Comments by "Bk Jeong" (@bkjeong4302) on "The Mark 14 Torpedo - Failure is Like Onions" video.

Bizzon666 The Germans at least acted quickly to fix those issues.
33
@Rayy‘s Musikladen Under Admiral Gensoul's command. Edit: and working for the guys who decided to build a collective 31 battleships and large cruisers in the carrier era.
5
@ThroneOfBhaal Then things are bad, but not to the point America risks losing the war. Sheer economic might will see them through.
3
Richard Taylor To be fair, the long lance could still malfunction: it’s just that it didn’t malfunction anywhere near as often as the Mark 14.
3
Rayy‘s Musikladen LMAO!
3
Weeb Extraordinaire It was an abomination of a torpedo.
2
josh thomas-moore She was a bad ship on paper (compared to the battleships everyone else had) that actually managed to do something due to luck. Since battleships were obsolete in WWII, being a well-designed battleship didn’t mean one would get the chance to engage peer opponents.
2
Peter Nyström Yes.
2
Dynasty Gamer .......they DIDN’T prove effective. Of those 31 ships only two of them (Washington and Duke of York) even managed to justify their existence. The rest either did nothing, engaged peer opponents in situations where a carrier would have been a better choice, or did secondary roles that would have been done more cost-effectively with other ships. Carriers rendered battleships obsolete before the US entered the war. They just didn’t know it yet.
1
@Dynasty0612 Battleships weren't cost-effective for carrier escort or shore bombardment: - A carrier shouldn't ever be in a position where it needs defence against surface ships, two CLAAs offered as much AA as an Iowa at less cost, and battleships can't do ASW. - Shore bombardment was a consolation prize for battleships, something given to them because they couldn't be used in their intended role of sea control. It wasn't something they did because they were ever cost-effective at it. And destroyers and cruisers did a lot more bombardment and often outperformed the battleships. And there is a difference between completing a battleship in the 20s-early 30s, and continuing to build them into the late 30s-40s. Plenty of battleships were built even though there was ample time to cancel them.
1
@Dynasty0612 Bismarck was awful compared to Iowa (bigger, much better protected, much better armed, slight faster), Yamato (much bigger, much better protected, much better armed, and only 2-3 knots slower), Vanguard (larger, similar speed and armament, much better protection), Littorio (Similar size and speed, much better protected, much better armed), or Richelieu (much better protected and similar armament and speed while being 5,000 tons lighter, meaning she had less displacement to soak up hits but was also cheaper). Against any of these five Bismarck gets ripped apart. And some of these were around when Bismarck was put in service. Even South Dakota might have an overall advantage against Bismarck if the two were to fight (due to better durability and armament). Of course, all of these ships were obsolete on launch and should never have existed. Bismarck just happened to get lucky enough that both the British and the Germans decided to slug it out in a gunfight when the British could have just used carriers at Denmark Strait and get an easy win. The others never got that lucky so never engaged peer opponents, thus belying their better designs.
1
@Bryan Roper A rant on the Vasa would be nice. If you haven't realized by now, I would really like to see a rant on why the fuck 31 big-gun vessels got built in the carrier era, seeing as that is still the largest-scale naval procurement disaster in history. But that would also be the most controversial video Drach ever makes (if he makes it) due to this channel having way too many rabid battleship fanboys.
1
tyrendian89 Ten-Go was never even supposed to succeed. That says a lot.
1
DERP Squad He didn’t use the 16”/50 for that one.
1
AName. They weren’t.
1
Somillian Pretty much any of the 31 big-gun ships built in the carrier era on both sides of WWII. Just why?!
1
Cole Parker No just no. Bismarck’s 15” guns may be comparable to the French and British 15” guns or the British 14” gun, but they are outmatched by the American 16”/45 and 16”/50 guns, the Japanese 18.1” gun, and the Italian 15” gun: these guns had better penetration (either due to greater mass or insane muzzle velocity), and the American and Japanese guns also had bigger explosive charges. And most importantly, these guns came in three triple turrets (allowing the ships to carry 9 main guns in total) while the German 15” gun came in 4 twin turrets (for a total of 8 guns), and also taking up more space than the 9 guns per American/Italian/Japanese vessel. Combined that with all four German battleships being badly armoured compared to any of their contemporaries, and the only thing they really have going for them is speed-and even then, France and Italy matched them in this regard and the US eventually exceeded it.
