Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "SMS König - Guide 307" video.

Reminds me of Japanese in english characters, where Hyûga can also be written as Hyuuga, or Shôjô as Shoujou.
5
Eeh, I'd have to partly disagree. The main failings of the Kaiserlichemarine was those of logistics (having mostly short to medium range ships, minimal oil, mediocre coal, and few to any overseas ports of call), and having the notion that they could hope to outbuild or outfight the Royal Navy, instead of allying with them against the Marine Nationale. (seriously; the Kaiser made a fatal mistake in ignoring Bismarck's advice there, as the latter always had done his best to keep the UK tolerant of German expansion, if not approving of it)
3
@colindunnigan8621 A fair reply, and aye you didn't (if only all interweb conversations were thus). Personally I think Tirpitz's view is more interesting, as he was the defacto father of the german fleet. He also made no effort to gloss over what was [by all indication at the time] the end of Germany as a naval power, within a single generation of its rise. It is a common thread though that the germans seem to think sinking their own ship[s] themselves is better than being sunk in battle, and this is shown in both world wars. (and indeed; some still claim certain ships scuttled themselves, despite no evidence for it) By contrast the RN has never had such a tradition for self-destruction, rather one of [slight paraphrase] to always engage the enemy more closely, where-ever there is water to float a ship.
2
In most cases not going Diesel was the right decision, as while more efficient, Diesel powered warships were much slower, and more easily [critically] damaged in a battle. Case in point the Graf Spee: she couldn't outrun the three Cruisers that she was faced with, nor had the armour to outfight them without critical damage, which came in the form of 6" & 8" hits destroying her onboard facilities for oil processing. Upon hearing that the Battlecruiser HMS Renown - a ship Graf Spee couldn't outrun nor hope to fight even in peak condition - was steaming south to finish the Cruisers work, Langsdorf opted to defy orders and spare his crew a pointless death, by scuttling his ship. The bottom line: Diesel was fine for merchanen, but a bad choice as the prime mover for a Warship.
2
@chrissouthgate4554 Nah. Britain was - and still is - sitting on centuries of Coal, almost all of it the black type, while Germany's coal was/is mostly brown. (Welsh Steam Coal is just especially good) Notable too that GB had access to Venesuelan & US oil in both wars... while Germany did not; in WWII this was so much so that the UK had "an embarrasment of oil" supply, while Germany invaded the USSR primarily for Oil, knowing they only had a few months of reserves left.
2
@NashmanNash For the record; I can pronounce it because I've heard it aloud, but not spell it reliably because it's not spelt how it's pronounced. Still: better than Worcester or Leicester, which US tourists get really puzzled by XD.
2
I'm more into the Bellepheron class myself. (even though she's harder to spell than pronounce)
2
@colindunnigan8621 The French [eventually] did just that aye, but it was a one-off, rather than a recurring trope. Personally I'm more of the British line of thinking, that if victory is not achieved then it's better to have been bested in action by a worthy opponent, than to have self-terminated one's own ship. (though to their credit; the german admiralty tried the battle against the odds bit first; it was the sailors who said nein; having decided a "death sortie" with their country already looking at defeat by that point in the war, was pointless)
2
Nope. Germany probably won't still exist by then anyway. (with or without Thermonuclear armageddon ala political stupidity)
1
^ So~o baseless nonsense tis all you had to respond with. How... cliche. @TTTT-oc4eb Then we disagree... on pretty much everything. I would need to make a video to properly answer all of that point for point though. A~and; James Cameron was blowing out his arse when he did that ""documentary"" upon the Bismarck. Then again - unlike David Mearns - he's a film maker who knows little about ships, and took no experts with him.
1
@randomobserver8168 Interesting take, and overall I agree. Short of the Bayerns, I doubt any of the victors would have got much use out of the ships. (except perhaps Greece, who had been owed a warship by Germany before WWI put it on hold)
1
@Hachaimenesch I disagree. War is controlled violence for a purpose; that being to force your opponent to do exactly what you want him to do; not to kill the enemy simply for the sake of killing him. The Germans were demanded to return to their ships, and refused ; thus the RN responded with force. Worth noting too that the UK & Germany were still at war at this point (albeit under a truce), and that the HSF had handed itself in under the explicit condition that they not try anything. Also of note, is that the Austro-Hungarian Navy (KuK) attempted no such action, even when the fate of its ships became known.
