Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "The Drydock - Episode 156" video.

Just as funny when your low
4
Good point. It's amazing how many times people forget that the rest of the world was at work 3 or more years before the US was. The bonus to the economy and experience gained after years building arms for other countries help a heck of a lot as well.
2
I've read a good half dozen books on the campaign. I've never come across any mention of a single command ship. In fact command rotated as various naval stragies were tried. And of course, failed. The said commanders were sure as heck not popping champagne corks.
1
@billbolton given the fact that the American public have had "fake news" rammed down their throats. And been lied to by their leader for 4+ years. I'm not shocked the uptake is so low. Just like other despots across history. Trump made lies the truth. No wonder so many think vaccines are a big con to make someone somewhere money. It worked in Germany in the 30s, Italy before that and in countless other countries. America the free. America the experiment. And it so nearly failed. God help us the next decade as we see the fallout
1
Interesting point. But... Not many would be sunk before RN battleships did something about it. I mean. The US didn't send it's subs and destroyers to the Atlantic to escort convoys from coast to coast. And u boats were sinking American merchant ships and even attacking naval ships.
1
William Mulvaney long chats I've had with people who lived through the war would say otherwise. Rationing was no joke. The escort crisis really taxed the RN, ships were lost and men died that wouldn't have if the u boats weren't so successful in the Atlantic. Add to that the Mediterranean theatre (probably the most important theatre of the early war). In which convoys were decimated with huge losses in life and materials. And of course the suffering of the people of Malta and ultimately the African war which would undoubtedly would have been a very different kettle of fish if convoys had proper escort and the sea lanes could have been blockaded against the axis..... All this snowballs into Greece and the Balkans. In other words. Had the KM actually been too small to be significant. The war would have been a heck of a lot shorter.
1
William Mulvaney I see your logic. It's actually a common way of thinking I see a lot in comments on Drachs channel and other YouTube/web based places of discussion. I'm going to try and address your comments purely as an educational triest. I'd like to think I'm fairly impartial (as far as one can be). And we all knew nothing at one point. I've studied the period 1870-1945 for quarter of a century and I learn something new every day. First point. The med wasn't fully under air cover. Axis aircraft lacked range from the get go. The Luftwaffe was built with a doctrine that centered on support of the army. Remember, Germany was at the time and always had been a land power. Right back to the formation of the Reich, their military priorities were shaped by their location in central Europe (heck, they didn't even WANT colonies when Bismarck was alive, not like Britain, France,Japan and America. So. Their aircraft had short range and were not optimised for anti ship work. That isn't the most important factor when it comes to air attack though....
1
William Mulvaney it's often forgotten that in the early war. It was very different tactically from the view we have now. Looking back we know that as the war progresses. Ships became more and more at the mercy of air attack. But in the early war. This wasn't the case. Yes we know about the famous strikes such as Bismarcks steering and Taranto. But the prevailing opinion was that surface combatants and submarines were the main threats. And this was true at the start of the war. Aircraft matured very quickly (especially in the Pacific when the us entered the war). Distribution of assets reflected this. Escorts for anti sub work and anti warship escort were badly needed and every one that escorted an Atlantic or coastal convoy took one away from the med. Leaving convoys their open to attack and conversely stopping destroyers etc from acting offensively (were obviously talking post collapse in France and Italy entering the war. The sub threat in the North sea, the coast and the Atlantic was very serious. The threat of surface raiders really added another dimension and they had an effect way above their cost.
