Corruption in the Navy of Samuel Pepys
The Pepys-era Navy offers a much larger historical comparison, when corruption was often tolerated so long as the institution still produced ships and revenue.
Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
The Pepys-era Navy offers a much larger historical comparison, when corruption was often tolerated so long as the institution still produced ships and revenue.
The likely explanation is that expected targets favoured high-explosive and anti-aircraft ammunition, leaving little incentive to fund a separate armour-piercing shell.
Selections ranged from HMS Tiger and the de-gunned Lexington class to HMS Warspite and HMS Liverpool, with hull lines, camouflage, and retained details driving the choices.
The arrangement combined a British-built submarine with American weapons supply and logistics, strengthening interoperability with both partners.
They had a peacetime scheme, although it was difficult to distinguish from the wartime appearance and evolved into Imperial German practice.
A running submarine reactor can increase power quickly because it is never fully shut down, although exact timings are not available in open sources.
The model's echelon turret layout identifies the 1911 battlecruiser, so the heavy-cruiser label appears to be a museum error.
Submarine stealth depends on blending with irregular ocean noise, since perfect silence or a repeating mechanical rhythm can reveal the boat.
Greater exchange could have moved Japanese 18-inch gun knowledge west and German synthetic-lubricant technology east, but neither partner could escape its financial limits.
An upgraded Spearfish is described as forthcoming, while Britain is expected to retain its own torpedoes and command systems within the shared programme.
A conversion is technically possible, but it requires stripping armour, rebuilding the upper works, and rerouting the central exhaust at great cost.
Different construction schedules could produce distinct submarine generations, while the lost Collins production line and an unusual long-range requirement complicate Australia's replacement programme.
Coastal inlets offer a possible explanation: sudden torpedo-boat attacks could give Italian battleships a reason to carry numerous quick-firing weapons.
Military command habits can fit civilian labour poorly, and mobilizing uniformed specialists during war can strip the very factories and yards the armed forces need.
The argument treats maritime law as an imperfect starting point and a newly agreed international treaty as the alternative.
They would envy the light hulls and speed, since the early competitors were already committed to making their yachts as fast as possible.
Such clashes are expected, with secret special-forces operations and violence short of gunfire on disputed borders providing the comparisons.
No consistent explosive-fill figure is established. The rough calculation uses a projectile of about 1.8 tons, but shell-type and unit corrections leave the charge estimates provisional.
Separate ammunition supplies are manageable, while commanders would coordinate different doctrines by assigning each group roles suited to its training and strengths.
Research programs exist, but without a funded production order the earliest realistic path runs through a later defence decision and several more years of factory preparation.
Better sensors reduce mistakes, but submarines and whales both blend into ocean noise, and long-range positive identification remains difficult.
VLF and ELF signals can reach submerged boats, but immense antennas and bit-per-second data rates rule out continuous high-bandwidth control.
Examples from the United States, Russia, India, and China show why ELF communication requires extensive shore infrastructure, with several facility details remaining tentative.
An armed autonomous UUV may have to make lethal decisions beyond reliable communications, while carrying costly computing, power, and cooling systems.
Australia's land area and experience with shared intelligence facilities make it a candidate for discussion, while permission and technical suitability remain unresolved.
The economic collapse was already too advanced to preserve the fleet, and a hardline victory might have made the eventual breakup more violent and destructive.
Few, if any, comparable ships did so because similar-looking guns with different ballistics complicate maintenance and make fire control extremely difficult.
Probably not; Scotland lacked the finance and industrial equipment for the immense project, and a labour-only canal would take generations.
It appears to be a conventional two-stage answer to a long-standing range gap, with testing and carriage imagery predating its public naming.
Possibly; attempts are described as having mixed results, with no dependable method identified.
A preference for domestic construction or the politics of the supplier could explain it, but the answer does not establish the scenario author's reason.
Probably, because using the same missile family would fit the preference for limiting the number of different weapon systems in service.
Kawachi receives the worse verdict because its main battery mixed gun performance, while Nassau's uniform guns count in its favour despite criticism of the wing turrets.
Theoretically yes, although political disagreement leaves the programme unsettled and decisions are expected to be delayed.
Germany could field more common-hull battleships and carriers, while Britain and the United States would accelerate very large counter-designs rather than pause heavy construction.
Yes; a replacement could establish temporary forward positions for submarine resupply and support during worldwide operations.
Distant land-based aircraft need tankers, repeated sorties, defended bases, and political access, while a carrier moves its runway and magazines with the force.
Putting aircraft support in orbit would add crew-screening and resupply problems while leaving travel time to the target.
A major increase is unlikely because the British variants already use the available hull volume tightly and are among the smaller versions of their design families.
The estimate of a fifteen-carrier requirement includes maintenance, transit, and relief for crews already deployed, rather than fifteen ships all fighting at once.
Age alone is an incomplete explanation because refits renewed much of the machinery and the ship carries several generator sets, implying a wider maintenance or redundancy failure.
A run of quick victories can obscure the resilience of states that have spent decades preparing their forces and infrastructure to survive attack.
The claim about Japanese torpedo boats is less plausible because of the distance from any base, although both explanations are judged unlikely.
More British shells would have fallen in the correct area, probably sinking Seydlitz and perhaps additional German battlecruisers that barely survived historically.
The ships become larger and either faster with eight guns or slower with ten, while the United States jumps toward 18-inch weapons and later treaty limits rise sharply.
Political parties discuss conscription, but no current proposal has been supported by the calculations needed to make it workable.
A good admiral listens to specialists, synthesizes their partial views, decides, and accepts responsibility; against a poor opponent, that can have an outsized effect.
The design was optimized for the Baltic and North Sea rather than the harsher Atlantic, which is why the ships later received Atlantic bows.