What total destruction at Pearl Harbor would cost
The Pearl Harbor counterfactual expands from lost hulls to intelligence teams, repair specialists, base facilities, and an earlier Royal Navy role in the Far East.
Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
The Pearl Harbor counterfactual expands from lost hulls to intelligence teams, repair specialists, base facilities, and an earlier Royal Navy role in the Far East.
A Darwin counterfactual separates the initial seizure of a northern port from the much harder task of sustaining a campaign against Australia and its allies.
A terminology clarification separates the first individual nuclear-powered aircraft carrier from the first multi-ship CVN class.
A carrier-aviation question compares the reputations of U.S. and Royal Navy air groups.
Several questions examine whether any present-day country retains the tooling, metallurgy, furnaces, and practical knowledge needed to manufacture battleship-caliber naval guns.
A book recommendation becomes a detailed reading on wartime Essex-class revisions, including catapults, directors, anti-aircraft guns, CIC placement, and the long-hull group.
A combined-fleet counterfactual asks what useful work the aging HMS Hermes could still perform in 1941.
A question about the largest possible warship redirects attention from a headline tonnage to mission and shipyard capacity.
A question about Australian Hurricane or Spitfire production opens a comparison of industrial capacity, imported aircraft, and the long ranges of the Pacific theater.
A book passage connects the Deutschland-class Panzerschiffe's diesel endurance, heavy guns, and armour to attacks on British trade.
A terminology question separates the German designation Panzerschiff from the British press label pocket battleship.
A visual detour uses the enormous Douglas XB-19 to compare crew size, power, bomb load, and range in an experimental bomber.
Asked to rank radar, fighter direction, aircraft, training, communications, and command, the answer treats their interaction as the decisive advantage.
A machinery discussion predicts a move toward podded electric propulsion in future surface combatants.
A question compares U.S. and Japanese use of battleship projectiles as the basis for aircraft bombs.
A question about multi-engine level bombing explains why heavy bombers were poor anti-ship weapons at sea but useful against ships in harbor.
A crew-survivability question asks which ships best protected sailors stationed in fighting tops.
A proposal to arm an Iowa-class battleship with an Atomic Annie-style nuclear round raises the problem of a gun being too powerful for its engagement range.
A retention counterfactual asks whether Hood or Vanguard would be more useful against later aircraft.
A terminology question compares kamikaze aircraft with early guided anti-ship weapons.
A modernization question asks what conventional guns should replace Hood's unsuccessful rocket anti-aircraft weapons.
A comparison with Queen Mary 2 becomes a design exercise in making Britain's carriers roughly seventy meters longer.
A carrier-design discussion separates catapults for unmanned aircraft from the F-35B operating model used across carriers and future LHDs.
A cross-decking question compares the small number of CATOBAR navies with the growing group able to operate F-35Bs from short-deck carriers.
A modern amphibious-force question contrasts small LST-style ships carrying companies with LHDs carrying battalion-level headquarters.
A Germany carrier question explains why buying a carrier also requires escorts, air groups, and a whole supporting force.
A question about U.S. objections to allied nuclear submarines becomes an explanation of the industrial and financial barriers facing Australia and Canada.
A ranking question becomes a warning that force size, carrier availability, and the logistics for global deployment measure different kinds of military power.
A comparison with British and American construction asks what public evidence can really show about Chinese warship quality.
A procurement question asks whether the Royal Navy has plans for additional LHDs.
The ability to place an F-35B on a flat deck is not the same as fielding the command, maintenance, and defensive systems of an operational carrier.
A detection discussion separates the poor underwater reach of a simple Geiger counter from specialized systems intended to find traces associated with submarine cooling systems.
A question about RFA Argus identifies her remaining training value and the capability a future amphibious ship would need to replace.
A discussion of Stirling-powered submarines explains why extremely quiet conventional boats are dangerous in confined waters but limited in sustained speed and reach.
A naming question asks how the Royal Navy might connect a future LHD class with earlier amphibious ships.
A question about space-based radar asks whether satellites could reveal the surface or oceanographic effects of a submerged submarine.
A coastal-ASW question asks whether a carrier should enter waters where quiet diesel submarines are expected.
A force-structure question asks whether a larger Chinese carrier fleet would push the United States back toward conventional submarines.
A construction update asks what an early Type 26 delivery could mean for the wider frigate program.
A future-LHD concept uses the amphibious ship to rearm carrier aircraft close to shore while the fleet carrier remains farther from danger.
A design question asks how an LHD could shift between aviation, anti-submarine, and amphibious tasks.
A carrier-ASW question asks what might replace the retired S-3 Viking.
The Manta test vehicle and Moray concept show a path toward extra-large uncrewed undersea vehicles that supplement nuclear submarines without reopening the SSK debate.
A revival question asks where a Russian ground-effect craft could still offer useful speed and firepower.
A design question asks why an uncrewed undersea vehicle would retain a conning-tower-like sail.
A manpower question challenges the idea that adopting drones automatically permits deep personnel cuts.
The Italian Trieste provides the starting point for a future British LHD with a Royal Navy ski jump.
A security question asks why navies appear less obsessive about hiding submarine screws.