Comments by "calvingreene90" (@calvingreene90) on "Naval Logistics - Keeping your fleet in fuel, food and guns" video.

The first rule of warfare is, "Never start a war with your source of munitions."
233
That certainly explains why the USofA Navy specified that the new duel purpose 5 inch would have to fire the same ammunition as the existing 5 inch 51 caliber guns already in inventory.
29
Graf von Losinj Ammo factories are real easy to blow to hell.
22
@benholroyd5221 Japan was not at war with with anyone else when they invaded Russia. Afghanistan and Finland were invaded by Russia so they didn't start the war. Nor were they fighting other wars at the time.
11
@benholroyd5221 The first rule of warfare is, "Never start a war with Russia when fighting anybody else. If you haven't noticed it is always the first rule of warfare. Over on Science & Futurism with Isaac Arthur it has become something of a running joke.
10
@CSSVirginia A well washed T-shirt works as a reusable coffee filter.
9
@bkjeong4302 You are looking at it from the wrong prospective. What would have happened to a navy that spent the 30s building all carriers and the aircraft that were required to sink battleships had never materialized? The most expensive thing you can do is put all your money on the wrong option. Thus in the long run it is more cost effective to cover several options by say building carriers and battleships until you have proof of what the future holds. 0nly a fools bets everything on one roll of dice; even if the fools wins.
8
@benholroyd5221 When the Russia Japan war was fought Japan was not at war with China. Second Sino Japanese War ended bad for Japan; something about an unconditional surrender. The Continuation war was lost by Finland but by switching to fighting NATZIs they made a deal so that they only lost about 10% of their territory including Viipuri their forth largest city to Russia. But the had to acknowledge the war as being their fault rather than it being the fault of the Russians with their unprovoked invasion of the Winter War. History is not your strong suit.
5
@Delgen1951 Three meters is a bit under ten feet and four meters is a bit over thirteen feet. Are you aiming at a flat section of ocean surface or a ship that is a vertical target of significantly more than 4 meters?
5
@CSSVirginia How do you think a non coffee drinker like me knows that.
4
@VintageCarHistory Another example of superior tech biting you in the donkey.
4
@KPen3750 I do not see a 3 or 4 meter difference in the hight of the guns being very important when firing at targets like ships and fortresses.
4
Was that for boilers or more modern engines?
3
@bkjeong4302 When the battleships were proved to be displaced from being the queen of the seas it did not mean that the battleship was not valuable. The question is whether their reduced value was worth what was needed to finish them for the projected war left to be fought . For the completed Iowas it was. Postwar the Russians who were never stupid, weird but not stupid, were building a big gun navy. Air defense weapons were getting better reducing the ability of planes to get close enough to effectively drop torpedoes and dive bomb. The battleship was suddenly no longer clearly second tier platforms when looking at it with just the information available at the time. What if the Russians has a antiaircraft laser on the drawing board. we knew that nuclear bombs were going to get smaller and that the Russians were going to get them. What happens to a squadron of torpedo bombers that has a nuke go of in the middle of it?
3
@Wildschwein_Jaeger I really doubt that a gas turbine is burning heavy fuel oil.
3
@bkjeong4302 Hindsight is 2020 but what if carriers had not panned out?
3
@Delgen1951 I drink Dr. Pepper. Nope I prefer caffeine withdrawal to coffee.
3
Actually colonial rebellion.
3
@bkjeong4302 If the carriers can't successfully attack anything they are useless for anything but scouting and with the Russians that usually know what they are doing at the strategic level acting like they had a plan it would have been stupid to bet everything on them being wrong. You are still using after the fact information to second guess people without the information.
2
@bkjeong4302 It does not matter if Stalin was behaving stupidity if the people countering his expansionism do not know why he thinks the fleet he was building would win. You are looking with hindsight with everything known and saying that the people that that did not have that advantage were stupid because they did not know what they could not know. Do you condemn toddlers for not understanding nuclear physics as well?
2
And a whole lot of other people.
2
@its1110 According to Wikipedia 5 were planned and the keel was laid for the forth but canceled and broken up in place when about 30% complete.
2
@davidwright7193 Being wrong does not mean unconsidered.
2
@dimasakbar7668 Reverse osmosis doesn't require any electricity. It requires mechanical energy which on a ship is most efficiently supplied directly from an engine.
2
@bradwolf9410 That is why the delay. The fuse ignites hitting anything harder than a seagul but does not set off the shell until enough time has passed for the shell to have passed through any armor that it will penetrate but if it hits something unarmored like a CVE it still does more damage than going in one side and out the other. The battle of Samar springs to mind as an example but if the commanding admiral had decided that obliterating the American invation force would only result in Japan suffering more vengeance after the Americans finished winning such fusing would have been counter productive.
2
@benholroyd5221 Read the whole rule. Never start a war with Russia when fighting anybody else. Look at what all your examples had in common. And Finland was on the fringe of it because they allied with the NATZIs. Fighting Russia is not something to do while otherwise distracted. Napoleon should have grovelled for Russia's forgiveness for the insulting note rather than invading.
2
The Great White Fleet being dependent on British support ships did help deescalate tensions of having all those American battleships in Japanese waters because if America had taken the opportunity to attack Japan all the Japanese had to do to win was not lose quickly. Of course if Japan started the war no matter how much damage they did to the Great White Fleet four years later the American Navy would arrive with more new battleships than Japan had ships in total. Aggressor is guaranteed to lose is a great way to prevent war.
2
@bkjeong4302 A battalion of field artillery can ruin a cruisers entire day. A battleships will obliterate the artillery battalion even if the army guys get hits first.
2
@Wildschwein_Jaeger The SOB trying to oppress me.
1
@bkjeong4302 Crash program and incompetence by the Navy Bureau of 0rdinance.
1
That is why When the enlisted men are down to eating nothing but porridge with a dozen raisins it is important that the officers are seen eating nothing but porridge without raisins.
1
@johngregory4801 Considering the spread of the average salvo not as much as you think. Besides you would average between the two hight. I admit I don't understand why AP shells a soft fuse with a delay instead of having to hit something hard to set them off because I can think of several scenarios where it would simply be more effective and only one were it would be less.
1
@michaelkaylor6770 Arrows --- We mean nothing to you?
1
@bkjeong4302 Three the fact that the third wasn't finished as battleship doesn't Change that. The USofA had the money and steel to build the Iowas and a function economy.
1
@TheWizardGamez That didn't end well for the NATZIs.
1
@martinsgakke Only if you are using fusion power.
1