Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
A 28-knot, radar-equipped ship with ten 14-inch guns in 1906 would reset the battleship standard and push rival navies toward much larger weapons and hulls.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Personal favourites include Bayern for its appearance and Goeben for its Turkish connection, alongside Moltke and an unnamed armoured cruiser.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A small fibreglass craft carrying torpedoes and sensors is proposed for operations 1,000 to 2,000 nautical miles from base, beyond the range envisioned for an explosive jet ski.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A global carrier deployment remains worthwhile, while Royal Fleet Auxiliary port visits and the legacy of earlier shipbuilding choices limit claims of independence from shore support.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The Hector replica is admired as a vessel worth visiting, with reservations about the maintenance burden of keeping it afloat in Nova Scotia.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Skipping Tulagi is not expected to improve the American carriers' prospects much; a stronger escort force, especially Atlanta-class cruisers, is the proposed improvement.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Harpoon is considered feasible for a modernised Elco, although Naval Strike Missile is preferred as the more modern choice.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Funding and senior support are blamed for the failure to develop Acheron's machinery further; its 500-psi plant is distinguished from a possible 700-psi successor.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Chicago Pile-1 in 1942 is the self-sustaining milestone; an earlier device is claimed during the exchange without being identified.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
An American candidate apparently called the Sumners and the Batch III Hunts are preferred, with disagreement about the American ships' classification.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Higher-pressure machinery could support an F3-like 35,000-ton ship approaching 28 knots, though the twin-shaft design details remain an open research problem.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Velox boiler trials are recalled as exposing excessive complexity and poor power density once the system's space demands inside a hull were considered.
From Bruships 202: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A viewer's question holds the 5:5:3 treaty framework constant and asks how the fleet changes once an 850 psi plant is available for Warspite's 1934 refit.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The Royal Navy's 300 psi Admiralty three-drum boiler suited a worldwide fleet because it was reliable, maintainable, and straightforward to build.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The boiler choice illustrates a recurring fleet problem: advanced machinery can demand specialist support, trusted technicians, and secure access far from home bases.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Higher boiler pressure can reduce fuel use and boiler count while increasing turbine efficiency, shaft power, range, or speed.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Contemporary ultra-high-pressure experiments and John Brown's turbine work make an Anglo-American 850 psi marine plant technologically plausible by 1934.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Replacing Warspite's historical six-boiler refit plant with four 850 psi boilers could plausibly yield a 28-knot Queen Elizabeth-class battleship and larger weight savings.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The new plant changes ships entering refit or construction from 1934 onward, from G-class destroyers and cruisers to Ark Royal, the Illustrious class, and King George V battleships.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Foreign responses make wartime outcomes too uncertain to project confidently, so the exercise concentrates on Royal Navy and US Navy construction choices before 1939.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The historical refit sequence gives the Royal Navy a staged route for replacing the converted carriers' First World War-era boilers and learning from each installation.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The G-class destroyers would be the first new destroyer design to test how 850 psi boilers change power, speed, range, and fuel efficiency at small-warship scale.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Barham's recently completed 1931-1934 refit makes her a poor immediate candidate for another machinery reconstruction even when the new boilers promise major gains.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The same weight and performance gains could improve the nine-gun 16-inch Lion design and make completing the class more attractive.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Replacing six old boilers with perhaps two 850 psi units could turn the C-class anti-aircraft conversion into a much more extensive machinery and weapons redesign.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Fewer boilers could give Ark Royal better protection and let Illustrious-class carriers trade machinery weight for a longer hangar and a larger air group.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Halving boiler count could release enough power, length, and protected volume for a 28-30-knot King George V carrying three quadruple 14-inch turrets.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Britain's underused heavy-turbine capacity could support a wider program that makes older battleships and converted carriers faster, longer-ranged, or better protected.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Refitting Courageous could validate the machinery arrangement intended for Ark Royal and the Illustrious class while improving the older carrier's speed, range, and weight margin.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The Royal Navy's long commitment to the three-drum boiler made a rapid mid-1930s change difficult, whereas a proven 850 psi plant available in 1934 could enter service before rearmament accelerated.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Four 850 psi boilers could give Renown more power than her historical eight-boiler reconstruction while letting designers preserve speed or deepen protection.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Town-class and smaller cruisers could use 850 psi plants for roughly 36-knot performance, longer range, or freed space for weapons and reconnaissance aircraft.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The smaller Arethusa-class cruisers and speed-centered Abdiel minelayers could exploit the new plant especially well in Mediterranean scouting, raiding, and minelaying missions.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
An Anglo-American project could let Yorktown and Enterprise reduce boiler count and redirect treaty-limited displacement toward armor and torpedo protection.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
If Anglo-American battleships make 28 knots the baseline, Yamato and Littorio designs may need more machinery, altered layouts, or a sharper redesign to preserve tactical speed advantages.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Fleet-wide adoption makes the prewar Royal Navy more formidable and gives Tribal-class destroyers choices between extreme power, fewer boilers, survivability, and added weapons.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The Tribal-class design could pursue extreme shaft power or use a separated two-boiler plant that still improves performance while reducing single-hit vulnerability.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Faster and more numerous British capital ships reduce the relative threat posed by Dunkerque-class ships and a potentially hostile French fleet after France falls.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Machinery savings might improve Royal Oak's torpedo defense, release other capital ships from convoy duty, and make faster Mediterranean bombardment operations more practical.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
A 28-knot Queen Elizabeth-class force could approach and withdraw from Taranto faster, making a surface bombardment more plausible before daylight air attack.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The better machinery makes Nelson and Rodney candidates for modernization, but every refit consumes dockyard capacity that might otherwise build carriers or new capital ships.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
Fast, long-ranged Anglo-American steam warships could quickly undermine the Deutschland class and reopen the efficiency comparison between boilers and diesels.
From Why didn't the Royal Navy go for High Pressure boilers & what if they got 850psi boilers in 1934? ·
The Tomcat is introduced as a Cold War fleet-defense fighter whose range, radar, and long-range missiles helped protect carrier groups before attackers could launch.
A concise explanation of swing-wing benefits leads into why adapting the Air Force's F-111 design for carrier service proved so difficult.
Vice Admiral Thomas F. Connolly's engineering, test-pilot, carrier, missile-range, and fleet-air experience explains both the Tomcat's nickname and his influence over its design.
Before shaping the Tomcat, Connolly led a technical advisory group whose recommendations helped the Navy develop navigation satellites and other space-age capabilities.
Connolly personally tested the F-111B, found its promised performance and carrier handling wanting, and used that evidence to help end the program.
Vietnam-era maneuverability concerns and the failure of the joint F-111B led to a tandem-seat, twin-engine naval fighter built around speed and a heavy missile load.