Related time notes
- Key Frigates of Today & Tomorrow: Type 26s, FREMMs & Nilgiris vs Mogami, Type 31s & FDIs53:11The uneasy symbolism of HMS CampbeltownNotable Point
- Bruships 200: Naval History Questions Answered Live...4:49:55Humour and dark irony in operation namesQ&A
- Coastal defenses in WWII: Why did they fail to stop so many amphibious operations?1:27:25Commando raids worked best when their scale matched a precise objectiveNotable Point
- Bruships 159: New Office - This may be quick, discord may work & I may not have a Pneumonia attack!32:42What early landing-ship docks would change in 1939Q&A
- Operation Frankton: The Cockleshell Heroes20:24Keyes built Combined Operations around strategic raidsChapter
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War34:28Operation Claymore's real landing forceChapter
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War37:27Fish oil made the Lofoten raid strategically worthwhileChapter
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War41:07Tight rules shaped the first major Commando raidChapter
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War43:23Destroyers supported Claymore's dispersed landing groupsChapter
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War45:42Somali's gunfight yielded Enigma materialChapter
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War48:20Claymore proved the value of fast independent landing shipsNotable Point
- HMS Princess Beatrix & HMS Queen Emma Landing Ship Infantry(Medium) - When Dutch Ferries go to War49:17Claymore's demolition party exposed a command gapNotable Point
- Losing Control of the Sea: Bad time for the Royal Navy in the Age of Sail7:19How capital-ship memory obscures Operation ClaymoreNotable Point
- What if the Royal Navy went 4.7in rather than 4.5in for dual purpose?52:18Escort conversions and Operation ClaymoreChapter
- Patreon 68: What if the Royal Navy went 4.7in rather than 4.5in for dual purpose?1:52:53Operation Claymore: 14 high-angle guns or 32Notable Point
- Bruships 46: Accounts of Naval War45:57HMS Tartar and the Lofoten raidChapter
- Bruships 46: Accounts of Naval War59:13Ludovic Kennedy, HMS Rawalpindi, and wartime publishingNotable Point
- Lend Lease Long Patrol: P2/5 What was Lend Lease according to the USA20:14Shipping scarcity turns aid into strategic triageNotable Point
- 1940 Norway Campaign Part 4 of 5: After 1940 - Quislings & Commandos11:35Operation Claymore's naval raid forceChapter
- 1940 Norway Campaign Part 4 of 5: After 1940 - Quislings & Commandos14:09Fish oil as a raid targetNotable Point
- An Introduction to Operation Menace part 2 of 23:42An amphibious force short of landing craftNotable Point
- An Introduction to “The Battle of Malaya & Force Z” – Part 2: The Counter-Factual; My Plan10:13Conceal the plan behind cover schemes and road workNotable Point
- An Introduction to Not the Big Ships: NGFS As Provided by Destroyers & Below Part 2 of 22:06Operation Claymore and destroyer-backed commandosChapter
- A Question of Getting Them There - Landing Ships & Amphibious Warfare Part 2(i)18:21Medium LSIs make Operation Claymore possibleChapter
- A Question of Getting There – Landing Craft & Amphibious Warfare Part 124:50From the Motor Landing Craft to the LCMChapter
- A Question of Getting There – Landing Craft & Amphibious Warfare Part 147:27Operation Claymore, Crete, and specialised support craftChapter
- A Question of Getting There – Landing Craft & Amphibious Warfare Part 11:34:00Did British landing craft carry flamethrowers?Q&A
- Tribal, Battle & Daring Class Destroyers - A live stream9:23Independent raiding and command work in NorwayChapter
- Back Pocket Cruisers Presentation (Practice 2)28:05Operation Claymore used Tribal destroyers as self-contained raiding shipsChapter