Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "Naval Darwin Awards - When IQ is inversely proportional to displacement" video.

  1.  @bloodrave9578  Most of the crew were likely already dead courtesy of Kormoran's shellfire and the fires started thereby, most of the survivors would've been below decks, and the ship sank fairly-suddenly when its bow broke away due to damage sustained in the engagement; given these factors, most likely few of the crew were able to get into the water, and, given the poor chances of survival associated with abandoning ship (relatively) far from shore (especially given that it didn't even become known that the ship had sunk until several days later), it isn't that surprising that no one ultimately survived.
    1
  2. 1. Why did the short flight decks and low top speeds of many early aircraft carriers so seriously limit the types of aircraft they could carry by the late 1930s and through World War II? Couldn't the low speed of, and shorter takeoff run available on, these carriers have been compensated for by using a suitable catapult system to get the aircraft up to flying speed before reaching the end of the flight deck? 2. Many different types of ships were converted, or planned to be converted, to aircraft carriers: battleships (Eagle, Kaga, Béarn, and Shinano), battlecruisers (the Lexingtons and Akagi), large light cruisers (Furious and the Courageousses), heavy cruisers (Seydlitz and Ibuki), light cruisers (the Independences), submarine tenders (the Zuihōs and Ryūhō), seaplane tenders (the Chitoses), ocean liners (Argus, the Hiyōs, the Jades, Kaiyō, Shin'yō, and Aquila), cargo liners (the Taiyōs), tankers (the Yamashio Marus), a freighter (Kumano Maru), and a collier (Langley). In general, how did the characteristics of carriers converted from different types of ships compare (for instance, how did carriers converted from ocean liners, as a category, compare with those converted from battleships or large light cruisers)? 3. In one of the Fleet Problem videos, you mentioned that a crafty admiral was able to overtake (and then ambush) a theoretically-faster opponent by having his fastest ships tow his slowest ones to allow the fleet as a whole to attain a higher speed; would this be a practical method, outside an exercise, of increasing the speed of a fleet whose top speed is limited by a relatively-small number of slow ships (looking at you, predreadnoughts of II Battle Squadron)? 4. In the video on the Brandenburgs, you state that, despite having three main-gun turrets totalling six big guns of the same caliber (as opposed to the predreadnought standard of four big guns in two turrets), they don't count as dreadnoughts-before-Dreadnought because the amidships turret has guns of a different length (and, thus, different ballistics) compared to the fore and aft turrets. Yet, in the video on the Kawachis, you accept them as dreadnoughts despite them having the same sort of problem (the four guns in the fore and aft pair of turrets are longer than the ones in the other main-battery turrets). Where to draw the line?
    1
  3. 3:33 - And, even in cases where the stupid party does remove themself from the gene pool through their own dumb naval decisionmaking (e.g., Cowper Phipps Coles on HMS Captain), they tend to take a lot of innocent people with them (e.g., the several hundred people who went down with Captain who weren't Cowper Phipps Coles), which is another disqualifying factor in the classic Darwin Awards.
    1