Drachinifel Videos

[Q-Ball]

I'm sure many of you have run into Drachinifel's videos on Youtube, but if you haven't, take a look! I found them only recently. He's a naval historian that dives very deep into technical naval topics; lots of WW2, but not all WW2. Here is a link to one on Interwar Carriers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DEHvLvMak

The videos are sometimes long; I often don't have time to devote 90 minutes to the Black Sea U-Boat flotilla, for example, and they can get in the weeds. The production quality is so-so. But the photos are great, and he's very knowledgeable

Am I the only one who didn't know this guy?

[Lowpe]

Here is another interesting movie...on the Yamoto.

The Great War of Archimedes

It is the early 1930s and the command of the Japanese Imperial Navy determines to construct the world's biggest and most formidable battleship, Yamato. One of the admirals, Yamamoto Isoroku, disagrees. He recruits the upstart and mathematics' expert Tadashi Kai who discovers there are discrepancies between the official cost estimates and the actual figures. They soon find out that they have stumbled upon a conspiracy

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8708802/

[witpqs]

Drachinifel's stuff is awesome, information and insight dense! I think it would not be over stating things to refer to him as among the world's most expert on the subjects.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Drachinifel's stuff is awesome, information and insight dense! I think it would not be over stating things to refer to him as among the world's most expert on the subjects.

While I'm a regular watcher of Drachinifel's content, I think even he would disagree with this.

IIRC his background and career is in engineering.

In my mind there's a distinction (blurred, but extant nonetheless) between someone exceptionally knowledgeable in the amateur space versus someone who operates in the space in a professional capacity - engaging with the academic element etc. Lots of overlap between the two, but producing a video on YouTube from synthesising existing sources is quite a different space from engaging on a topic in the academic space.

Drachinifel, to my impression seems very salient of this, if you consider his conduct in the excellent settings where he has guest academics on (strong recommendation on the session he has with Jon Parshall on Midway).

Open to challenge on this though, my usual contrarian streak is showing through again.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Drachinifel's stuff is awesome, information and insight dense! I think it would not be over stating things to refer to him as among the world's most expert on the subjects.

While I'm a regular watcher of Drachinifel's content, I think even he would disagree with this.

IIRC his background and career is in engineering.

In my mind there's a distinction (blurred, but extant nonetheless) between someone exceptionally knowledgeable in the amateur space versus someone who operates in the space in a professional capacity - engaging with the academic element etc. Lots of overlap between the two, but producing a video on YouTube from synthesising existing sources is quite a different space from engaging on a topic in the academic space.

Drachinifel, to my impression seems very salient of this, if you consider his conduct in the excellent settings where he has guest academics on (strong recommendation on the session he has with Jon Parshall on Midway).

Open to challenge on this though, my usual contrarian streak is showing through again.

I suggest that the overall knowledge and insight he provides would exceed that of the vast majority of those with relevant engineering expertise on the subjects. I don't presume to suggest he is an engineer in ship design, or ballistics, or ancient seaborne warfare, etc., etc., but he does synthesize enough knowledge and information across so many areas that I think he would be a good addition to any discussion panel. Quite substantial breadth of knowledge.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Drachinifel's stuff is awesome, information and insight dense! I think it would not be over stating things to refer to him as among the world's most expert on the subjects.

While I'm a regular watcher of Drachinifel's content, I think even he would disagree with this.

IIRC his background and career is in engineering.

In my mind there's a distinction (blurred, but extant nonetheless) between someone exceptionally knowledgeable in the amateur space versus someone who operates in the space in a professional capacity - engaging with the academic element etc. Lots of overlap between the two, but producing a video on YouTube from synthesising existing sources is quite a different space from engaging on a topic in the academic space.

Drachinifel, to my impression seems very salient of this, if you consider his conduct in the excellent settings where he has guest academics on (strong recommendation on the session he has with Jon Parshall on Midway).

