Comments by "Bk Jeong" (@bkjeong4302) on "HMS Dreadnought - Guide 001 (Human Voice)" video.

  1. 7thsealord French Predreadnoughts tick all the boxes for being useless capital ships. Obsolete on launch? Check. Prone to capsizing? Check. Structurally unsound? Check. High risk of flooding? Check. Horrible armament design? Check. Horrible armour design? Check. Use of new, untested and often pointless technology? Check. Ugly as sin? Check. There are many capital ships that have one or two of the same problems but none of the others have ALL of these problems.
    31
  2. snakes3425 And little did he know that his new invention would a) help trigger WWI (though it was inevitable at that point, he made it worse), and b) become obsolete in the 1930s.
    10
  3.  @marckyle5895  The Massena. Probably the worst battleship ever built.
    7
  4. orangelion03 Because they WERE less seaworthy.
    5
  5. Manuel Garcia You have it backwards. Sinking other ships was the primary purpose of a battleship. They’re overkill for shore bombardment. Aircraft carriers are more multipurpose: originally intended as scouts, but they became anti-ship and anti-installation units. The only reason carriers don’t sink ships today is because there isn’t a big naval war going on.
    2
  6. Manuel Garcia ....... If you want to transport your troops and ruin the enemy ports, you need to sink the enemy navy first. So yes, being able to sink other ships IS an absolute necessity. Ships of the line were adapted to sink enemy fleets so your transports could land your forces and your other ships could shoot up the enemy ports. Same with battleships. The whole idea that battleships were always intended to destroy enemy ports is a myth. You need to sink the enemy navy if you want to get to their ports in the first place. Sinking an enemy military vessel DOES have a big impact BECAUSE that enables your own naval force to move around without fear of counterattack.
    2
  7. Support for torpedo nets. They swung outwards when in use.
    2
  8. Diche Bach Probably in the 1930s, when carriers gained actual killing power.
    2
  9. Diche Bach Yeah. As arguably the worst example of military procurement ever, and a huge mistake made by both sides of WWII, it deserves more attention. Even in WWI it was the battlecruisers that were largely responsible for the big capital ship matches.
    2
  10. Diche Bach While subs were definitely lethal, they’re most effective as raiders. It’s the fact battleships couldn’t attack a carrier (barring extreme human stupidity a la Glorious) that made them useless.
    2
  11. Obsolete since the 1930s even.
    1
  12. longlakeshore Except unlike nukes, battleships couldn’t prevent a world war....
    1
  13. longlakeshore The reason battleships weren’t used as front-line units in WWII was because they proved to be awful in their intended role when carriers existed. They were indeed intended as the primary units, but failed to do their jobs. Battleships weren’t built as deterrents. They were built to kill each other but then failed to actually kill each other, leading to the false impression they were for intimidation when they were just awful at doing their jobs.
    1
  14. longlakeshore That was due to the “we need battleships to sink enemy battleships” mentality, not “we need battleships to scare other nations into submission”. The reality is that battleships were just bad weapons, rather than being intended for propaganda roles.
    1
  15. longlakeshore Battleships were rendered obsolete by carriers in the 1930s, well into the dreadnought era; before that battleships did have a point as actual weapons. And again, people built them (even after there was no reason whatsoever to do so) because they stupidly thought they would still be useful for the purpose of sinking other battleships, not because they wanted a show of force.
    1
  16. longlakeshore And how does that prove your point?
    1
  17. longlakeshore A prestige weapon is intended for little purpose besides intimidation, which was NOT the intent behind battleships.
    1
  18. Manuel Garcia The job of destroying enemy infrastructure is largely an army (and later Air Force) job. They can extend much further onto enemy lands than any navy can.. Battleships were NOT designed around shelling coastal areas. They’re actually a steam-powered extension of the big ships of the line in the age of sail; they were supposed to attack and sink enemy ships, thus gaining naval supremacy and enabling one side to blockade the other. That’s why battleship arms races took place around matching or exceeding the capabilities of enemy battleships. The primary mission of battleships (and carriers, after the 1930s) is to carry the battle to the enemy fleet, not to the enemy shore.
    1
  19. Hjalmar I was thinking of stuff like Sherman’s March to the Sea or strategic bombing, but yeah navies are needed to secure trade-except that you need your navy to sink the enemy navy first, which is where ships-of-the-line and capital ships come in.
    1
  20. James Hope I think this whole myth of battleships being intended for shore bombardment can be blamed on the USN; they (and everyone else) kept building and maintaining battleships after they were obsolete at their intended role and thus pointless, and had to use them for something. So they ended up using them in shore bombardment, a role they were never intended for (and were overkill for). Propaganda and media of the time played up the shore bombardment role of battleships (especially the new ones that were obsolete before commissioning), which may have been a deliberate and largely successful attempt at hiding the fuck-up. This may also be why only the Axis navies get criticized for wasting money on obsolete battleships when the Allies also did the same. There were plenty of things the Axis got wrong and the Allies got right, but this isn’t one of them.
    1