Book
Tribals, Battles & Darings; The Genesis of the Modern Destroyer https://amzn.to/2H2yVvb
Support This Channel
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/ACNavalHistory
Paypal https://paypal.me/ACHistory?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCE2x09tU0GwAGiSbFPEhIwQ/join
Ko-Fi (If you just want to buy me a bottle of Irn Bru) https://ko-fi.com/acnavalhistory
Spreadshirt Store: https://acnavalhistorystore.myspreadshop.co.uk/
Amazon Affiliate Store https://www.amazon.co.uk/shop/dralexanderclarke
Bilgepumps / Social Media Links
Bilgepumps: https://the-bilgepumps.simplecast.com/episodes
Discord: https://discord.gg/xjsHGkq
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AC_NavalHistory
Other Places to Find Dr Alex Clarke
Global Maritime History: http://globalmaritimehistory.com/tag/alex-clarke/
Academia.edu: https://alexanderclarke.academia.edu/
TV Agent: https://pastpreservers.com/portfolio/dr-alexander-clarke-military-naval-historian/
source
The United States Navy was an early adopter of a doctrine of long-range battles for the main line of battleships, while other navies hung on to doctrines of short-range engagements. Congrats on reaching 9,000 subscribers.
23:30 "You come in here, demand biscuits, and you're no help." Thats philosophers for you.
Doctrines I know about:
* Fleet in Being
* Mahan and his doctrine (heard of it, have sketchy idea of it, but probably nuances I don't fully understand)
* Sea Denial
A would vote for the periodic comparison of doctrines and what the parties involved knew about the others. "Fleet in being" combined with "Klein Krieg" worked nice – until IMO around late 1917 Italy finally wrestled air superiority from the Central Powers.
WWI Adriatic (and to a lesser extent, Mediterraen) of course.
Oh, geographic and political neccessities of doctrines is also a nice point of view.
Some of the wife's friends acquired an Australian cattle dog, let me put it this way since they're nice people, if aliens contacted that household they'd definitely be wanting to talk to that cattle dog.
A suggestion for how to order things in regards to this year being the year of the cruiser and next year being design & tech perhaps the next after that rather than frigates it could be destroyers then frigates then sloops then battleships then last but not least year of the carrier. However unlike wargaming's botched & outright broken redesign in world of warships your year of the carrier will actually function and arrive in a tested and fair state, balanced as all things should be 😉
Naming ships after philosophers and mathematicians, I guess that's what happens when in the last set of major wars you fought your navy was the RN's punching bag/involuntary reserve fleet
I believe the technical terminology for stuff like Poudre B is semi-smokeless powder
I would argue a 42,000 ton limit and the 10:10:7 limit would have been seen as disadvantageous to the Americans as the Japanese capital ships under construction are treaty compliant whereas the American ones are not plus once the Earthquake wrecks Amagi, the Japanese could built the Kii class to replace the wrecked Amagi and the carrier converted Akagi and Kaga
The British on the other hand can decide how many 13.5" armed they drop but I could see Tiger being dropped last as the British like having 4 battlecruiser in the squadron
Congratulations on reaching 9K subs and sorry for going off topic in the comments
Jesus Christ on the cross that is one ugly duckling. Even for Victorian Era France.
I'm pink therefore I'm spam!!!
Is the only thing that I hear when when I here that when someone mentions that.
On Fisher: Certainly wasn't the one who cooked up the all big gun design either. If anyone has that honour it's Cuniberti, but I know of at least one (paper) design for a all big gun armed BB cooked up by a Russian naval officer in Port Arthur..
8:05 And it's going to have blackjack and hookers!
A theory / doctrine for modern navies: the Captain Wayne Hughes salvo model of missile combat and the consequent "Streetfighter" doctrine / design.
His book "Fleet Tactics" develops the salvo model of missile combat, which also turns out to work well for aircraft carrier battles in WW2, as opposed to the Lanchester model for gunnery combat between ships of the line. (As Hughes himself is well aware "all models are wrong, some are useful.") He used this as the basis for the proposed "Streetfighter" warships for the US Navy, which did not happen. The Soviet navy, and possibly other European navies, explicitly or implicitly had already adopted similar a doctrine.
More beautifully ugly ships from across the channel… excellent!
Wasn't the French Navy worried about Pascal getting mistaken for a Russian ship while doing it's observer role? Or were the Russian ships better maintained and so faster?
I think the USN SSBNs are part of a first strike nuclear doctrine.
Was the USN WW2 island hopping a doctrine? (not sure)
The USN carrier battle groups could be a doctrine.
Various applications of anti-submarine warfare are doctrines. I'm not sure what the names are but there seem to be different approaches.
I'm relatively new to the subject of naval doctrine maybe a primer video would help, I've read Mahan and Corbett in the past but a refresher would be nice