Comments by "Frank DeMaris" (@kemarisite) on "What went wrong in Norway? - Some Very Norsepicious Plans" video.

At least his chicken got cold and wet. ;)
17
This puts me in mind of a passage in one of Steven Brust's novels, but I had to wait for the weekend to look it up and cite it correctly: "War consists of missed opportunities alternating with narrow escapes, and it usually ends when someone, somewhere, fails to commit a timely error." And another, the one I was really looking for: "Battles are decided when timing and momentum and courage all come together and, at just the right moment, someone fails to make a critical mistake and doesn't manage to miss a vital opportunity."
17
@ringowunderlich2241 or just more sausage for the meat grinder in the east.
16
When Sweden mobilized in response to the invasion of Norway, it found its stock of ammunition for anti-aircraft guns was only sufficient for a simultaneous 1 minute firing of all guns.
4
@AtomicBabel I ran across that item in Dunnigan and Nofi's Dirty Little Secrets of World War II. I agree, its is a jaw-dropping failure in procurement and readiness.
4
@LucioFercho the Luftwaffe had responsibility for everything in the air, and the Kriegsmarine had responsibility for torpedoes, and those two services did not play nicely together. The Luftwaffe did not develop torpedo bombing tactics or using aerial torpedoes dropped from planes until 1942, and even then they were buying aerial torpedoes from the Italians. Their submarine torpedoes suffered from the same issue with the magnetic influence exploder that everyone else's did (so I agree the German submarine and destroyer torpedoes were crap) but in 1940 the Germans weren't building aerial torpedoes at all.
1
@stevewindisch7400 I'm seeing some references that indicate armor piercing bombs (the PC series) were not deployed by the Luftwaffe until 1942, and that the vast majority of the tonnage dropped by the Luftwaffe through 1941 were smaller weapons up to about 100 kg. The Luftwaffe would also use high explosive bombs up to (eventually) 2400 kg. Furthermore, as the Mitchell bombing in 1921 helped demonstrate, bombs falling near a ship can do substantial underwater damage from the blast effects and would be a better use for a high explosive bomb than actually trying to hit a ship with an armored deck several inches thick. That actually raises the question of whether the Luftwaffe pilots off Crete were going for hits or damaging near misses with larger HE bombs.
1
@LucioFercho then you have access to more detailed information than I do. However, didn't the Germans go on to develop other/heavier bombs because the were disappointed with the performance against Illustrious? Ah, I see, the reference I was looking at was specifically to the PC1400, while Illustrious was hit with PC1000 bombs.
1
@LucioFercho fascinating. What reference are you working from, and does it specify what model torpedo was used on these missions (45 cm F5?) or why production was halted?
1
@LucioFercho that last line sounds like a food fight that needs to happen: which belligerent in WW2 suffered the most from inter-service rivalry?
1
@LucioFercho how well I know that last. I work at a navy base that's in the middle of the freaking desert.
1
@joshthomas-moore2656 it was torpedoed in January and underwent some refits (anti-torpedo bulges, upgraded AA and radar) while being repaired. Then to San Diego for aircraft.
1
@lucajohnen6719 navweaps.com has some data on flight times to various ranges. For the British 15"/42 using WW2 AP shells it's about 14 seconds to 10,000 yards, 32.5 to 20,000, and 57 to 30,000. That's one reason battleships so frequently average about one round per minute per gun, because the flight time is so long at reasonable ranges and they're still feeling for the range. Sure you can bang away as fast as the ammo feed system can deliver rounds, but a lot of your shooting will be somewhat blind.
1