Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
318
-
27
-
24
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@thecatalyst6212 People describe the fact how long such a burden as war lasted. If do you read Forester or other writers with their fictional British sea-heroes or more adjusted to the truth, talented pirates, like, in reality, Sidney-Smith or Cochrane (both were the best military seamen in history), you'll read, that all those heroes whether died or were fatigue about war, especially the Napoleonic Wars lasted more than 20 years. Think about, one of my grandfathers served in 2 WWs, after it, he was a broken man. Living in times of war was never funny. There is always war, but most times, as in our case, not in the own backyard.
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
@adamdubin1276 The Spaniards built the best ships, but suffered under the nobles in the spanish society. A spanish comission was a bought privilege, public yachting. As in France spanish officers did not want to fight. In the battle of the Saintes, Drach mentioned it in the vid, you see the failure of de Grasse, who saw sea-warfare as a project. Rodney was no genius, but de Grasse had no aim to find him and to destroy the Brits. In the war of Independence the Brits were obiously lost, if there would not have been a lack of political will in France and Spain to destroy the Empire for once and forever. Check the fate of the best French admiral ever, Bali de Suffren, who was more british than the Brits. His officers were not willing to follow his ideas and orders. The secret of British sea-superiority lays behind one court-marshalled and shot british admiral, Mr. Byng, after he lost battle of Menorca. Even Admiral Hollands decision to attack immediatly the Germans at Denmark Strait in 1941, instead to wait for Norfolk & Suffolk, refers too this one judgement of 1757.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@justforever96 Yes, that's correct. But at the doggerbank were only 11, 12 & 13,5 inch guns present. At Jutland the Brits had some 15 inch gun ships. The weight of a British 15 inch gun was around 880 KG on Hood. The German 15 inch gun had a weight of 750 KG,. on Bismarck 800 KG. The 11-inch high velocity-projectile of the Scharnhorst-class had only a weight of slightly above 300 KG. On paper the Scharnhorst could shot 3,5 rounds a minute, same as Bismarck, caused by the same simple reload system. But Schneider shot at Denmark Strait in average 1 round a minute. The 11 inch gun had several advantages, more projectiles in the magazine and the guns had more stamina than 15 inch guns. 15 inch guns could survive 254 rounds, 11 inch guns a 100 rounds more. Scharnhorst's 11 inch guns could penetrate most of all existing armaments except the main belts. The fatal hit on Scharnhorst at the North Cape by Duke of York's 14 inch guns reached the propulsion room slightly above the main belt. This hit was deadly by his lucky accuracy not by the weight of the projectile. When Kirishima was hit by Washington's 16 inch guns of several broadsides on nearly point blank range, the broadside weight made no difference. As You mentioned, smaller calibre, more broadsides available. And in WWII only 2 British BB-constructions were sunk by artillery.
5
-
5
-
5
-
Weserübung was improvised...and the Germans had no time to lose by the necessity to secure Narvik's iron ore rail-road. This is proved by the fact, that the Brits reached Narvik at the same day. Every heavy cruiser passing Oscarsburg in slow speed would have been sunk. What Drachinifel missed to mention, is that the failure of Blücher was caused again by those miserable German flag officers, in this case rear-admiral Kummetz. He ordered slow speed. His flag-captain Heinrich Woldag demanded to sail as fast as possible to avoid Norwegian attacks. And as usual those useless guys in the Kriegsmarine were promoted.
Drach's comparison with county-class heavy cruisers, i beg pardon, is totally useless. PE's Gunnery was quite superiour, the guns longer and heavier, more AA-gun-batteries, more and better 2nd artillery, 30 meters more length, 2 meters wider beam, (same speed), more torpedos. This caused a much bigger crew (including prize-crews), nearly doubled numbers, means more mess-rooms and supply-storage, and PE loaded respectively the double weight of ammunition. So, it is easy to understand where the additional displacement of PE is coming from and out of question, a little bit more research and less prejudice would be appropriate.
After HMS London's refit the ships superstructure stressed under the new heavy weight. The ship was too small, the refits misconstructed. Remaining inside the treaty was seen as a ridiculous punctiliousness in Britain.
Drach's beloved triple-gun-turrets are fine for a fleet in superiour numbers of ships, but impair the ships's stabilty, shifting weight out of the mid-centre. For minor navies fighting against superiour sqadrons more turrets to fight multiple targets are the correct construction-style.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@rambysophistry1220 this is what they tell us in school or at the university. Wilson admitted in 1919 that the founding of the FED as it happened during Christmas holidays, was his main failure, because the FED is not federal, the ownership consists of US private banks, funny isn't it? During the Weimar Republic the Germans debated, too, the question of a private National-Bank or a public one. The Bank of England was a private bank, too, till 1948, after Bretton Woods there was no use of it anymore. The founders of the Bank of England in 1694 are still blacked. The II. Reich could refinance the war alone with war-bonds. Britain could not. JPMorgan gave big loans to Britain. In 1916, after Galipoli Britain loses the war, what meant, the JPs loans to Britain were going into default. Let die some unexperienced GIs to save those loans. Maybe you should hear the famous Freedman-speech (1961), available on YT. About Russia is to say that at the beginning of the Russian Civil war, the Entente Powers supported the White Guardists against the Red Army. The Red Army was in a bad state until Trotzki came back from his Canadian exile with a lot of money loaned from US bankers (mainly Jacob Schiff). With this money Trotzki managed the re-organisation of the Red Army, (the Entente Powers stopped the support for the Whites), won the Civil War, fought back the aggressive Poles who invaded Russia (Polish army stood beyond Kiev) during the Polish-Sovjet-War, lost only the last battle of Warsaw, what definded the ridicoulous border the Poles still demand. About WWII read Churchill-quotes. Churchill did not care about Hitler or any other Reichs-Government. Churchill aimed the destruction of Germany and the genocide of German people. After the war, he admitted, "we slaughtered the wrong pig". Churchill was the worst European politician in human history. He destroyed the biggest empire that the planet had ever seen, and additionally the continent of Europe in a lifetime.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@genericpersonx333 the US navy controllers were not enthusiastic about Prinz Eugen's abilities. What the most of the participants, who answered to you, do not understand, is the relativeness. US navy, as airforce and army, could rely on never-ending supplies and most of the infinite ressources were wasted, but who cares. Small countries as Germany, Italy or Japan with no empire in their back, had very limited ressources. So, we should evalue their achievements under those circumstances. This is more evident, when we notice that soviet and us military after-war-development is based mainly on robbed German technology, one of the main reasons for this war. It would take several annual US budgets to compensate in favour of the Germans the world's biggest bucaneering ever.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@KroM234 This is not only your and my opinion. Numbers are obvious. To evalue the history we have to check political intentions. The Brits, incorporated by the RN, followed the real imperial strategy (copied from the Romans) to destroy all enemy forces. Till today, continental forces, at this time the Frenchies and Spaniards, except the admirals Suffren and de Bazán, saw warfare at sea more as a political instrument, as a noble hobby, and comparable to the Germans in WWI and II. The fatal error was to underestimate the brutal atrocity of anglo-american policies of permanent warfare, which was fairly copied from Augustus, who was famous for his pax romana, but who waged permanent war in reality. The big french fleet, which gave the US independence, ruined the french economy, which led to the French revolution with it's well known outcome. What guys as de Grasse never understood was, with a sunk Royal Navy the brit colonies would had become automatically french ones. The deGrasse' made useless enterprises and adventures instead to bottle up the RN in british ports and to kill John Company.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gregzeigler3850 I beg pardon, i meant the US took profit from WWI and WWII. But the US was after the end of WWII too weak to influence the political situation in China. The Chinese civil war between Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, beginning 1927, ended 1949 and the result of the Korean war ended with a stalemate. Here we see the start of the US decline as the leading world power from it's beginning. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping took over and created the current China (& the entire far east), which dislodges the US and the entire West, as you decribed it. The imperialistic thinking of US policies, inherited from the Brits, led to the expensive expansion of the military complex. 800 US overseas bases against one of China in Djibouti, (Britain still 16), charges the taxpayers a lot, and the US charges the entire planet with indirect taxes, enforcing the planet to buy the worthless Petrol-$. Your president Donald Trump is the first one in Oval Office who understands, that the US policy of military threats (for centuries) is over, already a long time. And he tries to counter China in the right way to support the own economy outside the military complex.