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

  1. I notice the German Navy used brass cartridge cases for ALL their guns, right up to the 15inch guns while the RN and USN uses silk bags for the larger guns. How did the German navy get rid of large, hot and heavy brass cartridge cases in a turret after firing. These would be a danger to the gun crew. Did they save them to be reused or were they thrown overboard? Brass is a very valuable metal in war.
    2
  2. Can you com up with a reason the Germans so doggedly stuck with triple screw propulsion for its major warships when of all the three alternatives (twin, triple, quad) the triple seems to offer the least advantages compared to its disadvantages. If the RN had completed the Malta class carriers, how useful would they have been and how would they compare to an Essex or Midway?
    2
  3.  @TraditionalAnglican  Actually the hydrodynamic shape did not originate with the German type XXI The British built a series of Submarines called the R class in WW1 with high underwater speed, a high battery capacity, large bow salvo and hydrophones. Built today they would be classed as Hunter/Killers. Sadly the design was not continued. You could say the type XXI were based on the shape of the R class
    2
  4. The Italia certainly looked interesting. Given how you once described HMS Agincourt as a turret farm, this looks like a funnel farm, almost French in appearance. Having rigid airships in WW2 would have been interesting for the British, imagine how useful they would have been on anti submarine patrols in the Atlantic and closing the mid ocean gap. G3 Vs Iowa, one danger I saw for Iowa is having that long slender nose take a hit or two, that'd wreck your day fast. Drach, Designing a better German BB, you traitor, Off with his head :) I see two problems 1. Which shells do you go with, the variable quality Italian shells or the German one's which had problems detonating? 2. Escaping from Hitlers wrath if he finds out you went to the Italians over a good solid German design. Better start running before someone snitches on you.
    2
  5. U had to look twice at the bow of this ship before it truly registered with me. What effects on seakeeping would it have and how bad would spray interference be for the forward turret?
    2
  6. Thanks Drach As for the last thing on the video, didn't they tell you not to touch the things which go bang?
    2
  7.  @tominiowa2513  Bismarck fans are scarey ain't they :)
    2
  8. Although Beatty gets massive (and perhaps unfairly) criticism for his signal failings it is clear from this he was far, far from alone in this. If any of his ships had spotted the Germans slinking their way home he would have opened fire. Although the German fleet had more night fighting training I cannot help but think a full on night action would have been suicide as it's obvious, given their multiple near disasters, it would have been a case of hoping you are shooting at the right target. And spotting fall of shot near impossible.
    2
  9. I've read that the British insisted that water and oil fuel were not to be taken into consideration when calculating the new Standard Displacement on the ground that their ships had to be capable of steaming further in defence of the Empire. But is was also a way to conceal the new and secret method of allowing water into space in the armour to increase its effectiveness. With the square cannon shot I also wondered about the ballistics of such square cannon 'balls' Would the blunt face reduce the range or cause it to tumble in flight? It the blunt face actually hit a ships side, would it have more penetration or be more prone to breaking up?
    2
  10. An interesting series of designs. It's sp easy to look back and criticize with 20/20 hindsight but Jackie Fisher revolutionize naval thinking and design which everyone had to follow. I am puzzled by the statement that HMS Dreadnought was the first to hit the water but not to start construction as NO ONE started building all big gun BB until the South Carolina's which were laid down in December 1906 which is the time Dreadnought commissioned. And the US ships took over three years to build. I very much admire Admiral Jackie Fisher, although he had his flaws he is the one man who did so much to modernize the RN and forged it into the weapon which defeated Tirpitz's HSF
    2
  11. Thanks for answering my question Drach Always thought being a stoker on a coal powered ship was one tough, hot job and there was nothing like OH&S in those days.
    2
  12. If the RN had the time and money to rebuild the R class the way the Italians did their WW1 BBs, what do you think they would have come up with?
    2
  13. It seems the USS United States was lucky to face a Captain with limited understanding of actually fighting and commanding a ship in battle. I wonder what would have happened if you could magically handwave a replacement for Macedonian with HMS Indefagitable under Pellew, both in their prime.
    2
  14. Following on from the question about Green Boy shells. How would the HSF have fared if the defects been noticed and acted on in time to refit all the Grand Fleet with the Green boy shells prior to Jutland.
    2
  15. Thanks Drach for all the entertainment and knowledge Hope you and Mrs Drach have a wonderful Xmas and don't give in to the "I'm starving" looks from Floppy. Well not too much anyway/
    2
  16. Thanks Drach. Nice to see a 'colonial' ship featured. I think the six I class should not be rated as BC's. They were conceived, designed and built as Dreadnought Armoured Cruisers, designed to scout for the fleet and destroy commerce raiding cruisers, NOT sit in the battle line facing Battleship level guns. In the role Admiral Fisher planned for them they were stunningly successful. The German replies to them were more like fast Battleships with less firepower, so is it any surprise they fared badly when faced with the HSF 1st SG. This makes the Lion class the first true British Battlecruisers and they proved able to handle their German opponents, the loss of Queen Mary more the result of faulty cordite handling, good gunnery and a large slice of luck. At Jutland the Germans seemed to have the Devil's own luck in hitting turrets repeatedly,
    2
  17. What is the reason the Admiralty wanted the KGV's to fire their main guns over the bow at such a low elevation Wouldn't that play hell with the deck structure? And it a worthwhile target for the main guns was that close I'd be trying to give it a full broadside.