1
Side note, fritz x wasn't deploed until mid 43. The situation had changed a fair bit by then (as far as north africa goes). Also, the stukas were more than capable of sinking ships. But if they encountered any fighter escort from malta or a carrier, they were cut down in droves. Back to the ships. This is the crux of the matter. It comes down to a fleet in being. Heavy units on the west french coast were a massive threat if they found a convoy without battleship escort (and if bismark had joined the ships in breast. the RN admiralty would want a minimum of 2 battleships to consider a convoy vaguely "safe". And here is the issue. With any number of convoys in the atlantic, transiting up the west coast of africa and in the north sea (once russia was involed). There were not enough battleships. Especially as some had to be kept in the home fleet, and force H at Gibraltar was guarding the most precious bit of real estate west of Egypt. So. The Kriegsmarine may not have attacked convoys in the med. But the italians did. Their littorio class ships were dam impressive beasts. And the RN never expected to face them. That was frances job. They did sorty and it was only sheer luck that more convoys were not decimated. how to defend against the italian navy.... you need more of them battleships you dont have. The irony is, the heavy surface ships that germany built. Were probably some of their most effective weapons of war. Sure they didn't accomplish much. But that didn't matter. The threat that they COULD was enough. I know i am waffleing on. But it's one of them things. There are so many sides to what happend and why
1
William Mulvaney final thoughts. Assuming Bismark was in the atlantic raising hell. RN and US air cover wouldnt help once they were a decent distance from land. The long range aircraft were all (in effect) level bombers.... and time and again we saw even late in the war that such bombers were not effective against ships underway. Tirpitz was my argument in miniture. The effect she had on the convoys and tieing up much needed escorts was out of proportion to her ability as a fighting unit. As for sailors going to the eastern front. They mostly went into small surface combatants and u boats. It was only very late in the war that surplus navy personel and luftwaffe ground crews were used as foot soldiers (there are some very interesting political reasons why, but i've waffled on more than enough) The conclusion. The war wasn't like the computer games many of us play. A "unit" that never kills an enemy and only gets itself damaged may be usless in a game. In a real war it can alter the fate of thousands of lives.
1
William Mulvaney I dare say the Germans were terrifying. But the Italians sunk them. I'd recommend reading about the war in the med. It's fascinating. In the war diary's of canaries, Doenitz and Reader plus top nazis (Himmler springs to mind) show that they knew that forgetting about Russia for 7/8 months and instead taking Egypt and the oil fields beyond was likely a war winner. It's incredible how few people realise how easily Germany could have won the war. But only in a small window of time. And only if the stars aligned. Going back to our topic. If Bismarck tied up a few more ships and kept them from the med. And if (and this is the "if") Hitler had a moment to listen to his admirals. He could have taken Egypt, the Suez canal and with them the Persian oil fields, plus RN/empire bases like Malta and Cyprus. Gibraltar would become largely meaninglessness. And the axis would have time to take the balkens, Greece and such at lesure. Now consider Barbarossa, except army group south can push north and hook left around the black sea to take Stalingrad with ease. And all of a sudden. The war is very very scary. In no other theatre and in no other time were the allies able to loose so badly. And all of this could happen before American was in the war. It could have happened in the 2 and a half years before amrica entered and it could have happened in the year following America entering as that's how long it took for the us army to get stuck in. Thank god it didn't happen that way and once the us had boots in Europe, the Germans and their allies were loosing options quickly
1
@johnshepherd8687 your forgetting. Bismarck would not have attacked USA shipping. Just as Sharnhorst and genisanau* didn't sink USA shipping when they were marauding. And of course graf spea* didn't sink USA shipping. Bismarck and any other heavy units would have attacked shipping in convoy. Just as the u boats did. There would have been no extra causes Belli. There was no need for the surface raiders to sink US ships. They knew the lessons of ww1. They also knew that the USA public and most of the politicians wanted to stay out of the war. Put these factors with one very obvious tactical factor. That being that the most valuable ship to sink was one carrying supplies that the UK needed to survive (which were the ships in convoys) and you have the end to the circle of your argument. Bismarck would have attacked the most valuable targets which were also the ones least likely to offend the USA public. Remember. The battle of the Atlantic was a political battle and a logistical battle. It was not a battle of stratagem. The USA did great things in ww2. Without thwir deeds at the time the 20th century would have been very different and not for the best. Europe especially thanks the USA for that. But Pretending the USA was the magic spell that fixed everything is an injustice to history. Let's not cherry pick what makes the side we come from look good....please. * It's 4:39 am here and I'm not awake by choice. Please forgive the spelling
1
@johnshepherd8687 added note. She was attacked by carrier based aircraft. These were as I'm effective as us carrier based aircraft would have been (at the time). If the USA carriers did what the RN carrier did. Then the standards may have caught up with Bismarck (assuming the aircraft damaged her). Just like the RN did with Rodney catching her. But all your advocating is that the us may have been able to do what the RN actually did do. I'm not sure how this would have been a good thing for FDR. Bismarck would have been after convoys with war material If the us wasn't in the war. They couldn't attack bismark with the ships you state. That would be an American declaration of war. And one with little provocation. This would not have been popular among the USA public. As I'm sure you know. My question is. What's your thoughts on this. I don't understand what your thinking
1
@geoffbarney5914 the u boat pens that were attacked vigorously? Ok it took tallboy to really do the job. But the place wasn't invulnerable. And every month that passed. The RAF had more "heavies" that could reach there without a problem.
1