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Jurassic Aviator the difference to the past is, that now, US corps and admins buy simply the best brains on the planet for development and progress. There is no real technical and eminent advantage on the planet anywhere, so no war, genociding the inhabitants, makes sense. WWII was the biggest bucaneering raid ever in history. The Soviets and the US were involved in a speed-race to robb German technology. Rockets, jet-engines, nuclear progress, agriculture you name it. They did not cared about the killing of 7 Mio. German people during the war and several mio. after the war. After Yeltsin opened Soviet archives, Putin classified all soviet warfiles soon again. The Brits blacked their own since the war. Your current president Trump analysed or realized the major problem of US forces in general very well. The US are still able to lay an entire country into ashes, but they are not able to win a war anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@lordbrain8867 the policy in Russia under the last Tsar had certain aspects, mainly the stupidity of the Tsar. Even in Germany and Habsburg the nobles were degenerated. Drach's japanese strategy of Kentai Kessen was simply wrong. To enforce major battles at sea, you have to enforce the melee at your own conditions. In the conflict against Russia, it was no problem for the IJN, because Russia wanted to expand it's strategic position from Vladivostok to the south (Port Arthur). In the conflict against the US, this was not the case. The US and Britain enforced the war by an oil embargo, which would had brought the Empire of Japan on it's knees. So, to enforce a major battle at sea, the Japanese had to attack the US mainland. At this time the US west coast was difficult to defend and easy to attack, only a few strongholds. The strength of the US and Britain were the economic ressources, not the education of the soldiers and seamen. The political mistakes of the Axxis-powers were that they never intended the total annihilation of the enemy's forces. The Allies intended this target.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielsummey4144 ... the ability of total destruction is still availabe, no doubts about that, but now only against weak countries like Vietnam or Iraq. As Jesse Ventura said, the US do not mess with Nuke-Powers. This is the reason, most countries like to get nukes. Regarding to General Clarks destablization of 7 countries in 5 years the short thinking of the US-admins only till the next quarter-year cash-level on the balance sheets, are responsable. The Russains spent in Syria only the 10th part of military investments im comparison to Nato-Powers, but gained a political success. The boneheaded Iraq-war resulted in the fact, that the Shiites have the oil. The US tax-payer and the exploited vasalls spent their money for nothing and no chicks for free. During the WWI, II, Korean-war-era the US Admins were ready to wipe all enemy-populations out. Today those genozides guarantee no economic results, which make those military investments useless. The bucaneering against Germany was the biggest loot ever in history. Already the value of stolen patents exceeds several US budgets. Russia rejected the US looting abilities, when Putin came into power. So the US-business-model of permanent war of aggression is over.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
Again a lot of work, Drach made, to present us the well documented sea-history, exspecially Nelson, of this age more lively. 3 decisive points in this fine documentation are false, from my point of view. 1. Nelson was not that genius, he was a propaganda figure. Of course, he was a good officer, a fine seaman, but no gentleman (easy to realise, how he handled the fate of Admiral Carraciolo). He won only against the amateurs & idiots, he failed against the professionals, for example at Tenerife. Sidney Smith & Thomas Cochrane were much more talented than Nelson & Nelson knew it, followed them with his jealousy. In my personal view both guys were the best sea-officers of all time. 2. Nelson did not invented the frontal attack against the enemy-line with 2 columns. Another more genius scotsman did it before. Admiral Duncan, a very smart giant, able to do the job of every able seaman, invented it 8 years before Trafalgar at the Battle of Camperdown against the Dutch. Unfortunately for the Brits, Duncan died already in 1804. He obviously would have avoided all those wrong decisions made by Nelson following the idiot Villeneuve. 3. Villeneuve was brave. Of course not, he was a coward & never fit for command. It was Boney's failure not to know his admirals by character. At the Nile the Frogs had only amateurs in command. Brueys sent the half of his crews to land for fetching water, instead to demand soldiers from Alexandria for the job. He knew that Nelson was after him, so the Frogs fought only with a half crew. Brueys anchored only by bow anchors, too frenchie lazy to bring out a spring on stern anchors. During the battle Villeneuve, commanding the rear, had enough time to establsih a spring for 2 ships of the line, to hammer the british bows of their leading vessels, let's say Bellerophon and Orion. And of course Boney had a better admiral relegated as a governor in the Carribean, Villaret-Joyeuse. Villaret-Joyeuse was educated by the best French admiral ever, Suffren (more british than the Brits, always demanded close action on pistol range). Villaret-Joyeuse (before the war a post-captain) fought without educated crews (with merchant sailing-masters on board) against Howe at the Glorious First of June. He was defeated tactically and won strategically. With his miserable crews this was an outstanding performance. Villaret-Joyeuse would have sailed into the channel and you, guys, would have to listen now a Froggish docu.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CaptCondor Most maritime historians estimate von Spee's decision as the most worse one. Von Spee knew about the superiour speed of those battle-cruisers, even the German BCs were much faster than his armoured cruisers and it was 10 o' clock in the morning in good weather. It is a simple calculation, that even with a 2 hours delay instead of one, the Brits will outrun the German armoured cruisers. And in good tradition Craddock led the action out of the range of the German artillerie, something a big part of the worse german officers chorps never understood, a lack of tradition. Von Spee has had 2 better options, the first was to attack immediatly at close range, mainly with torpedos, the Brits could not dodge in the harbour, with the opportunity that German sailors could swim to the shore in case of sinking. The other option had been an escape through the Falkland Sund. This would have forced the Brits into close action, better chances than on open seas, as it happened, and during the night the Germans could have escaped indeed. The braveness of the German Crews was for nothing. Von Spee could be a famous seaman, if he would have attacked Port Stanley with the destruction or only damaging the battlecruisers. From the tactical point of view attacking the harbour would have given the best result. But von Spee panicked, and panic is never a good adviser.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheNecromancer6666 this counts only for the crews and engineers. The social differences and behaviour between officers and crews were not helpful and the circumstances of comeradeship on board were better in WWII. The Germans were enforced to use their experiences, for example 2 aft turrets of Seydlitz out of action at the battle of the Doggerbank, because they were inferior. Admiral Beatty was too arrogant to use conclusions and consequences, because he commanded superiour forces. I do not share Drach's opinion about the biggest calibre is the best. The Germans had in WWI and II more rounds ammunition on board, because their shells were smaller. About speed you are right in the German planning. But in reality German battlecruisers were one or two knots faster than their british opponents. At the Doggerbank Blücher slowed the Germans down. Without Blücher we would not have seen the battle. It is a major mistake to put slow ships into the line of battle, as we have already seen in the battle of Tsushima, but the Germans repeated the mistake at the Doggerbank and Jutland. With a smaller and faster high seas fleet at Jutland Jellicoe would not have been able to cross the German T. The opposite is the case, it is probable that Scheer would have crossed the British T, before the Homefleet would have formed the line of battle. The would have meant a decisive victory for the Germans. At the battle of the Falklands Admiral Spee failed totally, Lütjens failed always, Kummetz failed at the Oslo Fjord, and Captain Langsdorff failed at the battle of River Plate. The Germans admiralty was miserable in tactics and strategics, and they promoted the wrong men. They decided politically, always a mistake. The German admiralty was not even able to calculate the correct fuel demand for their operations, unbelievable.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The Union knocked out many federal forts with Monitors, at this time a necessary performance, which otherwise would have cost many lifes of Union-soldiers storming those forts. Ironsides were limited, because there are not so many white oak-trees on the planet. Iron ore is available. And the Union-engineers invented the turret. The HMS Captain was an idea, which failed, so she had done her job. But no one needs an historian to get this conclusion. Round ships were again an idea, which failed, but for inventions failures are programmed, only the US heroes land on the moon with trials of those modules. The Russians suffered a lot at Kinburn under the bombardement by the French swimming batteries Lave, Tonnante und Dévastation. About the Russian battleships at Tsushima is to mention, their crews were not trained, the shells were miserable, and they had too many slow ships in the line, so the Japanse could always cross the T. And the Russian admiral was sleeping when Togo ordered the koop of his line. Oslyabya seems to be a failed construction with a too high main emphasis, so the ship capsized easily. And the british pre-Dreadnought Mikasa was even not looking so good after Tsushima. The Japanese had a better admiral and better trained crews. In WWII the Brits were enforced to buy 53 US destroyers and they paid with their main military overseas bases on the planet, this is defeat of Britain by the US. What Preston is talking about the quality of US destroyers? In the age of warships Mr. Preston is talking about, engineers had no computer-models, they had to try and error. If Mr. Preston would have been responsable for warschip-building we would still row galleys.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paoloviti6156 Italy is very young as a state or nation. So, the naval tradition is related to former sovereign cities, comparable to Germany as a federal patchwork rug & a part of the German I. Reich. So, except the brave Italian submarine-commanders, no one wanted to die for Italy, which was getting known during the Spanish civil war, when the Italian detachments to Spain were totally useless. Even Hitler made a mistake, when he sent troups (an entire army) with Rommel to Africa to support 20 or 22 Italian divisions against 3 British.... i am not so informed about the education in the Regina Marina, but in Germany, the Naval High-Command was influenced too much by politics. The braves were sent home, and the cowards & the dud shells were promoted. The Italians accepted, when the US Navy positioned the exile-mafiosi in the bow of their landing crafts in Sicily as the new order. The dream of an Italian Empire remained very shortly. But still better than the Brits, who still believe they have an empire as we can read every day on this channel.
