Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
A fictional navy with 1950s-equivalent technology could build the proposed 150,000-ton battleship, but turret arrangements and machinery reliability would determine its usefulness.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Unicorn's forward aviation support role kept her in the auxiliary category and outside the restricted aircraft-carrier tonnage allowance.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Both weapons were highly effective, but mines provide persistent unattended denial while torpedoes deliver an immediate directed attack.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The follow-up clarifies the breech terminology used for the proposed 21-inch naval guns.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A generous torpedo launch window could keep Argentine aircraft within Sea Dart's preferred engagement conditions, while close bomb attacks exposed weaknesses in British air defence.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Radar is favored for naval targeting, air defence, and counter-battery work, while alternative answers emphasize manpower and engine development.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The alternatives to radar address manpower loss and engine shortages, with the Merlin proposal raising a separate airframe-strength problem.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Speed alone does not define the category: a fast capital ship becomes a fast battleship when armor coverage and subdivision support battle-line service.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The proposed battleships, carriers, and forty-eight cruisers would provoke foreign shipbuilding and make further treaty restraint unlikely.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Matching Queen Elizabeth's speed while retaining heavy American firepower would push Britain and Japan toward faster capital ships.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The answer favors Seawolf for hunting performance and Virginia for affordable fleet numbers, with Astute illustrating a different approach to similar requirements.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The panel rejects a proposed British incendiary-device theory because the recorded evidence supports the official accident investigation and does not require covert sabotage.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A twin 135 mm mount is normally a ship's main battery, but suitable ammunition and fire control can make it part of layered missile defense.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
An overwhelming British technological advantage could redirect regional naval races and push Germany toward land warfare and a limited negotiated settlement.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Making Gneisenau and Tirpitz carriers would give Germany mixed surface-air groups while reducing its battleship force and prompting a British carrier response.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The British response could change Courageous and Glorious's employment, bring Illustrious into service sooner, and encourage a larger Indomitable design.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The proposed conversion's large steel hangar and retained protection would offset much of the weight removed with its turrets and armour.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The material question explains why the Admiral carrier proposal assumes extensive steel construction.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Battleship subdivision resembles a dense honeycomb of smaller spaces, while battlecruisers use larger, more regularly spaced compartments.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Some ships could adopt the proposed 75 mm weapon in 1944, with conversion depending on the vessel's ability to accommodate it.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
On an imperial cruise, Hood's guns would dominate public coverage while professional navies concentrated on the converted sister's unusually large air group.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Britain preferred subtle definitions and favorable rules to conspicuously oversized cruisers that no accounting could plausibly disguise.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A proposed 10-inch treaty cruiser leads to a debate over larger Alaskas, battleship limits, and whether an intermediate cruiser-killer would still justify its cost.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The treaty discussion uses Des Moines to show why a larger cruiser allowance could reduce the attraction of an intermediate cruiser-killer.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A hypothetical 15,000-ton cruiser category leads to estimates of 32,000-ton carriers and a larger total carrier allowance.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The panel recognizes a battery close to the Tiger-class cruisers, while describing the historical main guns as 6-inch weapons.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The 5-inch gun is the panel's general choice; a destroyer built around an automatic American 6-inch mounting is a speculative exception.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
French ironclads, Mesudiye, Fürst Bismarck, and Von der Tann offer ways to compare foreign construction with British needs.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The Italian fast-battleship proposal is favored for its fit with British requirements after Lexington and slower American battleships are challenged.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The 1920s choice shifts from an adapted Tosa battleship to Hōshō, a small carrier proposed for British escort-carrier experiments.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A 1937 North Carolina design is favored over a late Iowa order, while carrier choices are judged against British repair and basing needs.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The counterfactual moves through Midway, Forrestal, Kitty Hawk, and Nimitz, with support infrastructure as the condition for operating larger carriers.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A British Kirov proposal explores how a large hull might carry Western missiles and air-defense systems alongside a nuclear carrier.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The wartime submarine disappeared without a definitive combat report, leaving a mine as the panel's leading explanation rather than a confirmed cause.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
New Ironsides would dominate individual encounters in 1812, but the panel disagrees over how readily American ports could keep her supplied and operational.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The debate weighs a local battle-line ironclad against a cruising-frigate design for Britain's first copies.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The comparison explains the Mediterranean's importance through the risk of local French superiority.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The discussion places operations off America within Britain's simultaneous commitments against France and its global trading system.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The discussion links Ford and Constellation delays to infrastructure and skills, then adds a Ford-specific qualification about contracts that retain excess capacity.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Because Renown has already served as a Resolution-class ballistic-missile submarine name and does not fit the expected next submarine sequence, the panel favors a future Type 83 destroyer.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The panel expects the cost of restoring Zumwalt production infrastructure to absorb much of the saving from reusing the hull design.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
A hypothetical Renown rebuild keeps four forward 15-inch guns and replaces most of the ship's systems to support missiles, sensors, helicopters, and layered defense.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The Renown design debate moves from Type 45-style launchers to Mark 41, while weighing missile capacity against compatibility with the rest of the fleet.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
The answer weighs a new missile fit against the cost of supporting different equivalents aboard one ship.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
Age, repair spending, and the prospect of a more capable replacement explain the panel's view of the grounding write-off.
From Bruships 182: Naval History Questions Answered Live... ·
An introduction frames David Farragut as a long-serving US Navy officer whose strategic judgment, seamanship, and force of will emerged most famously late in life.
Farragut's adoption into David Porter's family shows how early nineteenth-century navies used family trust and sea service to train officers from childhood.
Watching David Porter at close range taught Farragut to separate a mentor's ship-command and political strengths from weaknesses in higher command and self-justification.