Open to challenge on this though, my usual contrarian streak is showing through again.

I suggest that the overall knowledge and insight he provides would exceed that of the vast majority of those with relevant engineering expertise on the subjects. I don't presume to suggest he is an engineer in ship design, or ballistics, or ancient seaborne warfare, etc., etc., but he does synthesize enough knowledge and information across so many areas that I think he would be a good addition to any discussion panel. Quite substantial breadth of knowledge.

I want to say civil engineering, but I feel on thinner ice here.

I agree with you overall, but there's a distinction in my mind between information synthesis versus that of an expert.

That's not to say that one can lead to the other, but a large part of becoming expert in any particular field is knowing what you don't know.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




While I'm a regular watcher of Drachinifel's content, I think even he would disagree with this.

IIRC his background and career is in engineering.

In my mind there's a distinction (blurred, but extant nonetheless) between someone exceptionally knowledgeable in the amateur space versus someone who operates in the space in a professional capacity - engaging with the academic element etc. Lots of overlap between the two, but producing a video on YouTube from synthesising existing sources is quite a different space from engaging on a topic in the academic space.

Drachinifel, to my impression seems very salient of this, if you consider his conduct in the excellent settings where he has guest academics on (strong recommendation on the session he has with Jon Parshall on Midway).

Open to challenge on this though, my usual contrarian streak is showing through again.

I suggest that the overall knowledge and insight he provides would exceed that of the vast majority of those with relevant engineering expertise on the subjects. I don't presume to suggest he is an engineer in ship design, or ballistics, or ancient seaborne warfare, etc., etc., but he does synthesize enough knowledge and information across so many areas that I think he would be a good addition to any discussion panel. Quite substantial breadth of knowledge.

I want to say civil engineering, but I feel on thinner ice here. I'm sure it wouldn't be civil engineering, but I know what you mean. Part of my point is that the relevant engineering is actually plural to the point where few, if any, engineering disciplines would cover what he covers partly because it would entail multiple engineering specialties and partly because it entails other areas of significant knowledge outside of engineering.

I agree with you overall, but there's a distinction in my mind between information synthesis versus that of an expert. In my lexicon the word expert does not only apply to engineers. Historians are not engineers, but are often experts on certain subjects, for example. And even then they do not know all details (nor do most claim to).

That's not to say that one can lead to the other, but a large part of becoming expert in any particular field is knowing what you don't know. Having seen a good deal of Drach's work: he is quite respectful of what he doesn't know and the varying degrees of certainty of what he does say. The latter, I think, is a very good sign.

[mind_messing]

I'm sure it wouldn't be civil engineering, but I know what you mean. Part of my point is that the relevant engineering is actually plural to the point where few, if any, engineering disciplines would cover what he covers partly because it would entail multiple engineering specialties and partly because it entails other areas of significant knowledge outside of engineering.

Exactly, and I think when you're covering a topic this vast, you're well in to the social sciences (as has been touched on in some of his content).

In my lexicon the word expert does not only apply to engineers. Historians are not engineers, but are often experts on certain subjects, for example. And even then they do not know all details (nor do most claim to).

My thinking was more along the lines of the weight and presentation of what you produce differs.

Take, for example, the recent biography on Admiral Lee. If that was presented as an expert opinion in a suitable format (as say journal publication or published book), there may well be some scope for critique as being slightly hagiographic in nature. The expected standards are for something quite detached and clinical.

Positioned as something from an "interested, well-informed amateur" then there's a different set of standards.

Having seen a good deal of Drach's work: he is quite respectful of what he doesn't know and the varying degrees of certainty of what he does say. The latter, I think, is a very good sign.

Yes, absolutely agree here. A large part of why I enjoy the content from that channel is that there's a willingness to clarify sources and qualified and unqualified views.


That said, I do have a bee in my bonnet over a response he gave on a recent question regarding the lifeboats on the Titanic, to the effect that a sufficient number of lifeboats would have avoided the tragedy altogether.