1
^×2 That makes no sense as a reply, as whether the ships were to be handed over or not is not only irrelevant, but also was only an unverified rumour at the time. (as it was the RN considered the ships a mass of inconveniance re' the ongoing peace negotiations, and ghus their mass self-destruction was oddly convenient; yet also bothersome as it left tons of obstructive scrap iron littering a major anchorage) It's not hard to look up the fact that raising a battle ensign in a foriegn port is an obviously bad move, especially as it's a truce violation. (as stated, the ships were interred under the terms that they would be met with force if they broke tried anything) It may be fashionable to let the germans off the hook re' blame for things, but as with most fashion, it's also stupid.
1
Personally I just remember Markgraf for being the first German ship that HMS Warspite shot up, in 1916.
1
As one Schoolgirl that day recounted during a 1990's interview; "They heeled over, they dived; they sank low and then rose high in the water. I myself saw twelve Capital Ships go down." As it was the Germans were in the wrong, for raising their battle ensigns in the anchorage, despite a clear message from the British/US ships that'd inturred them there that if they tried anything; it would be met with force.
1
^ For someone with no counter-argument (nor any effort to look up what I stated & challenge your own assumptions), you waste a lot of verbage trying to look like you do XD. Oh and boyo: the only Carriers which don't have Catapults & Angled Decks... have either STOBAR (a Russian invention), a Skijump ramp (British invention), or limit themselves to VTOL (British again) &/or Helicopters... all but the lattermost of which are postwar innovations. Now failing to know that... now that's ""silly"" :P . As you've disproved none of my points, I'll leave it at that.
1
^ I think you're missing the point, which is that until I heard it spoken aloud (in a 1998 sci fi series of all things), it's pronounciation was not obvious; at least not to a then nine yeah old. Somewhat ironic considering I'd got into naval history 5 years prior, but this was a time when the interweb was still primitive & expensive, and naval history coverage on tv was patchy at best, and history classes in school were just disjointed rubbish.
1
Depends how good the armour scheme is. As it was the only Capital Ship to explode after being torpedoed was German, partially because the Battleship in question [SMS Pommern] had poor underwater protection. Probably the only time that a Destroyer (HMS Onslaught) can claim to have sunk a Battleship all on her own though.
1
^ Irrelevant. Pommern was still a Battleship, snd being used in the Line of Battle, so it still counts. Granted though; her loss - with all hands - led to the Germans never risking their Pre'Dread's in open sea again.
1
@535phobos I refer you to my prior point, where the SMS Pommern is the only confirmed loss of [any kind of] Battleship to explosion from a Torpedo hit. Some might mention HMS Barham in WWII, but she exploded while about 2/3 toward totally capsizing to port, and thus was already sinking; Pommern by contrast just exploded.
1
^ Missed the point; you both have, which was; No Dreadnought has ever been cited as having exploded because of a Torpedo hit (which rules it out quite decisively as a risk of central turrets... which it wasn't anyway because by the time central turrets were a common thing, so was A/T protection) I also pointed out that Pommern had basically no A/T protection... if anyone had bothered to read that bit -_- .