2
-
@paoloviti6156 Dear Paolo ... Vittorio Veneto was not damaged by a 16-inch shell but by a swordfish-torpedo. The Italian air-force was too busy with it's duties in Greece, and the Luftwaffe-reconnaisance failed. The major aspect were the losses at the British air-raid on Taranto, where the half Italian fleet was set out of service. It was a strategic mistake, because Taranto is geographically too exposed. Something like Brindisi would have been better, but the Italian Naval High-Command, after the airraid on Taranto, shifted the fleet to La Spezia, Naples & Genua, where they were more or less useless. Another aspect was the miserable torpedo protection on Italian BBs (installed/constructed around 1935). Only one small swordfish-torpedo could effect severe damage on the BBs. Compare it with German BBs. When Scharnhorst was sunk at the North-Cape the Brits needed a minimum of 14 torpedo-hits to sink Scharnhorst, means Scharnhorst was better protected than Musashi or Yamato, which were hit by aerial-Torpedos and not as Scharnhorst by ship-torpedos. Scharnhorst's weak point was the armament above the main belt, where DoY could hit the propulsion room to slow down Scharnhorst's speed, in spite of the flat silhouette of Scharnhorst-class ships.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Iowa-class battleships were a failed investment at all, a lot of money for nothing, often happens still today in the industrial military complex. The Iowa-class were useless as battleships, only used to transport US presidents & as batteries without the chance to receive unfriendly fire. The Panama-canal limit of a 33 meter beam & the monstrous propulsion enforced the reponsable engineers to prolongate the long straight mid-section of the ships, which implies a worse artillery-platform during a battle led at full speed & made the hull very vulnerable against incoming fire. Compare Bismarck's hull. Only a short part of the mid-section reaches a beam of 36 meters, a much better shape to stabilise the hull during action & delivers much better streamlines. That's the reason the US navy never exposed the Iowas to unfriendly fire. The Iowas are crap, armed pesidental yachts. All the new US battleships had that wide mid-aft section. USS Washington was critized for her seakeeping qualities when she served with the Home Fleet. And Iowa could not keep up with HMS Vanguard during heavy weather in post war NATO exercise "Mariner" in 1953. Vanguard's rounded hull looks very German, with a length of 248 meters & a beam of 33, a ratio better than Hoods with 262 & 32. But Hood was still better than the Iowas with 270 & 33. In comparison the Scharnhorsts relatively good 235 & 30, but they received always sea-damages & were wet as Hood. Bismarck tops all with 250 & 36. PoW & Repulse sunk already after a ridiculous pounding. Scharnhorst took more poundings than the Yamatos before she sunk. The shape of the hull is a decisive factor. This diminishes the theory of the British torpedo sinking of Bismarck to 0. 4 torpedo-hits were, of course, not enough to sink Bismarck, when Scharnhorst sunk just after the 14th ship-to-ship-torpedo-hit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@22KaTsh Yes, of course, but all of your events you mentioned, were results of the Versailles Treaty, with many German people losing their civil rights in artificial states as Poland or Czechoslovakia. The US government under Bill Clinton intervened (as Adolf Hitler) when 700.000 Albanians were expelled from the Kosovo. This happened to 1.500.000 Germans or more, after the Versailles Treaty. In Poland ruled a very aggressive military dictatorship from 1926 (1921) till the invasion. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, the Allies, France and Britain, declared war over Germany, but not over the Sovjetunion, which means any moral standards in their decision-process were excluded. The most beloved Gustav Stresemann, a Nobel peace laureate, demanded much harder corrections of the Versailles Treaty than Adolf Hitler. I will not defend Mr. Hitler. But we have to decide, we talk about historical facts, as Drach usually do, or we talk about morals, which is most times a failed debate. How we could compare anyone (of the bad guys) in history with the greatest Rogue- and Pirate-State on the planet, the British Empire?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JohnE9999 Of course, but i only answered to Drach's comments and concernings. All late battleships were much longer than their predecessors, to get more range, speed, ammunition-bunkers, necessary water-bunkers and supplies. In case of the Iowas the story is samesame, but different. Look at those vertical pictures of Iowas, the midship-section looks like cut, to reduce the beam to 33 meters, to be able to pass the Panama-Canal. Speed is one factor, a calm firing-platform for heavy artillery another.
2
-
2
-
1
-
Whether the Spaniards, nor the Frenchies, nor, later on, the Germans had the political & military intention to finish off the Royal navy & to send it's pirate-ships, usually located northeast off Ushant, to the bottom of the ocean, where they belong. So we have to suggest, french & spanish nobles were idiots. They never trained their crews to compete with British crews (the Germans later on did it), & their officers sailed big yachts for entertainment & as status-symbols. They never promoted the professionals. Best chance to finish off the British pirates for once & forever was during the War of Independance, when the Franco-Spanish fleets doubled the number of Men'o'wars in comparison to the number of ships the RN could send into battle.
