Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "The Loss of Force Z - Why send battleships against aircraft?" video.

  1. There were mistakes made. But your comments are very easy to make in hindsight. For example, the lack off AA. Where would you have taken guns and ammunition away from? To put on x or y ship? Remember, this isn't a computer game. You can't just churn out infinite numbers of weapons. There is a finite amount of everything that can be made. As a result I'm sure you would agree that you have to spread out your weapons and try and focus on where you hope the greatest threat is. The RAF failing the RN? I don't think so. The channel dash may have been a fiasco. But the RAF didn't fail the RN. They may have failed. But they weren't acting in support of the RN. They were in a defence of the nation role and of course were acting as recon against a sortee (which was expected to be into the Atlantic, not that it mattered on the night in question). Communication/coordination was actually a strong suit for the British Armed forces. Helped by the global empires communication links and by the streamlining of the 20s and the lead up to war. An obvious example of this on a local level would be the Dowding system. A theatre example would be that which Cunningham was so fortunate to have in the Mediterranean. Finally. It's important to remember that at this point. It wasn't a holy writ of war that ships had to have air cover. It is now. And it is now precisely [b]because[/b] things like the force z sinking happened. Had aircraft sunk ships? Yes of course. But it wasn't expected that capital ships would be live bait in open ocean without air cover. If anything the fighting in the med had proved that to be true. You may disagree. But I think that if you consider the situation as it happened. Your interpretation of the events is incorrect
    9
  2. 3