A sufficient number of lifeboats installed on the double davits would not have prevented the tragedy. The limiting factor was not actually the number of lifeboats, but the time and human resource (which was being depleted constantly be the need to provide boat crew) required to launch them before the ship sank (indeed, two of the collapsible boats were not able to be launched at all, and it was cutting it close with the wooden hulled boats as hastily loaded as they had been).

Now, that's a real niche topic in the grand scheme, but it did send a little sand in my gears.

I think that's the core of my issue, actually - when you produce content and look to provide commentary on such varied topics, there's evidently gaps in knowledge, hence my aversion to the "expert" tag. I suppose it's the same with your popular science communicators vis a vis a working physicist and CERN.

Totally agree on the addition to any discussion panel, as often it's that wider but less deep perspective that can be the most interesting.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Totally agree on the addition to any discussion panel, as often it's that wider but less deep perspective that can be the most interesting.

Also can stimulate perspectives from the deeper-narrower panelists which they might not have considered.

[Voltreffer]

This thread inspired me to share content creators (including Drach) who complement AE:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5117038

I would have done it here, but I didn't want to derail the discussion by adding so many other channels into the mix.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
I'm sure many of you have run into Drachinifel's videos on Youtube, but if you haven't, take a look! I found them only recently. He's a naval historian that dives very deep into technical naval topics; lots of WW2, but not all WW2. Here is a link to one on Interwar Carriers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DEHvLvMak

The videos are sometimes long; I often don't have time to devote 90 minutes to the Black Sea U-Boat flotilla, for example, and they can get in the weeds. The production quality is so-so. But the photos are great, and he's very knowledgeable

Am I the only one who didn't know this guy?

I love that channel, glad you all have found him too.

[Maallon]

Just to clarify:
1) I am fairly sure that he mentioned in one of his streams that he works as Civil Engineer.

2) As far as I know, he is a hobby historian much like a lot of us are and doesn't do this professionally.
Though he has a strong background in engineering, reads a lot of books about history and is knowledgeable about scientific methods.
So what he basically does is to pick a topic and research the topic through reading books or other relevant sources and then make a video about it.

Given his vast knowledge about the subject I would also consider him an expert on the broad topic of naval warfare and naval engineering.
But I would also agree with mind_messing that what he mainly does is information synthesis on a "interested, well-informed amateur" level, though I would place him on a very high tier on that level.


After all that said: I also enjoy watching his videos a lot, he is one of my favorite youtubers and I can very much recommend his videos to anyone who is interested in naval stuff. [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Maallon

Just to clarify:
1) I am fairly sure that he mentioned in one of his streams that he works as Civil Engineer.
I may have misunderstood what mind_messing meant about that. I thought he was searching for the name of the engineering specialty that would deal with ships and such.

2) As far as I know, he is a hobby historian much like a lot of us are and doesn't do this professionally.
Though he has a strong background in engineering, reads a lot of books about history and is knowledgeable about scientific methods.
So what he basically does is to pick a topic and research the topic through reading books or other relevant sources and then make a video about it.

Given his vast knowledge about the subject I would also consider him an expert on the broad topic of naval warfare and naval engineering.
But I would also agree with mind_messing that what he mainly does is information synthesis on a "interested, well-informed amateur" level, though I would place him on a very high tier on that level.


After all that said: I also enjoy watching his videos a lot, he is one of my favorite youtubers and I can very much recommend his videos to anyone who is interested in naval stuff. [:)]

[Ian R]

If Drach had merchandising, I'd buy a T-shirt.

The long dry-docks are excellent listening (and maybe some still photos to view) on long hot summer nights when you can't sleep.

His video on the armoured carrier v open hanger carrier debate was informative, and amusing. The point about needing to strike all aircraft below deck in Atlantic weather is often lost in less detailed appreciations.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Whatever Drach's background and expert or hobby historian level, his videos are fun to listen to just for the glorious dry British humo(u)r!