1
-
1
-
@Ron52G You did not mention the facts. Repulse was old-fashioned, that's true. PoWs AA-system was superiour to Yamatos and as you can see on the pictures, PoW was much faster, even to Yamato, to outmaneuvre bomb or torpedo hits. It was nearly the same desaster like Bismarck's, a hit in the propulsion. The major aspect of failure was to send BBs out without air-coverage, anyway you are hit by a swordfish or a mitsubishi. The US never exposed their precious Iowa-class BBs, only their old ones in overwhelming numbers against the tactical misleaded Japanese commanders at the battle of Surigao Strait. Similarily we see here already the sinking of Musashi by air-raids. Fighting during the night against radar-steered artillery is useless, as it happened already in the battle at the North-Cape in 1943. At daylight the Germans would have had some chances with their optical superiority, but during the night as the Japanese, useless like fishing trawlers. Still in our days warships are very vulnerable to plane attacks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nyctasia No, Sir, on paper British battle-cruisers were faster than german battlecruisers. But after all trials German battlecruisers were faster than the Brits. I believe whether Scheer nor Hipper could exclude slow ships in the line. After Doggerbank the Germans could easily improve engineering matters concerning the magazines, but the SKL was unable to realize the main essence of Tsushima, the Yellow Sea & the Doggerbank. Speed is superiour to artillery. So, Drachinifel might be a German spy in secret. Hippers squadron was only as fast as Blücher. With the understanding of honour in this era, Hipper could not release Blücher from the line of battle, but was allowed to escape, when Blücher was sinking, instead turn around & fight the Brits till death. Hipper could have dispatched Blücher on another escape course & used his superiour speed to dodge the Brits. Even after Doggerbank the German SKL was to stupid to understand the importance of speed & Scheer must include the slow cows, the predreadnoughts into the line of battle. Fortunes were not decided only by the quality of ships, but by the intelligence of their masters. In maritime matters the Germans had no tradition, were idiots. The stupidity of the German admiralty caused the death of more than 1.000 German seamen at the Doggerbank.
1
-
1
-
@CaptCondor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Harbour a map of Port Stanley oder Stanley harbour .... you see a close range battle would be enforced. And the Germans would have been outperformed by 2 BCs and 3 armoured cruisers with full ammunition bunkers, of course. The tactical advantage would have been on the German side, because they sailed. Movement is always superiour than a sitting duck. And 500 meters/yards to the shore are not too much to swim in the case of sinking. 2 heavily damaged BCs in Port Stanley would have caused a lot of problems for repairs and we do not know they would have been ready at the Jutland clash. The main point for me is the tactical mismanagement of the German admiralty, flag officers or ship-commanders in both WWs. Their tactical decisions were most times miserable, anyway we have look to WWI or WWII sea-battles. For example, Hipper, not a bad one, failed at the battle of the Doggerbank. To include Blücher into the line of battle-cruisers was wrong, because she was too slow and so slowed the entire line and caused the battle. Without Blücher we would not have seen a battle of the Doggerbank. After the wrong decision to include Blücher the try to escape was wrong. Hipper should have ordered Blücher to leave the line with course to North-East or better, more aggressive, more surprisingly to north-west, to split the british BCs-Squadron, and a course south-south-west for the german 3 BCs-squadron to cross immediatly the british T, a 10 minutes firing superiority, means 8-10 superiour salvos. During to the expectable british turning manoeuvre, the german destroyers would have had the chance to charge an torpedo attack. This is, what a british flag-officer instead of Hipper would have done. And this is, for what warships are built for.
1
-
1
-
@CaptCondor the Wikipedia is correct, in my personal literature, on one hand Adm. Niemitz & Co.'s Sea Power or Pemsel's Seeherrschaft it is mentioned as in the Wiki. And von Spee's famous signal to Captain Maerker, commander of Gneisenau, would have made no sense at all. The German Intelligence detected the departure of 2 BCs to the South Atlantic, but their radio-waves could not reach the south-pole-area.
Von Spee formulated it himself, damaging the enemy, is his main job. He failed to do it. Only an attack on Port Stanley would have given the chance to kill Brits, after Britain declared war as usual. This is for what von Spee's ships were built for. Having a look to the battle itself, it is interesting to check the poor British gunnery. Invincible fired more than 600 heavy shells, nearly the entire ammunition bunker was empty. Against Blücher the Brits might have failed.
1
-
@CaptCondor the point is, that the battle costs nearly the entire lifes of all of von Spee's crews, without killing any Brits, so, we see, it was the worst decision. Mainly the escape route to the south, entering the open sea, was obviously the main tactical mistake. In Port Stanley harbour heavy losses were to be foreseen, but the suvivors would have had a chance. A major attack against the British squadron would have had the most efficiency with torpedos. Btw, a british team found the Scharnhorst and made pictures with a robot. You exchanged the situation of von Spee with his commanding officers. Von Spee ordered the attack, his captains were against it. They wanted to avoid the Falklands. Before Scharnhorst sunk, von Spee signalled: "Admiral to Commander Gneisenau, you was right".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-50670743
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OtterTreySSArmy For a part of the former German US-population your statement might be true. But Germanic people are federal focussed, a diametrical opposite to Romanic people who lived centralised. For the Germanics nationbuilding is less important, as you can see, how the I. Reich consisted for more than 1.000 years. The US population is in place by the elite of Africa and the scum of Europe. Former US-Europeans were the weak, underdogs, poor, religious minorities, who left Europe, because they had nothing to lose. Since George Washington the US are led by the freemasons, anyway to which party they belong. And the bourgeois freemasons hated their noble drinking buddies and fought successfully for the destruction of the noble rule, which lasted many thousends of years. Already the era before Wilson planned the disturbance between Germans and Russians till today. A close relation between Russia and Germany would have achieved the development of the world leading power. This is the major political US-target in the foreign policy of the US. Any war in Europe against Germany was supported by the US and will be supported by the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gloriaimperial1 I know most of all events in historical sea-warfare. Sea-dominace means global dominance. The Spaniards lost it in 1639, they never sailed into the channel with a fleet again, we can forget some licensed pirates & privateers. What the Spaniards did, is to defend their supply-routes to the remaining colonies. The best and most crazy seaman of all times, the Scotsman Thomas Cochrane, started after the Napoleonic wars the diminishing of Spanish colonies, which were in reality closed in the end with the Spanish-US American war in 1898. Europe or better the Brits missed the chance to annihilate the US in a WWI with the support of all other European nations. The Brits made the mistake to wage 2 times war against Germany, which destroyed the supremacy of Europe in favour of the US. Your Spaniards missed the chance together with the Frenchies to destroy the might of the Royal Navy & the British Empire during the War of US Independence. The Franco-Spanish alliance had a supremacy of 2:1 in Men'o'wars over the RN. The political will to do it was not strong enough to sail into the channel with landing operations & to finish off the channel-fleet. Britain would have been, for the good of mankind, mainly in favour of more than a 100 Mio. Indian & Chinese victims, over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CorePathway They did at Jutland and the Doggerbank. You ignore the real problems of the Germans in sea-warfare in both WWs, lack of tradition, stupid flag-officers & some overchallenged commanders as Langsdorff, who should had remain with his beloved destroyers. The performance of the Brits hitting Germans even to hit Bismarck in her final engagement was really bad, an underperformance at point blank range targeting a gigantic sitting duck. British shooting became very good with radar steered fire, as You can see in the battle at the NorthCape, 1943. Langsdorff was too stupid to run like Sturdee, when the enemy is closing in or not to sail home, when the radar only reaches 6 seamiles in midwinter, risking the ship like the idiot Bey did it. The German seawarfare-highcommand (SKL) was even too stupid to calculate the correct demand of fuel-supply. Bad British heavy units were the easiest targets to sink them. But there is a need to hit them decisively. The Germans had simply too many Beattys and no real punishment for failure in battle, but worse. The Germans promoted their slackers & suckers, sent the heroes home like Marschall.
1
-
1
-
@trauko1388 You are not very educated in navy-affairs. Bismarck's ability to fire 3,5 rounds a minute was documented during the sea-trials. DoY made 14 x 14 inch hits on Scharnhorst, are all witnessed. The second very effected hit knocked turret A out of action. And yes, Sir, the ship Bismarck is not responsable for an admiral, who is an idiot and a coward. And as I said, only 2 BBs in WWII were sunk by artillery, Hood and Kirishima, both british constructions. And again, You are correct, it is idiocy of the SKL to bring BBs during winter into action which had a under-devloped radar-system. In the mediterranean Scharnhort would have sunk the entire British squadron. In 1943 the British radar was well developed. Before 1943 the British performances via the usuall optical methods with rangefinders were very poor. Nearly 3k shells were needed to hit a 250 meter target, a sitting duck on point blank range. It can only mean, the Brits were, as usual, all drunk.
