job by being informed by an SMS text message while on their way to said job, Now that's truly cowardly. Maybe Dr. Clarke can put in a good word for you at a guest speaker at his University,
    2
  18. From an engineering viewpoint, is it all that wise to design successors to ships that have yet to hit the water and undergone any sort of real world evaluation.
    2
  19. Thanks for a gret drydock. I really appreaciate all the work you put in for these vidoe's. They are something I look forward too. You are so right about the massive sour grapes some Germanophiles indulge in. I've read articles which now claim the Scharnhorst was not sunk by the RN, the crew scuttled her instead. What's next? The RAF didn't destroy Tirpitz, the crew deliberately capsized her?? Maybe I shouldn't give the idiots ideas. It seems the biggest problem the Italian Navy had in WW2 was their high Command. They wanted victories but were averse to actually risking ships in combat.
    2
  20. Thanks Drach Your stamina and dedication in cranking out all these high quality videos if much appreciated by all of your devoted followers (minions?)
    2
  21. I guessing you might be thinking about the He 177 Greif. Not a successful aircraft due to the habit of it's engines bursting into flames.
    2
  22. Ah those Japanese torpedo boats, they turn up everywhere The biggest lesson learned was that while you could build an impressive fleet, if you can't supply them with fuel they might as well stay at home
    2
  23. In regard to getting the RN officers to show more initiative. What do you think both the short range and long term consequences would have been if the second in command of the British BS's at Dogger Bank had 'done a Nelson' and ignored Lt. Seymour's confusing signals and chased down the fleeing German BC's?
    2
  24. Thanks Drach You really make it difficult to do anything else once I see a new video has been uploaded.
    2
  25. Although the range was much closer, Duke of York hit Scharnhorst at night in the middle of a howling gale in the Arctic while WV was blessed with a calm Pacific night. Iron Duke's shooting at Jutland was very impressive given the very poor light, gun/funnel smoke, conflicting shell splashes and far less capable fire control technokogy.
    2
  26. Thanks Drach A different thought would be is there any way to redesign Bismarck so that Germany honorably adheres to the Anglo-German Naval treaty of 1935 and builds the ship with a standard displacement of 35,000 tons.
    2
  27. Thanks Drach I've been waiting for the video on this ship Her performance at Jutland was first rate and shows that British fire control and training had little to learn for the much over praised Germans. Too many forget the conditions at Rosyth did not allow for the live gunnery practice as happened at Scapa but given HMS Invincible's excellent shooting they were capable of doing just as well with the ability to practice properly
    2
  28. Nice I'd say the RN got their money's worth out of this ships service
    2
  29.  @kurumi394  It Might, repeat Might have been impressive if Mogami hadn't been around 50% over their announced displacement of 8,500 tons and almost 30% over the Treaty limits. And despite all that the Mogami's were so lightly constructed they had to be docked for their hulls to be strengthened. Not so impressive now huh!
    2
  30.  @mattwilliams3456  I agree, Ryan appears to be speaking off the top of his head and not from a script. It really hurts his presentation as does his one eyed view of the Iowa class. They were good ships but not the paragons of perfection he makes them out to be. And they did have significant weak points he ignores.
    2
  31. The French make much of their sinking their own ships in 1942 to criticize the actions at Mers-Al-Kebir. But could they have been so successful if the Germans had made a run for them in 1940???? They had had two YEARS! to prepare at Toulon but in the confusion of 1940 I think the Germans would have been more successful and the RN couldn't take the chance of powerful forces falling into hostile hands. How many other navy's would have done the same thing as the British in those circumstances? Be honest!
    2
  32.  @AtomicBabel  Thanks. I checked it out and it was bery interesting
    2
  33. Thanks Drach A ONE hour Dry Dock this time, I was startled at how quickly it went by, You've spoiled us with those massive one's.
    2
  34. DRACH SENT ME!!! sounds scary Thanks for another video Given the relatively smaller size of the light carriers in the US fleet, do you think they would have benefited from them being pure fighter platforms to be used in defence of the fleet? As a fighter is smaller than most strike aircraft they could have squeezed in more aircraft for a larger force.
    2
  35. Vulcans flying off Habbakuk, most illogical!! Oh wait, sorry, wrong sort of Vulcan lol
    2
  36. An excellent point all too many overlook in their zeal to praise German engineering. The British ships had lighter armour and took almost as many hits by properly functioning AP shells but the next day were still at sea, in no danger of sinking and eager to continue the fight. SMS Syedlitz had Battleship grade protection and was hit by shells which had poor fuzes, making them explode on contact, but she was a smashed wreck running for home with her tail well and truly kicked. Since the ship came to rest on the sea floor outside the harbour, does she count as sunk due to damage inflicted by the British but later salvaged? Much like the US ships sunk at Pearl Harbour and no one disputes the Japanese claims they were sunk.
    2
  37. So were there recruitment stations for cats? Or were the press gangs in the days of sail also tasked with 'recruiting' the necessary felines? Did cats have a standard pay rate and promotion path? Just what share of any prize money was awarded to the ships moggy? These and other questions are of vital interest for any cat wishing to follow their ancestors in serving in their country's navy.
