Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "Type XXIII - Guide 412" video.

  1. ​ @bkjeong4302 aren't you throwing in the small monkey wrench of Coal versus oil fuel? ⛽ Is your World War II ship supportable?
    4
  2. @gil7459  everybody keeps coming up with the same tank ammo versus ship thing. It's not applicable.
    2
  3. @brendonbewersdorf986  technology dead end. Various Navy's tried experiments with it in the 1950's. Things like fuel cells are a better option in AIP subs today.
    2
  4. 😢 U boat post? Was Hoping for USS Reuben James. Sunk October 31,1941....
    2
  5.  @Thorbrook  could you try and post serious questions?🙄
    1
  6.  @jimtaylor294  sufficient is kind of a stretch. The oil is all imported. And you have no Oilers to refuel underway.
    1
  7.  @bkjeong4302  of course they have to import all this oil. And they have no Oilers for underway replenishment.
    1
  8. @Thorbrook  what do you think of shell designed to sink a ship, is going to do to a human body? Bounce off?
    1
  9. @jimtaylor294  Reliable? Is a Debatable bar. And Capital ships spend more time in port than burning fuel at sea. The USA was still a main supplier at the time. 70 % of World production was from the USA.
    1
  10. @ferenckovacs3939  sunlight apparently can go down as deep as like 80 m. The wake going to make a trail also. Likely the sub is at periscope depth. Only about 60 feet deep.
    1
  11. @jimtaylor294  Actually, it was a rather clear and in English. And the sunken tanker fleet would beg to differ about the level of protection.
    1
  12. @jimtaylor294  Mr Taylor if you disagree? You are free to do so. Your approval is not sought or required.
    1
  13.  @BastuGubbar  I believe the obvious reason is, a source of ignition lights off powder and ammunition in a confined space. They have all different reasons however.
    1
  14. @samoilenko3887  🧐 Does the Red Baron get a F-22?
    1