1
-
Drach made a lot of work, and he is, on paper, right. But as we learned from Drach himself, the guns are always in relation to the hull. And in reality it makes no difference between 11 or 16 inch guns. There were several DKM-officers, who stated against a "Repulse"sation of Gneisenau. Please correct me, but we have seen in WWII only 2 sinkings by artillery, Hood and Kirishima. As you all know, Hood exploded and Kirishima made very slowly too much water, so the ship was abandoned. Even with 16 inch-guns Rodney was not able to sink the sitting duck, Bismarck. To destroy Bismarck's infrastructure and knocking the turrets out, would have been done with Scharnhorst's 11 inch or Andrea-Doria's 12,xx inch guns, too. The same counts for Kirishima. In an ambush Andrea Doria could have sunk this japanese BB, too, firing on point blank range. The reason is very simple. Hood was a british ship and Kirishima was built in Japan according to British construction-plans. It was possible to sink British ships with artillery, but not German - or US-BBs. Kirishima itself was not able to sink South-Dakota. So in reality the decisive hit counts and not the weight of a BB-gun-shell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daleburrell6273 so, you mean in the first line France and Britain, who declared war over Germany 2 times during the last century? In WWI the Germans were able to refinance the war inside the II. Reich, Britain not. They took loans from JP Morgan, who would have gone bancrupt in the case Britain would lose the war, what happened already in 1916.
But, Dale, think about, it is in british or french interest to weaken and to destroy Europe including themselves in favour of the US, en passant the Brits lost an entire empire? This is a fool's mission, isn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jurassic Aviator This is not only actually the case. This is your history at all. I had this debate with Veterans Today on their forum some years ago. They, as the most US citizens, never took their own history seriously. The entire move to the West was war, against British canada, against Mexico, the Barbary wars, Japan, against Spain, you name it. War of aggression is the main US business model, being never attacked by anybody. 1944 Bretton Woods gave additionally the world leading currency weapon, better than any fleet. When Woodrow Wilson came into office, the strategy to weaken Europe was defined and published. At least the stupid Brits lost the pound sterling as the leading currency and sold their empire for 53 old destroyers to the US, because Dönitz had won the war at this stage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
With changes of the secondaries I would be d'accord. But the advantage of 5,9 inches (15 cm) is the ability to harm heavy cruisers or the superstructure of BBs. In the case of a bow- or stern chase, 8 secondary-guns could fire at the enemy. Cables outside any armour are not worthy any debate. I think the German slacker-engineers forgot simply some of them at the planning stage. I know about Drach's beloved tripple-turrets. But twin-turrets give the ship more stability. The weight is more centered. I think the Germans were oriented to the most British constructions with 4 twin-turrets. If Gneisenau's conversion would have happened, the main armament would have been the same like the Renowns. But some of Kriegsmarine's officers were against a conversion. They had reasons. Maybe You could tell us something about the British aspect of 4 twin-turret-constructions? Bismarck's hull had the best shape ever built, maybe in line with HMS Vanguard. The hulls of the late US fast BBs & the Yamatos were crap. Miserable streamlines, extremly vulnerable against incoming fire and bad seagoing- &- keeping capacities. USS Washington was critized for her seakeeping qualities when she served with the Home Fleet. And Iowa could not keep up with HMS Vanguard during heavy weather in post war NATO exercise "Mariner" in 1953. So the US navy never exposed their weak fast BBs to unfriendly fire. They remained armed presidental yachts or counter-shore-batteries, except Washington. The toughest ship ever, which was sunk, was Scharnhorst. So the British torp-sinking-theory of Bismarck remains useless. Scharnhorst sunk after 14 ship-to-ship-torp-hits, not air-to-ship- playmobil-torps in the cases of PoW, Repulse, Yamato & Musashi. What I evalue as a total German misconstruction is the German turret-shape, with 90 degree-sides. I think the British turret-design was the best ever built.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bkjeong4302 On paper British battlecruisers were faster than german ones. But after all seatrials it became obvious that the Germans were faster. Speed, not armament, not gun calibre, is the main factor in warfare at sea. Fischer's evaluation was correct. The German constructions favoured stamina as more eminent than calibre. Smaller calibre with enough penetration ability guarantees faster reloads, as seen in the case of the world record holder in reloading, Seydlitz, at the battle of the Doggerbank. German battlecruisers were the best BBs at Jutland, even I have to admit that König, leading the German line of the highseasfleet at Jutland had more qualities to take hits than the battlecruisers. My critics are more related to the insufficient speed of armoured or light cruisers. In WWII this problem was solved. Without the slow cow Blücher, a modern armoured cruiser, there would have been no battle at the Doggerbank. The Germans could have esaily withdrawn from the battle. At the Falklands von Spee could only take course for the open sea, if his ships would have been faster than Sturdee's battlecruisers. But, as You know, they weren't. So von Spee had to attack or to sail to the sund to take cover from long range fire. But the major problem of the Germans were not the ships, more the flag-officers-staff. They were not educated enough, if do You see the wrong decisions Langsdorff made at the beginning of WWII.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 You talk bull-excements. Baltimore was a newer development. The Hipper-class top-speed was Prinz Eugen 32.2 knots, Hipper 32,5 knots, Blücher 32,8 knots, in spite off a larger tonnage. Baltimore had 6 130mm secondaries, Prin Eugen 12 105 mm secondaries. So your broadside weight of Baltiomore is defined by one 8 inch gun more. Usually he germans used shorter projectiles than the Allies, so they could load more of them. The fully loaded tonnage of Baltimore and Prinz Eugen are nearly the same. Prinz Eugen had 200 men more on board, so more space for the provisions were needed. The real advantage of Baltimore were 4 and smaller engines and top-new radar-systems. Drach already failed to analyze the tonnage-difference to british heavy cruisers in one of his shows properly. To install 3 or 4 turrets is a philosphical question. In consideration to prolongate the original mission, Lütjens had to decide the priority. Some sunk merchants are nothing in comparison to bring a damaged BB home. Knowing that a big part of the Royal Navy is hunting him, he needed every help he could get. As i said, each mile closer to the French coast would have been raised the chances of Bismarck to survive. The destroyer Mashona was in Luftwaffe's range and Luftwaffe sunk it. What is easier to hit via planes? A destroyer oder a BB? Yes, the BB. Of course, Prinz Eugen could have towed Bismarck.
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 The Luftwaffe was, of course alarmed. Of course, later in the war they sunk the Roma. After Lütjens intelligence failed already at the Denmark Strait, he knew that the Brits were hunting him, with everything they could scratch, even aircraft carriers. This conclusion, Sir, is not so speculative. Baltimore had nearly the same size as the Hipper-class, same guns in 3 tripple turrets & came 1943 into service, and speed was not really higher, Blücher made 32,8 knots. So, where is the advantage? Luftwaffe Kampfgeschwader 77 was on the way, but the Homefleet was out of range. Doenitz sent several subs out. Every seamile in direction to the French coast would have made a survival of Bismarck more possible. And, Sir, the AA of 2 ships is obviously better than of one. There is no debate about it.