    2
  18. Thanks for another great episode of the Dry Dock On the question of Japan using huge numbers of DD's in place of a balanced battle fleet. This is not a new idea. Around the end of the 19th and start of the 20th century the French also thought about doing this. Replacing the fleet with Torpedo Boat's and Subs as they knew they could not out build the British in capital ships. Called the Jean Eucole school I think. It was not proceeded with because of the reasons Drachinifel put forth. A balanced fleet will smash a specialized fleet like this, especially as the torpedoes of the time were short ranged and slow by even the standards of WW2. This is also one of the reasons the Destroyer was developed, to destroy Torpedo Boats swarming your BB's. One question I have is: Why do people (even today) rave about the 'Awesome' firepower of Bismarck's main guns, yet sneer at Vanguard's when both ships had 8-15 inch guns? Although an older design, the British gun and its turret were considered one of the best designs ever produced. Additionally the German 15 inch shell was much lighter than the British and had a high failure rate. One the boiler question. One country did put speed ahead of other requirements. The Italian rebuilds of their WW1 ships used the weight savings to up the speed from 21 to a maximum 27 knots. Pity the armour of these ships was left mostly alone and wasn't sufficient to withstand the 15 inch shells they would face. All they could do was run.
    2
  19. We Aussies thank you Drach
    2
  20. Considering the scene in the , as you say Questionable movie Battleship, just how difficult and how much time would it take a battleship to go from 'cold' engines to having power to steam. The questionable movie made it seem almost as simple as putting the kettle on for tea, but obviously it's far, far more complicated than that.
    2
  21.  @dantreadwell7421  Another point is the Japanese tried to time it so the declaration was delivered only 30 minutes before the attack started a quarter of the way around the planet. Given the technology of the time there was no way anything could have been done. Especially as Hull would have had to read the massive document full of political BS, probably more than once as he overcame his shock. Even today 30 minutes warning is both an insult and a joke. The whole thing was a purely political face saving stunt that backfired on them. As a commentator said : Traditionally Japan has never declared war before launching an attack. See a place called Port Arthur for proof.
    2
  22. With regard to the pros and cons of high velocity naval guns, will you do a video on the construction of large naval guns similar to the video you did on the development of boilers and armour
    2
  23. Thanks Drach I would hate to be the logistics officer in charge of ordering an ammunition resupply for these ships. Its enough to give you nightmares.
    2
  24. Thanks Drach In their quest for the BIGGEST gun the Japanese are almost going back to pre-Dreadnought number of main guns just without the large secondary guns to provide the 'hail of fire'
    2
  25. Excellent Although not glamorous these were some of the most important ships in WW2 and can take a large credit of the Allies victory. Without them and the brave sailors who manned them, the convoys would have been devastated.
    2
  26. Thanks Drach I believe you have previously sated the British ships always had a few knots on reserve beyond their listed maximum speed. Seems a smart thing to do in contrast to other Navies who ran speed trials in unrealistic conditions just to make false boasts and look better than they were.
    2
  27. Thanks Drach If presenter Drach ever gets into an argument with executive Drach over anything, I guess both can appeal to the highest authority, Mrs Drach, and she will be able to sort it out. Either by a hard glare or if necessary, well you did say she knows how to use a knife, :)
    2
  28. Thanks Deach I'm glad there are people with better brains than mine to work out Naval gunnery. I think my head hurts :) I read one person describing Naval gunnery as using a rifle to shoot at a rabbit speeding across broken ground from the back of a car also speeding over broken ground. He said "It's a miracle we hit anything."
    2
  29. These ships seem like an example of a politicians dreams far outreaching practical engineering reality. My thoughts are the Soviets would have been better served building a smaller battleship to let their designers and builders relearn the 'tricks of the trade' rather than trying for a supposedly perfect, world beating ship as their first effort. Why they worried about looking like they were complying with the Washington Treaty limits seems silly, they were not signatory's to that Treaty and not bound by it.
    2
  30. We hear so much about the German, Japanese and US submarines and their exploits. How about a guide on British submarines, especially the U Class which wrecked havoc in the Med and with Rommel's supply convoy's.
    2
  31. Thanks Drach Always enjoyable to learn more about naval history
    2
  32.  @CharlesStearman  Yes that is correct. German ships in WW1 were designed for North Sea/Baltic Sea operations, in harbour the crews left the ship and lived ashore. I've read reports that due to their extensive subdivision you had to leave one boiler room, go all the way up to the weather deck and down again just to get to the next boiler room. This makes them hard to sink but inefficient for extended voyages. Navies which had to cruise for extended periods of time could not do this, there had to be more comfort for the crew, otherwise they would fall ill and become far less effective.
