Complete directory
Explore every watch point in reverse video-date order, then in timestamp order within each video.
American gas-turbine adoption accelerated after the Coast Guard gained operational experience, reducing the risk before the U.S. Navy committed major classes to the machinery.
From Ship Shape & Running on Gas ·
Using gas-turbine exhaust heat to raise steam can improve efficiency, but the resulting marine plant introduces more systems and damage-control concerns than navies have accepted.
From Ship Shape & Running on Gas ·
The Type 45's intended distributed turbine-and-diesel power packs were reduced when the programme chose a smaller hull, leading to later generator upgrades.
From Ship Shape & Running on Gas ·
Distributed electrical generation can reduce shaft and bulkhead vulnerabilities, isolate machinery, and preserve the main power needed for pumping after battle damage.
From Ship Shape & Running on Gas ·
A flexible generating network can charge capacitors for lasers and other power-hungry weapons, making propulsion architecture part of a warship's future combat capacity.
From Ship Shape & Running on Gas ·
The stream begins with the fictional ironclad Thunder Child charging the Martian fighting machines as a torpedo ram.
The first design attempt turns Thunder Child's low profile and speed into a problem bounded by 1890s hulls, machinery, armour, and funnel capacity.
A late-Victorian HMS Renown provides a practical reference for balancing Thunder Child's guns, armour, shallow draft, and speed.
A question about spotting in the simulation leads to a compact explanation of destroyers closing, observing, and reporting targets for heavier ships.
Thunder Child's torpedo-rams are formidable only at very close range, where they must survive longer-ranged gunfire to strike.
A viewer's question about film versions of Admiral Halsey receives a cautious preference for the earliest portrayal.
A viewer request for forty 5.5-inch guns becomes an experiment in mounting a huge rapid-fire battery without losing every useful firing arc.
The massed-gun cruiser demonstrates how range, smoke, accuracy, and ammunition supply qualify the apparent advantage of an enormous battery.
A speculative fleet built around an Agincourt-like capital ship prompts a fast heavy cruiser with fifteen 9.2-inch guns and battlecruiser-like striking power.
The simulation's large heavy-cruiser tower prompts a distinction between battleship-like superstructures and HMS London's real appearance.
A question about historical designers using modern software leads to a warning that visualisation tools cannot replace expert naval judgement.
A request combining approximately 21-inch guns, a 21-inch belt, and 21-knot speed reveals how extreme armament drives displacement and forces compromises elsewhere.
A long-range firing scenario prompts a discussion of how early radar investment could affect naval gunnery in the Second World War.
The label "pre-dreadnought" can make capable earlier battleships sound merely obsolete instead of judging them in their own era.
The maximum-displacement Japanese battleship shows why hull proportions and seakeeping can overturn an otherwise impressive gun arrangement.
A heavily armed design becomes a logistics warning when it carries a separate calibre for nearly every gun position.
The super-battleship test separates a plausible accuracy problem with quadruple mounts from the simulation's excessive penalty on Japanese gunnery.
A simulated partial penetration prompts a reality check on the mass, explosive charge, and destructive energy of a near-21-inch naval shell.
A French Tribal-style destroyer leader combines heavy guns and torpedoes within the severe space and weight limits of a small hull.
Adding anti-aircraft weapons to a destroyer means choosing between more mounts, usable firing arcs, and the limited room available on deck.
A German Tribal-class counterpart shows how the simulation's hull choices and heavy torpedo battery shape a national destroyer comparison.
A destroyer fight is presented as a fast, dangerous contest to manoeuvre, find the range, and create a weapon opportunity.
An Italian hybrid destroyer meets sea conditions closer to the North Atlantic than the Mediterranean environment for which the type was conceived.
The British and French destroyer hulls appear visually reversed, showing how historical design knowledge helps identify a simulation's misleading assumptions.
Long-ranged 5.9-inch guns and heavy torpedoes make the Italian hybrid destroyer perform more like a compact cruiser than an ordinary destroyer.
A question about X-craft laying nuclear mines opens a short look at a post-war capability that was studied but never put into practice.
A Royal Navy force-design point explains why a fleet built to concentrate several ships matters more than a single-ship comparison.
A warship-design answer uses armour thickness, gun calibre, and speed to show why battleships cannot maximise every quality at once.
A game-design aside explains why ever-larger battleship guns may be less useful than a heavy battery that still reloads quickly and puts many barrels on target.
A fleet-building discussion connects common gun calibres, repeat cruiser designs, and numerical concentration to logistical simplicity and combat power.
A battle deployment uses commanding ground and dead ground to show how terrain determines what artillery can see, protect, and suppress.
A brief aside notes that destroyers sometimes closed with much heavier ships closely enough to make boarding imaginable, even though such opportunities did not become actual actions.
A short tactical warning explains why defenders should abandon a position once an enemy moves around it and beyond the guns' field of fire.
A recollection that Rodney's chief engineer was Welsh is left unconfirmed because the claim cannot be tied to a source during the stream.
An alternate-history discussion traces how completed G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships could alter treaty limits, rival building programmes, and later fleets.
A reassessment of the Tillman battleships separates Senator Tillman's policy question from the maximum battleship studies drawn by naval engineers and asks pro-navy viewers to recognise their own bias.
A G3 alternate-history question considers whether the unfinished Admiral-class battlecruisers, including Hood's sisters, might have supplied the Royal Navy's major carrier conversions.
A political aside distinguishes simple conformity from the career incentives that discourage officeholders from becoming conspicuous targets.
A follow-up distinguishes conversion efficiency by tonnage from the absolute aircraft capacity of a much larger Admiral-class hull.
An alternate-war answer shows how losing free use of the Panama Canal could slow the movement of American industry from the East Coast to a Pacific shipbuilding base.
A game battle demonstrates how gun positions, a core force, held-back infantry, and a disposable forward line can absorb a counterattack before the defender takes the fort.
A speed question considers how faster Nelson-class battleships might have changed the British force assembled against Bismarck.
A nuclear-propulsion answer compares the space and protection demands of reactors in battleships, aircraft carriers, and submarines.