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 Prinz Eugen consumed so much fuel, this ship could not sail anywhere to refuel permanently. The shipyard or turbine-producer promised too much or cheated. Infight the Hipper-class was maybe the best heavy cruiser class ever built, but the range was a real misconstruction for a ship of 200 meters length. As you said Bismarck was the main prize. So Lütjens major task was to bring her home to Brest. So Lütjens had to keep Prinz Eugen in the squadron. Air defense in a crossfire would have been more effective against those swordfishs and after a fatal torpedo hit, destroying the rudder, Prinz Eugen would have been able to tow Bismarck into Brest.or the protecting Luftwaffe bomber zone. It is very unusual to split squadrons. As you know Schneider was not not shocked at Denmark Strait, he asked several times for the permission to fire. After Hood opened fire, the intention of the Brits to attack, was obvious, don't you think so? Both ship commanders gave the permission to fire, Brinkmann after Lindemann. They judged the situation nearly properly or not? Please do not ignore my former argument, that there was no possebility to dodge the Brits, whether by speed nor altering the course. Not to shot back is simply cowardice, anyway to get the insight that the mission is failed. This was war, unleashed by the Brits & on the 7 seas a warship has to sink the enemy & always there is the possebility to get sunk. A sea-officer has to know it and to do his utmost, as the court-marshall of admiral Byng said.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Your answer explains nothing. There was no escape at Denmark Strait. Every midshipman was able to evaluate this. Lütjens gave no orders at all, even not to alter course. He had a blackout. And he did not gave any order before the enemy was in sight. The hydros of Prinz Eugen stated loud turbine noises of heavy units. The only alternative would have been to alter course for 180 degrees into the arms of 2 heavy cruisers, additionally. The Germans made ready for action, nothing else, because there was nothing left to do. Bsmarck's speed after the bow hit of PoW was reduced to 27 knots. Hood was blown up at 06:00. After the dodging maneurvre of PoW Leach remained on parallel course till 06:04. 4 minutes Lütjenis did not closed in. Every admiral of any other nation would have immediatly gave this order. This was war. Tovey was far enough away. And, Sir, PoW was damaged, so it is not plausible, that PoW could reach her top speed of 28,3 knots. There would have been no way to escape for PoW. About the orders of the SKL is to mention, that the Germans were not able to lose their shadows. So the entire german plan to get through into open waters failed at this point. And if Lütjens does not sink PoW, PoW would remain among his pursuers. Only in the situation at Denmark Strait the Germans could gain any superiority against this enemy ship. In any future there would be more of them.
1
-
1
-
@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Read simply the Bismarck's wikipedia with all related sources, including Baron Burkhard von Müllenheim-Rechberg. But Baron Burkhard von Müllenheim-Rechberg was on his battle-station & had, as you said, no idea, what was going on. According to Bismarck's wikipedia the 1. officer, Fregattenkapitän Oels, gave the order personally to scuttle in each engine room. About Lütjens at Berlin is to say, that all his predecessors were sent home on different opinions with the SKL. Lütjens said to his predecessors personally, he will take care not to get sent home. To support wrong tactical or strategic decisions means he was a man of no honour and as usual in the Kriegsmarine responsable officers were overchallenged, failed and get promoted. Usually British convoys were protected by a single BB-escort. The Germans could always gain a local superiority, overpower against the escort to sink ship by ship. This is what all smart German officers, as Hoffmann, thought. For his behaviour at Denmark Strait Lütjens, as a british admiral, would have been shot on his quarterdeck by a court-marshal decision for cowardess facing the enemy. The reason vice-admiral Holland attacked immediatly the German squadron at Denmark Strait, without waiting for Norfolk and Suffolk was related to British tradition, which was founded by the death sentence of the court-marshall against admiral Byng for his strategic defeat at the battle of Minorca in 1756. The decisive sentence, was .... "not doing his utmost", which inspired all british commanding officers till 1942. With the loss of PoW and Repulse, this old tradition was cancelled.
1
-
1
-
@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 2 entire BBs, nearly 4k men (crews of 40 subs) on sea for 22 merchant ships out of convois. Do You really think, this is a success? I dont think so, much too expensive. The point is, that Kriegsmarine ordered BBs (4), without to use them what they are built for. Pocket BBs or Subs were much better for the task, you mentioned and cheaper. The SKL was a bunch of cowards, not to use BBs for their main purpose, fighting other BBs. You mentioned Operation Berlin. The Germans spotted Convoy HX 106. Scharnhorst reported the escort HMS Ramillies to Lütjens, so Lütjens broke the attack up according to the standing orders of the SKL. Captain Hoffmann, commander of Scharnhorst tried to draw Ramilllies away from the convoy to give Gneisenau the chance to sink the convoy. Hoffmann was reprimanded for this by Lütjens. Hoffman was a real sea-officer, Lütjens omly a coffeehouse-baffoon. So 3 of 4 BBs were lost by action from the air, better to sink in a real battle. And Scharnhorst was lost by the lack of experience of a destroyer-officer, same story with Graf Spee. In case of Scharnhorst it was a strategic wrong decision to use her with radar which was not comeptitive in the arctic winter. Scharnhorst was superiour at daylight with her rangefinders. So SKL has to use her in areas where she finds some daylight. This is obvious or not? The SKL had never a strategic plan, already in the High Seas Fleet. Those fine german ships were only built for a yachting tour in the North Sea. Hipper-class heavy cruisers were the best ever built, but they consumed so much fuel, that they had no range, an obvious & decisive failure. But anyway the German navy suffered most under a lack of navy-tradition and a misconcepted promoting system. This is a typical german weakness.
1
-
This was a lot of work for nothing. Even Scharnhorst's 11 or worse Italian 12,5 inch guns could penetrate Bismarck's or Iowas or Yamato's armor belt. There is no point. In the final battle of Bismarck British shooting performance was really bad, point blank range and 6 of 7 shots missed a 250 meter target. 2,5 years later, with the development of radar, the Brits improved a lot. 14 hits on Scharnhorst by DoY, 1 decisive hit on turret A and one slightly above the armor belt into the propulsion room, which lowered Scharnhorst's speed to become a stitting duck as Bismarck. But to sink Scharnhorst the Brits needed 10 ship-to-ship-torpedos (not such a toy like a Swordfish-torp). The small calibre-fireworks on Bismarck made a lot of sense. Nobody could leave the infrastructure for repairs or firefights. Fact is, a british battleship could never sink a german battleship by artillery, in reverse, yes. Drachs idea, that 3 Dorsetshire-torps caused the sinking of the Bismarck is not very plausible. Bismarck sunk over the stern, because the bulkheads were opened from the stern. So it could be possible, that the Dorsetshire-torps penetrated Bismarck's hull above the main belt while sinking. The main reason for the loss of Bismarck is the idiocy of the highest ranking officer. His miserable decisions and his cowardess caused the loss. So the incompetent German SKL wears the responsability for choosing such an idiot for the position of a vice-admiral with a big bunch of useless staffofficers in his towline. The order to scuttle Bismarck was a fool's mission, too. To generate a prize of war, the Brits must have entered Bismarck to fight Bismarck's remaining crew man against man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher yes, of course, Sir. All decisive hits were lucky hits in BB-History. That Lindemann wanted to dodge a small Swordfish-torp, instead to take it, and the torp hit the rudder, was simple luck. If this would not had happened, Bismarck would had shot Rodney and KGV to pieces. About caliber is to say, that, of course a bigger caliber might have more effect. But it is necessary? When DoY made the fatal hit with a 14-inch-shell into Scharnhorst's propulsion-room, it was simply luck. And it did not matter, it was a 11 or a 18-inch shell. The point is, to hit slightly above the main belt. And the probalility to hit, is increased with the number of rounds fired. And Scharnhorst-class-bbs could fire 3,5 rounds a minute. Yamato-class or Nelson-class ships max. 1 round a minute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 you know nearly nothing about anything, or worse, you do not understand your own knowledge. German ships, as Bayern-class, were all sunk at Scapa Flow and the Austrians had no port anymore. So Frenchies and Italians were left in Europe with bbs, beside Britain, there was no competition. You could classify Hood as a battlecruiser, but Hood was more a bb and fast. As i quoted already, you see the performance of a sailing Hood at Mers-el-Kebir firing at modern French bbs in port. At least, speed is a major aspect to counter the enemy's rangfinders. And You know the result, a lot of dead Frenchie-seamen. Bismarck's crew came from 6-month-trials in the Baltics. Hood's and PoW's crews at Denmark Strait were not trained enough, but Tovey and Churchill did not care and sent them into battle. The Germans hesitated to send Tirpitz, with only 2-month-trials, out into the Atlantic to escort Bismarck. Captain Topp, commander of Tirpitz, proposed this. The amateur-failure of the coward Lütjens was not to keep squadron tactics and to send Prinz Eugen away, a fool's decision. No experienced admiral would have done this. And please, Doveton, do not ignore the facts. Hood's shooting performance at Denmark Strait was even more worse than the performance of PoW. It was no Sitting-Duck-shooting. The German squadron sailed with 27 knots, and Bismarck speeded up, during the battle up to 30 knots, overhauling PE. The inch-fetish of many bb-lovers is and was useless. Renown's performance (with a trained crew) at the coast of Norway was much better in really worse weather conditions, 3 hits on Gneisenau, and even Gneisenau made 2 hits with the 11 inch-guns, simply penetraiting, destroying the galley of Renown, meant some days cold food for the crew of Renown.