1
@535phobos Good to know that we do concur on said points, as my original statement was toward the OP claiming midships turrets were especially vunerable (somehow), which I reputed by pointing out a decent armour & underwater protection scheme removes said weakness. (albeit granted not as optimally as designs with the magazines less spread out over the ship)
1
@mattbowden4996 Aye, we are ^_^ . On "turret farm" ships like Agincourt though there's a point at least that properly armouring it all... was basically impossible XD (compared to a shorter ship with triple or quads... but of course such ships only existed because the customer couldn't afford the latter option / had operational requirements preferring length to width)
1
^ False, on all points. Carriers replaced nothing, and nearly died out after WWII, until multiple innovations by the UK (Angled Flight Deck, Mirrored Landing Sight & Steam Catapult) saved it from oblivion. What was rendered obsolete by WWII was the Torpedo Bomber, when its painfully slow attack airspeed - limited by the laws of physics - made attacking warships with Air Search Radar, Radar Direction for the AAA, and Proximity Fuses... well suicidal. Battleships by contrast: the west made none after 1946 not because they were redundant or not wanted... but because the only threat country left [the USSR] lacked the ability - for various reasons - to build any. That, and the west had plenty of modern ones in service anyway. Politically though: everyone wanted Atom Bombs after WWII: Navies ended up in a solid 2nd place re' funding priority, apart from where nukes were includable. A~and no: there are various instances of warships having Spotter 'planes onboard for gunnery spotting against other ships (as well against shore targets), though Radar would see greater use as events played out. Examples of this are HMS Exeter during the Battle of River Plate (tried to launch the 'plane, only for enemy fire to scupper it), the Bismarck (which had one, yet due to an engine defect couldn't use it), and HMS Warspite during the Battle of Narvik, where the Spotter 'plane both bombed a U Boat, as well as performing recon' and fire spotting of shot for Warspite. (said battle led to Warspite sinking a group of Kreigsmarine Destroyers)
1
^ Nah. As it was it wasn't until after WWII that the Carrier truly came of age. (during the war, they couldn't operate 24hr, as the means to land a squadron in the dark didn't really exist, and aircraft radar was still far too rare and basic) Now Aircraft Gunnery Spotting; that had progressed a lot by WWII, and needed to, as all warships were limited by being unable to spot fall of shot over the horizon.
1
^ This ^_^ . I don't know a single Italian after all who's ever protested how us Brit's pronounce Lancia ("Lance-iah", instead of "Lan~chea").
1
^ Err the reason for that is obvious. The Graf Spee had only one rangefinder, ruling out engaging multiple targets. As it was by then Graf Spee was already mission killed, by being too badly damaged to return to Germany without repairs. (which was impossible, as nuetral ports couldn't do that without breaking said nuetrality; this is why post-WWII formal declarations of war fell out of use)
1
@TTTT-oc4eb Well as Drach' has asserted before, the H Class's stat's are suspect at best; a bit like how most official top speeds for Kaiserlichemarine warships were best case examples. (best coal, special propellers, calm water and not while fully combat loaded)
1
@randallturner9094 Range means nothing if the opponent can run you down first, and Langsdorf knew it, as he went to great lengths to elude the RN up till that point (rather well it has to be said), as he knew he couldn't run away from multiple 8" Heavy Cruisers or a Battlecruiser if either turned up, nor hope to win a battle without mission ending damage. Also, no. It was the type of fuel that made the fuel system so vunerable. Among other complexities, the Diesel Oil had to be warmed in the ship's funnel before it could be used in the engines (Drach' sums this up better than I can), which made the ship vunerable to mission killing damage even from 6" fire.
1
@TTTT-oc4eb Quite a few of them aye, but in Germany's case they do stand out as being the Capital Ship equivilant of hot rodding.
1
^×3 Hmm, so espousing nonsense & dissing Drach' tis all you've got to reply with?, #Disappointing . I suppose you pointing out my only typo is of some note, albeit only as an instance of pedantry.
1
@TTTT-oc4eb For direct sourcing I'm not sure, but Drach' has cited his sources on various occasions, and generally tallys with the source material I do have to hand. (such as german coal being the largely poorer quality brown variety, which is well known)
1
^ Hardly. I'd say you're confusing constructive engineering criticism with prejudice. As it was the Bismarck class was a lot of tonnage for relatively little armament, especially when compared to other ships of the time. Her construction was also proven to be flawed in the 00's, when it was found her whole stern had sheered off along a weld seam. That; and even crew members cited issues, such as the fact that the AA battery being positioned such as to result in smaller emplacements being blinded by the muzzle flashes of larger guns next to them. (this occuring during the Swordfish attacks) This being just a few examples, but you get my point I hope. No warship is without legit' points of criticism.
1
^ So~ resorting to petty name calling is all you've got boyo?~ #HowPathetic . A~and nope: it's a fact that the HSF scuttled without orders from Germany to do so, and before the peace negotiations had reached a final decision upon the fate of the ships. (yes the outcome was on the side of apportioning them to the victors, but no specifics had been agreed upon) Admiral Tirpitz certainly didn't think scuttling achieved anything, stating in his memoirs: "The german people do not understand the sea. In the hour of our destiny, we did not use our fleet (referring to the 1918 mutiny, which essentially brought down the government); whether our sins can pick up the task again, lies hidden in the darkness of the future." Try harder boyo.
1