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

His video on the armoured carrier v open hanger carrier debate was informative, and amusing. The point about needing to strike all aircraft below deck in Atlantic weather is often lost in less detailed appreciations.

Yes, he made excellent points on the Armored Deck vs. Larger Hanger debate. Everyone tries to declare a victor, that one is clearly better than the other.

The reality is that an Armored Deck is a better fit in Europe, where the RN's opponent was going to be land-based air. Survivability was key, and in fact on a couple occasions RN CVs took damage from LBA that likely would've sunk a USN CV.

The enclosed, armored hanger box on RN CVs also makes sense in the rough weather of the North Sea and other climates. The RN also did not incorporate deck parks into it's doctrine because in the North Sea planes parked on deck might end up overboard. All of these factors meant smaller airgroups.

In the calmer waters of the Pacific, though, deck parks make sense, and because the opponent was likely to be another CV, it makes sense to pack maximum strike power on the ship.

In the end, both the the USN and RN adopted a hybrid; armoerd flight decks, but with open hangers that USN favored, so that burning stuff could be pushed overboard easily.

He did universally praise USN damage control training and doctrine, which was the gold standard

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Whatever Drach's background and expert or hobby historian level, his videos are fun to listen to just for the glorious dry British humo(u)r!

warspite1

Indeed, I really enjoy his work without getting hot and bothered about his background or his amateur/professional status.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: Ian R

His video on the armoured carrier v open hanger carrier debate was informative, and amusing. The point about needing to strike all aircraft below deck in Atlantic weather is often lost in less detailed appreciations.

Yes, he made excellent points on the Armored Deck vs. Larger Hanger debate. Everyone tries to declare a victor, that one is clearly better than the other.

The reality is that an Armored Deck is a better fit in Europe, where the RN's opponent was going to be land-based air. Survivability was key, and in fact on a couple occasions RN CVs took damage from LBA that likely would've sunk a USN CV.

The enclosed, armored hanger box on RN CVs also makes sense in the rough weather of the North Sea and other climates. The RN also did not incorporate deck parks into it's doctrine because in the North Sea planes parked on deck might end up overboard. All of these factors meant smaller airgroups.

In the calmer waters of the Pacific, though, deck parks make sense, and because the opponent was likely to be another CV, it makes sense to pack maximum strike power on the ship.

In the end, both the the USN and RN adopted a hybrid; armoerd flight decks, but with open hangers that USN favored, so that burning stuff could be pushed overboard easily.

He did universally praise USN damage control training and doctrine, which was the gold standard

I'm trying to remember if it was Drach, or the Clarke/Armoured carriers co-production (probably both) that pointed out that the Ark Royal was intended for the Pacific, but then Germany re-armed. The Illustrious design was completed before radar was invented, at at time when it wouldn't matter how many fighters you had, they were unlikely to climb to altitude and see off a determined dive bombing attack that appeared overhead with little warning (think Midway). So the RN intended to rely on armour, and armoured the design against the standard bomb of the time...

By the time the war came, radar was available, the RN developed the CIC, aircraft technology had jumped two generations, and the standard bomb had doubled in size. At that point the RN's problem was poorly performing aircraft in too few numbers - but the reliable old Swordfish showed what could be done. Once the USN worked out how to enlarge the flight deck on the "USS Robin" to take a deck park aboard, the armoured carriers working in a group became a useful asset in the Pacific as well.

As you say, convergent evolution eventually results in the Midways, and the unbuilt Malta design.

[BBfanboy]

Shouldn't that be USS Sir Robin?

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Shouldn't that be USS Sir Robin?

Not in 1943 when they took her in hand in ?? San Diego, and said, you know if we add some girders and sheet metal here and here and here, and straighten out the round downs, we can park about 20 extra aircraft on this real estate and make a useful carrier out of it. [;)]