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 from a British point of view you wrote total nonsense. Tell anybody of the Hood Society, that Nelson-class ships were superiour in relation to the mighty Hood. Their laughter will remain for years. As i wrote, Rodney's performance and skill was miserable, to hit a sitting duck only with the third salvo, most times Rodney missed were nothing was to miss. An intact Bismarck, Hood, KGV-class (if the turrets work), French BB, Italian BB, faster Japanese BBs (, not to talk about fast US BBs) would have all out-maneuvered Nelson-class-ships. Bismarck was unmaneuverable, so Bismarck could return fire with the forward-turrets only 3 minutes later by coincidance of the course after KGV opened fire, one minute later as at Denmark Strait, in a sea-battle an infinity. (WoW is only a balanced game, but hear the comment of the mighty Jingles. "Do not care about Nelson's armour, shoot at it from any direction".)
1
-
1
-
@KatyushaLauncher this might be true, but before the fatal torpedo hit by a swordfish, Bismarck sailed only 27 knots max. speed, caused by the floodings after Denmark Strait, more than Rodney, but less than KGV. Of course, even in the battle of Denmark Strait, the coward Lütjens would have tried to escape. But in Bismarck's lee was the pack ice edge, so there was no escape route. What i critisized, was Drach's laudation on Rodney, especially it's captain's skills. The Brits were shooting miserable on a target, no one could usually miss. The RN was not a shadow of itself anymore. Only the more worse performance of German maritime leaders, saved the RN from desaster, which reached it in 1942 in the Chinese Sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samsmith2635 Why do You wagged Your history lessons in school? Except in the post-revolutionary France, most times nobles were the officers in the European military. Watch the Richard-Sharpe-series, easy schooling for You. All those noble officers were members of Freemazon-lodges. And since the age of enlightenment they accepted bourgois members. In the net are dokus of Maria-Theresia's (of Austria/Habsburg) freemazon gardens beside her palaces, check it, You uneducated subject. The 100-days-emperor Frederik III of Prussia (II. German Reich) was a freemazon lodge member in Bad Homburg, where he used to stay at his health spa. One day he wanted to see his personal lodge file, but he could not get it, as the German crown-prince or emperor. So he forbade his sons, mainly William II, after him emperor, to become a lodge-member. You see, I did not wagged my history lessons & I expanded them by my own reseach. Usually You must pay me for decreasing the misery of Your eduction, balancing Your useless parents. But this is the last time for free, prole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sarkhan_guy This not really true, we had some First Lord till 1916, Adm. Tirpitz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_von_Tirpitz
On one hand the Germans could learn from the Royal Navy and installed some technical improvements on the other hand the Germans could never compensate the missing tradition of naval officer's education as happened in Britain for 300 years. (the IJN faced the same difficulties.) On the crew - or engineer-lvl this was no problem, but in tactical or strategic thinking and planning in a leading navy-office, not in 100 years. The German imperial Navy suffered under social differences and political influences till the current day in the Bundesmarine minus the social distancing. The continental Europeans saw the military as a rich man's hobby for centuries, with some exceptions as von Manstein, Bali de Suffren or in a limited version Boney. Not so the Royal Navy, which was mainly implemented by Monk, later on for every British sea-officer the verdict on Adm. Byng counts, to express in all doings the total destruction claim against the enemy. Only in rare cases, as in the Battle of Denmark Strait, this unconditional order to attack, including all risks, was miserable. The beheaded admirals during the French revolution were not enough to implement the same spirit on the continent. Maybe the Dutch in the 17th century had the same killing-instinct as the Brits.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrLinkkid we have reports from German generals (most famous Liman von Sanders, who organized the defense of Galipoli) about the Turkish genocide against Armenians. You mean Tutsies and Hutus. Historically Africa is full of tribal conflicts, check Kongo (the civil war about cobalt). More than 1 Mio. Europeans were enslaved by Arabs & Turks. The point is, most Europeans lived in serfdom, not a big difference to slavery. Frederik the Great of Prussia was the first european leader (King), who abondoned serfdom after the 7-years-war (1756-63). In Britain were regions using serfdom till 1850. So, what i have to admit, is, that most of the european nobles, who led or lead a state or empire, were Germans. British Queen Elisabeth II is german, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gregzeigler3850 of course, Trumpi is right. But he is the first in 240 years, who sense it, away from the war-businnes-model. In Korea the air force suffered under the MiG alley. And you are right again, the US have 3 foreign departments, the foreign office, the CIA and the military and all 3 wage war against each other, so funny our US friends. To nuke Hanoi it is a bit of a problem. You had nothing lost there, whether in Germany, nor in Cuba, nor in Mexico, nor in Canada, nor on the Philippines, nor elsewhere. Go home.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rhedges9631 When Vanguard was dismasted in a storm, which brought Brueys out of Toulon-harbour, he was already vice-admiral an not responsable for the accident. Nelson got as the same good education as any other officer in the RN. That he was a good leader might be correct, but most times he led into desasters. That the French forces were competent is a thesis without any evidence. The idiot Brueys, anchoring at Aboukir with his battle-fleet, sent half of his crews to land to fetch water, knowing, that Nelson was searching for him. So during the battle, the Frenchie man'o'wars fought with half crews, lucky Nelson. The next thing, the Frenchies anchored only at the bow-anchors, too lazy to set a spring. And even the bonehead Villeneuve did not ordered springs during the battle, to bring the broadsides of 2 ships to bear, crossing the T of the Brits. If this "competent" idiot would have done it, Neslon's fleet would had been sunk in 2 hours. Before Trafalger Villeneuve sailed to the Carribean and back without training battle-formations? The franco-spanish "line" at Trafalgar was a pharce. After Calder stopped Villeneuve at Finesterre, why he did not sailed to Brest? An admiral who is not willing to destroy the enemy should give his commission away.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deankruse2891 Britain was liberal in Britain for the upper - and small middle-class, of course, but not the empire. Do you think the Empress of India was elected? I make not a real difference between feudalism and fascism. Drach is teaching us about RN action against slavery between around 1803 and 1863. But in Europe the first guy who forbade serfdom was Frederik the Great after the 7-years-war on Prussian royal properties. In Britain we had remains of serfdom till 1850. Prussia started in 1717 the project of compuslory education, with the success in 1816 of 60% registered students. Britain, at least, started compulsory education in 1914. About the US is to say, they are/were structured as the Republican Roman Empire. For US citizens (comparable to Roman citizens) it was a democracy till corps were allowed to refinance election campaigns, what means the US are in the process to become an oligarchy as their western partners, too. For non-US-citizens, as the West-Indians till 1903, the US are a fascist state with the business model of permanent war of aggression. With the exception of the British-US-war of 1812, the US soil was never attacked by foreign invaders, but the US were permanently attacking others. From the historical point of view, Trump was an exception, he was one of the most peaceful presidents of the US ever, except small gifts to the hardliners as the execution of the Iranian general Soleimani and 80 Tomahawks targeting the Syrian desert. But Trump is over, the fascist warmongers are back.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tarn1135 still in the 60s black people had not any chance to become an officer in the US Army. In the evil Waffen SS everyone, anyway which heritage, could become an officer. Drach offered the info in the vid and we debated already. The Royal Navy started anti-slavery action in 1803 and it ended in the 1860s. In this time John Company replaced the slavery business with the opium trade and enforced China to accept it. The Royal Navy waged 2 opium wars,1838-42 and 1856-60. The enforced opium consumption produced around 20 Mio. dead victims, China suffered eminently. The Brits took over Burma, the US under Perry enforced Japan for trade-opportunities, and the French captured Indochine from the Chinese by war. A French commodore or rear-admiral did it, if i remember correctly. Would be an interesting vid on Drach's channel, the late conquer of Asia and the concerning maritime actions. To spend the Royal Navy a free ticket for being the good guys is nonsense. Royal Navy officers and other European partners as Germany during those opium wars and other conflicts, were war-criminals, although German colonial policy invested more money than to receive it. But war is war. In such a debate people like us often forget the European situation. Frederik II of Prussia was the first national leader who abandoned serfdom on the King's properties after the 7-years-war. France did it 1789, Britain 1849, Russia did officially late in the 1861s and Brasil in the 1880s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RobJaskula there should be not a big difference between the functional abilities of both admirals. The tradition of the RN might imply that British ship-commanders did not need any signal to fight a battle. But there was no real battle, except the Crimean war, since the Napoleonic wars. And British admirals were convinced to be always superiour. Beatty's major mistake was, to draw no consequences from the experience of Dogger Bank. Hipper was a cool guy, of course, but to put Blücher into the line of the battle-cruisers, was a capital failure. Speed is a major factor, and without Blücher the Germans would have outpaced the Brits from the beginning, when the Brits came in sight. We might have seen a battle between 3 Brits against 3 German BCs. Hipper's bonus was to debate the experiences from the Doggerbank, mainly the damage control on Seydlitz.
