Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
A four-versus-two scenario becomes a discussion of the strategic imbalance between a navy that can replace losses and one preparing as the underdog.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
A viewer asks whether formation affects an evenly balanced fight in the simulation.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The apparent pound-for-pound Japanese advantage is qualified as a result of British technology and construction assumptions inside the scenario.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The fictional ship's result prompts a specification check against North Dakota as commissioned in 1910.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The second design round exposes the speed, machinery, secondary-armament, protection, and weight choices behind a maximum-size Japanese battlecruiser.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The US battlecruiser experiment highlights the design pressure between speed, heavy guns, torpedoes, armour, and the need to avoid a close capital-ship fight.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
A fast ship is sent wide to pull battlecruisers away from their supporting battleships, even at considerable risk.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The simulation makes five- and six-inch secondary batteries decisive at short range, followed by a caution about their limited role in most real battleship engagements.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The battered battlecruisers prompt a comparison between the simulation's handling and German, Japanese, and American ideas about the type's employment.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
A badly damaged ship that remains combat-capable in the simulation prompts a reality check on counter-flooding and catastrophic turret damage.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
A damaged battlecruiser's return toward combat becomes a short lesson in how easily contact could be lost before radar.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The stream argues that a navy able to choose its battle should bring a superior force, because extra ships can rapidly create local concentration.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
A viewer asks about the accuracy model as the opposing fleets close range.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The loss of one American ship shows how quickly bad luck can turn an even engagement into a compounding tactical disadvantage.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
Six Japanese capital ships hold the enemy's main force while a seventh swings toward the rear, setting up the later encirclement.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The game rewards massing every ship on one target, but historical gunnery often required ships to distinguish their own fire before correcting aim.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
A dispersed force accidentally surrounds the opposing battle line, creating multiple spotting angles and a damaging crossfire.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The closing counterfactual returns to the practical question of which yards could build extremely large Japanese ships in 1915.
From American vs Japanese Battleships... testing some historical ideas ·
The design exercise asks what a Soviet battleship programme might have produced by 1935, using imported ideas and a hull constrained by the available simulated parts.
The first test exposes a modelling limit: the available Soviet hull produces a German-looking silhouette when an Italian-style superstructure would better fit the counterfactual.
A brief aside links Soviet naval effectiveness to professional NCOs who retained practical experience below a frequently changing leadership.
The game's Soviet parts cannot reproduce the intended shape, so a Royal Navy G3 hull is proposed as a closer visual stand-in.
A second build starts from a 1930 programme and combines a 31-knot target, imported protection, mixed secondaries, torpedoes, and contemporary ammunition and mounting choices.
The completed design becomes a way to separate Soviet paper ambitions from the smaller number of capital ships industry might plausibly have delivered.
Gun calibre and speed do not settle a ship’s classification: the Scharnhorsts were built as fast battleships within German industrial limits.
A Soviet 16-inch programme could have weakened the political case for Britain’s 14-inch King George V armament and made a new 15-inch gun the compromise choice.
The hypothetical gun is treated as a fleet-wide development programme that could influence new construction, older capital-ship upgrades, ammunition, and turret reliability.
The second design test turns the proposed Royal Navy 15-inch gun into a simulated capital ship and compares it with a German opponent.
A treaty-era counterfactual weighs four similar Admiral-class battlecruisers against the value of concentrated modernisation.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A speculative Renown design depends on whether its sponsor prioritises speed and 16-inch guns or a different 14-inch arrangement.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Treaty limits made the Kongōs difficult to replace, making reconstruction more useful than disposal.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A hypothetical stock of 100 Wildcats would help fill the Royal Navy's missing generation of effective naval fighters.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Colonial access to money and the older international role of the Spanish dollar help explain why sterling was not universal.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
The Buffalo's poor later reputation obscures its value as a competent interim carrier fighter in 1939.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Using diesel fuel across ships and aircraft might simplify logistics, but high-speed ships would demand costly diesel-electric conversion.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A rebuilt Tiger could have offered a fast 14-inch-gun capital ship while the Royal Navy waited for newer construction.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A discussion of the Dido class distinguishes hoping to avoid war from assuming that there was still time to prepare.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A captured Deutschland-class cruiser could serve in convoy or patrol roles even if it was unsuitable for fast operations.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
More speed from the Queen Elizabeth class would create a much more flexible and damaging fast wing at Jutland.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Wartime nuclear cooperation gave Britain enough knowledge that preserving a sole American arsenal would require implausible coercion against recent allies.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A treaty-free Royal Navy would likely establish the G3 standard before building fast capital ships for dominion fleets.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Vanguard and the Iowa class illustrate why battlecruiser and fast-battleship labels cannot be applied as rigid categories.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Very large, heavily armed nuclear cruisers can still fit the battlecruiser idea even without traditional armour.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
A 1942 start changes aircraft development enough that no British, Japanese, or American carrier air group is an obvious universal loser.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Jellicoe drew on reports from several participants even when Beatty failed to provide the information expected from the scouting force.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Nuclear propulsion for surface ships requires a different reactor and support base from the submarine programme.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Carrier aircraft are judged by the capability they add to a constrained air group, not simply by land-based performance.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·
Lock dimensions determine whether ocean-going frigates can reinforce an inland naval theatre.
From Bruships 117: Battle Cruisers, Battle-Cruisers or Battlecruisers? ·