1
@coleparker Firsthand accounts from combat veterans aren't always the best sources, especially in scenarios where they are unlikely to be aware of (or care about) the flaws and strategic weakness of a given weapon system, or when the value of a weapons system is greatly overestimated in public consciousness (both of which are factors that apply to battleships). As AA platforms, battleships were once again NOT the best AA platforms for protecting carriers (relative to their cost). Two CLAAs had as much AA firepower as a battleship, and also had radar-guided fire control, while being much cheaper than a battleship. The US would have gotten a much better trade by building more CLAAs and skipping the fast battleships. Carriers (other than CVEs) were NOT vulnerable to surface attack, because they could simply maintain distance. HMS Glorious is the ONLY case where a fleet carrier was lost to surface attack, even in the Atlantic-and this was caused by human incompetence, not an inherent issue of carriers. The US built 10 battleships in WWII. This is less than the number of carriers built by the US, but the British and Japanese also built more carriers than battleships (in fact they built fewer battleships than the US, though granted this may be because they had less resources to work with), and building even ONE battleship in WWII was a waste of resources. If the British and Japanese wasted resources on battleships, which they did, we must also accept the American battleships were similarly wasteful.
1
@coleparker A carrier without planes (or in a situation where it cannot launch planes) can simply stay out of firing distance...again, Glorious could have done that if her commanding officer wasn't an idiot.
1
Cole Parker You can just put anti-ship missiles on DDGs: no need for a battleship.
1
Cole Parker A carrier without planes can still choose to not be within shooting distance, while a battleship can’t bring the fight to a carrier even with its guns intact.
1
Cole Parker You don’t need battleships to carry missiles around. Just build DDGs. Survivability when hit isn’t the most important concern for naval design, and battleships CAN be defeated by missiles-the Fritz X managed, and there are anti-shipping missiles today that are much more capable than than the Fritz X.
1
Cole Parker HMS Glorious is NOT a good case study, because she could actually have escaped just fine (if not won) if not for her commanding officer being an idiot. It’s doesn’t show what happens when carriers face battleships and both know what they’re doing. Samar involves CVEs; fleet and light carriers are a lot more mobile. And the carriers won that fight (naval aviation achieved far more than popular accounts assume, especially since the CVEs did actually have some anti-shipping weapons there). A battleship with its guns in a world that has carriers is just a durable, well-defended target that can’t actually use its guns against enemy combatants that can simply remain out of its reach and attack with impunity. Unless the body of water is so small as to make it outright impossible for the carrier to remain out of range, the carrier will always have the upper hand, simply because it can attack and the battleship cannot.
1
Cole Parker Of course I’m focusing on the capital ship role-that is the point of a battleship in the first place. The issue is that battleships simply cost way too much to be built just for secondary roles (all battleships ever built, even the Iowas, were variations on the theme of killing peer opponents in surface combat). They were only ever used for these roles because they were begging for things to do after being rendered obsolete: it’s not something to get worked up about (as way too many people do). And even their tactical utility in these roles compared to subcapital units is surprisingly poorly supported, with most being either “veteran’s tales” (where propaganda, poor prior knowledge or bias tends to lead to a less-than-objective perspective), cases of overclaiming (especially common with AA) or outright fabrications. Battleships were always supposed to be primary units. The moment they could no longer be primary units, they were done, even if they really were as good at secondary roles as often claimed to have been (which they weren’t).
1
Samuel Thompson That’s if the torpedo was hit and exploded, not if it malfunctioned. And note that one case of oxygen torpedoes exploding on deck has been disproven (though other such cases did happen)
1
josh thomas-moore The Japanese, easily.
1
Cole Parker Except that level of firepower was overkill and not necessary, even against most fortifications. The reason the Iowas were used for shore bombardment wasn’t because they were the best choices for the job; it was to get any use (and thus return on investment) out of ships that were obsolete and should never have existed in the first place.
1