    2
  38. I can't remember but have you done a video on the advantages and disadvantages of turbo-electric drive Vs Steam turbines
    2
  39. Thanks Drach That's a really odd layout for the main guns. Was there any reason for it beyond quirkyness? Having them so close to the sides of the ship would make them very vulnerable to magazine penetration, especially given their weak armour protection,
    2
  40. Another fascinating video Drach Loved the section about the Pom-Pom Vs the Bofors. It likes the biggest weakness of hte Pom-Pom is age. Given it was designed nearly a decade before the Bofors and aircraft of that era were a completely different level of threat, the Pom-Pom was a deadly weapon against them. It shows coming alone years later with a system designed to deal with the newer threats makes a big difference.
    2
  41. Thanks for another great Drydock Drach. You have said many times in upgunning a ship, you can gain two inches in gun caliber and lose one gun. The German plan for the Scharnhorsts was to gain FOUR inches while losing one gun. Does this violate the standard rule or show the Germans made allowances to upgun these two ships during their construction. What other changes would be necessary to make this work? Like shell hoists, storage of shell and charges, etc.
    2
  42. Should all the six I class BC's be more properly classes as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers and not Battlecruisers as that's what they were designed and built as? Therefore Britain's first true Battlecruisers were the Lion class. The German BC's were designed more as small, fast BB's than BC's, except Von Der Tann whose armour was weaker.
    2
  43. I love seeing another episode of The Drydock, it really makes my day and I always learn so much. I wonder if another reason the British didn't go for at sea refueling early in WW2 was the Atlantic is a far rougher sea than the Pacific and makes it more difficult to refuel at sea compared to putting in to one of their many bases. Also perhaps the RN didn't think using a BB as a convoy raider was an intelligent use of such an expensive and vital unit that would be so vulnerable to a lucky hit from an escorting ship with torpedoes. I often laugh when people's comments on your ship reviews start with "But World of Warships does..." As you pointed out WoWs is a GAME and I think has only a vague relationship with reality. Some players also call it Tanks on Water as the company used World of Tanks programming to save money and adapted the armour angling from that game. Battleships were designed to fight on the broadside for max gun usage. Q&A Could you answer how long it would take for a surface ship like a Japanese DD or CA to reload its torpedo tubes. I've seen reviewers whine about the loooooong 90 seconds they have wait to have tubes reloaded, but all information I've read say it would take at least 30 minutes to do this, and the ship couldn't do that while under fire and manouvering hard to avoid fire. As for one DD I saw fire well over 30 torps in a game, that was ridiculous. Thank you so much for your account of the Birkenhead disaster. I agree with you that the men who sacrificed themselves fully knowing they were about to die was humbling. They are truly worthy of the utmost respect for their decision. Hindsight is always 20/20 but as you pointed out there was little more anyone there could do and they make the best decision they could. I only hope I could be as courageous as they were if I ever faced a similar situation.
    1
  44. In keeping with your answer about why Americans seemed to be so aggressive. Do you think that in modern terms the USN is approaching that ossification as it has been the dominant Naval power for so long without a truly destructive war which causes it to build massive numbers of new ships and rapidly promote very young captains wh haven't been entrenched by "The Book"
    1
  45.  @sandrodunatov485  German and Italian BS excuses The treaty's under which these ships were constructed stated that standard displacement was to be 35,000 tons standard as defined by the Washington treaty. Their DESIGNED displacement was well over that and therefore makes them treaty violating and those two cowardly oath breakers The Escalator clause you bleat about does NOT apply to them as that was part of 2nd London and neither of those two nations were part of that treaty It was between the France. the US and the UK and stated they could begin construction of ships with a standard displacement of 45,000 if Japan did not sign the treaty by 1st April 1937. The key words are BEGIN CONSTRUCTION. As for the 'proposed reconstruction of the Nelsons to raise them to 40,000 tons, this is he first I have ever heard of this so where did you get that? German wiki? The British Admiralty KNEW the Bismarck's were breaking the treaty but the political will to do anything was lacking, much like they knew the Japanese cruisers were well over the limits.
    1
  46. The Littorio and Bismarck's, cheaty by a side margin
    1
  47. Thanks Drach Another episode full of information to enlighten and naval enthusiast. Loved the section on how effective a design is relies on what and where it's mission is. The big subs would have been in great danger in the Med's restricted waters while the British U class wrecked havoc there.
    1
  48. Although a lot has been said about the different armour schemes on BB's, just what are the advantages and disadvantages of a turtle back deck as opposed to a thicker flat deck.
    1
  49. Thanks Drach and I hope you feel better very soon
    1
  50. In keeping with the proper pronunciations. How do the British and/or RN people pronounce things like Harwich or Rosyth. I have heard several different ways and of course my own version is probably different from UK natives. Just like Jeremy Clarkson always pronounced the race Bathurst race in Australia very differently from the way Australians do.
    1