    2
  33. Obviously code break ing played a larger role in the war tan most realize. Probably because if doesn't involve lots of flashy explosions. I had read the Poles were key to breaking the Enigma code, but not to the extent you've shown here. Of couse all this code breaking is a bit of a puzzle to me.
    2
  34. I think an American newspaper termed it "The Germans fleet has assaulted its jailer but at the end of hte day was back in prison. The Germans also ignore the fact SMS Seydlitz actually sank on it's way back but was close enough and in shallow enough water they were able to salvage the ship and return it to service. So really the German HSF lost two of its battlecruisers that day.
    2
  35. Devastation was a great looking ship in her day and in many ways was just as revolutionary as HMS Dreadnought would be.
    2
  36.  @andreastiefenthaler3811  Actually Japanese submarines were far from the best. Their entire doctrine revolved around attacking enemy warships and not the vital resupply convoys, the US got off very lightly there. The biggest problem was the faulty design of the Japanese subs. They were either too small, being meant for coastal work, or way too big which meant they were easier to detect and had poor underwater agility and unable to evade attacking surface ships. The US subs struck a good balance between size, range and crew comfort. Even the German type lX subs would have been a vast improvement over the oversized Japanese subs which carried an aircraft hanger. As for poor convoy protection, well the Japanese didn't think escorting Merchant ships was the proper role for a fighting navy, the US Navy also thought this when they entered the war and were eventually forced, kicking and screaming, to adopt the British method of close escort and not offensive patrols by DD's, something the British tried in WW1 and found did not work. Which is one reason they instantly adopted the convoy system in WW2
    2
  37. Thanks Drach So if I can ever get to see this ship, unlikely as it is, does that mean I can get the special tour if I say "Drach sent me" lol
    2
  38. Is there any reason ever given why the German Navy always used Triple Screws for their Battleships yet used Quad Screws for Battlecruisers? It can't have been for better manouverability as WW1 German BC's turned slowly and lost considerable speed in the turn.
    2
  39. Given your explanation of pressure waves from a large naval gun, In the movie Under Siege Tommy Lee Jones' character is right under the 16inch guns when they fire and he basically walks away with bleeding from and ringing in the ears. Just how ridiculous is this? I know Hollywood writers do completely ridiculous things but how much of a face palming did you do on seeing this? I do the same when Rybeck is swimming the whole length of the sub to place the improvised explosive on the diving planes and not just jam it against the propeller or shaft.
    2
  40. ​ @John-ru5ud  As well as Admiral King of the US Navy for his valuable service in fighting tooth and nail to prevent the implementation of a convoy system after the US entry into WW2. And totally refusing to learn any lessons from the RN about their vast experience in fighting U-Boats.
    2
  41. Thanks Drach I've assembled computers but modern stuff looks way, way easier than trying to do anything with that fire control table. Important tip, if you want the special 'Royal' treatment when visiting any museum ship, take Drach with you lol
    2
  42. Thanks Drach It was time for bed, but this appeared so it became coffee time.
    2
  43. I also played SFB and when it first came it was a great, fun and simple game to to enjoy. Unfortunately power creep came in and then several tons of contradictory optional rules which made it hard to find someone who played the same game you did. Then the designer fell in love with the Kilngons and they became THE race with all the best stuff as did their allies. So much for allegedly superior Federation tech. The game died due to 'Rules lawyers' and too many optional rules. What rules one player never used another would consider must haves. Did you play Star Fleet Battles or Warp Speed Galactica? Always thought fighters in SFB was rubbish.
    2
  44. Certainly an interesting ship and shows how the game of one-up manship was played back then. Wonder what the crew thought of "them strange new lights' in the ship.
    2
  45.  @shannonrhoads7099  Aussie rules fans aren't as crazy as Soccer/Euro Football fans as a draw is fairly rare.
    2
  46. Now that's a video worthy of a gold medal for 'going the distance'. You must have had extra fuel tanks installed to do this as it took me four goes to listen to all of it. And lots of coffee. I don't even want to contemplate you trying to break this record.
    2
  47. Thanks Drach Which weeks Dry Dock is this? I think you lost me at that sharp turn at Albuquerque.
    2
  48. Is there any reason why the German Navy used triple screw propulsion for their Battleships but used a Quad arrangement for the Battlecruisers? It seems strange they used two different systems if they believed the triple arrangement was superior
    2
  49.  @donalddemo  Have to disagree. The ships of 1sst SG were armoured and constructed more like Battleships and their role was to supplement the battleline. More like battleship than battlecruisers. But each person has their own opinion. Light means less firepower than their equivalent Battleship
    2
  50. Poor Implacable As Admiral Sir Jackie Fisher said "The greatest enemy of the Royal Navy is the Treasury Department."
    2