About speed, i assume, it was a mistake of Scheer to bring pre-dreadnoughts into the line of battle at Jutland. When Jellicoe sailed south, the pre-dreadnoughts saved the heavily damaged German battlecruisers, but with a higher speed of a smaller high-seas-fleet, Scheer perhaps would have avoided such a delicate situation. Scheer would have been further in the north, before the Brits could establish the long line of battle. This would have given the chance to hit the Brits decisively, when they sailed in 5 or 6 lines of march formation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
LUCKYDUCKY 62 yes, of course, have those submarines with a lot of problems, soon you will have to pay for their home-port, when Scotland will leave the UK. But in a limited war, as both parties agreed to combat in, should nuclear weapons have what kind of effect? In the case the RN would have been sunk furthermore, the war would be lost, anyway. The threat of nuclear weapons have only any use, if Britain is manaced. British soldiers were brave, better trainded and equipped, but as in former ages, without a working navy, they would be lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackwardley3626 The 80 cm at Sevastopol needed a crew of more than 2.000 men. Maybe the Germans could knock out several deep digged bunkers, but the battery is very vulnerable. A ship is always more practicable for big guns than a land battery. Already the effort for German 11 inch guns on land was enormous. Coastal batteries are an exception, they work like ship-guns. Your mentioned performance about the superiority of big guns, is only on paper valid, not in the reality. There is a docu by Drach about ship's artillery on paper. When USS Washington ambushed Kirishima and hit Kirishima on point blank range several times with full 16-inch broadsides the performance was in the real result very poor. In 1941 British gunnery with rangefinders was poor. But in 1943 DoY's gunnery with more developed radar was superb. DoY hit Scharnhorst around 13 times & the decisive hit was slightly above the main belt into the propulsion room, which reduced Scharnhorst's speed significantly. It did not matter DoY made this hit with 14 -, 11- or 16 inch guns. The hit itselfes was decisive. Bigger guns need more storage for shells & charges. As Drach mentioned the Yamatos had only 900, a 100 as per gun in such a big ship. Watch Drach's docu about Seydlitz (11 inch guns) at the Jutland Clash, how much shells & charges remained after an entire battle. The Yamatos & the modern US battleships had really bad constructed hulls. They had never any chance in a real battle between battleships/battlecruisers, like Jutland or the Doggerbank. Both types, the Yamatos & the Iowas, would have been sunk immediatly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JMM33RanMA Dear Jay, of course, it seems that you defend your position as a free-mazon. I do not talk about conspiracy, i talk about facts, if do you have not forgotten, what facts are. Check all Habsburg or Hohenzollern residences (palaces and mansons), they were developed and engineered by free-mazons. The mazons killed their noble brothers during the French revolution and disempowered them in the entire Europe with the end of WWI. 53 oder 56 founding fathers of the US were mazons, and they kicked King George to establish the new feudal class in the US. So it is no question, which we have to debate, who rules the US, Democrips or Rebloodlicans. The mazons rule the US and so the planet. And they are bloodthirsty with the tradition of Stephen Decatur jun., to enforce the planet under their lashes, they spend everyone for free.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Again, Hood in the list is a useless judgement. Hollands approach to use a Nelsonized tactic is not the ships fault. Holland and not the ship decided to close up to Bismarck in a 90-degree-T-angle.
@Drachinifel .... Duquesne was a french admiral in french and swedish services. Already 10 ships were named after him and this ship was very fast, ok, no armour. But with this speed-ability she could, of course, outgun every destroyer or light cruiser at a long range.
Pocket-Battleships were nothing else than Pocket-Battleships and they gained their speed with simple Diesel-engines, a great advantage for long-term-projects. Spee's battle at River Plate was miserable led by her captain, but the ship is not responsable for that. HMS Renown had a range of 6.580 miles at 18 knots, Graf Spee had a range of 18.800 miles at 18.69 knots. So her design was well for the task, and the RN needed more than a quarter year to find her.
Drachinifel, we debated already Bismarck's failed turret construction. But the failure of Bismarck was due to her admiral. In the Battle of Denmark Strait, she would have been able, with the support of a heavy cruiser (PE), to sink Hood and PoW (KGV-class), that's the fact, (PoW was already done for) so your comparison is wrong. Afterwards her fate was again sealed by her admiral. And her admiral did not used the offer of Captain Topp of Tirpitz to invite Tirpitz into Rheinübung. Bismarck's beam of 36 meters was superiour to every other battleship, except the Yamato-class with 39 meters, to steady the ship in the case of a broadside-firing.
The losses of the RN at the Falklands were most times sufferend against old Skyhawks of the Argentine air force. Without US support the RN is not able to defend the Falklands in a longer war. And with those F-35 jump jets there is no hope for the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Drachinifel yes, the Dutch did not built 3 deckers, but more comfortable ships. The razed 64s are only an example for better handling in comparison to dwars-driven x-deckers by a remaining high firepower. 74s were, of course, the backbone of the fleets of all nations. Check the history of the HMS Gibraltar (Fénix), captured at the battle of Cape Vincent 1780. The main point is not ship construction, but education of the officers staff, which gave Britain the advantage. The trial of Admiral Byng after his failure at Minorca enforced the british tactic of shear aggression. The Spaniards and the French (except the Dutch) wanted to project operations, but they never wanted to fight a sea-battle. An french exception was Suffren, who was more british than the Brits.
At Trafalgar the eldest British 3-decker was Britannia, 3 years older than Victory, all other 3-deckers were much younger than Victory. If the construction of Victory would have been so superiour, the admiralty would have copied it for all further 1. class or 2. class ships. At Trafalgar Royal Sovereign developed the utmost speed, because her copper-plates were brandnew.
1
-
1
-
@Drachinifel Hope, you will be patient, all my books are packed in boxes, because i have to renovate my flat. And my flat is complicated. Of course, i read sources, that HMS Victory was fast. A major problem is, that we cannot rely on painted pictures. If this would be true, that Victory was some knots faster than other British man'o'wars then Victory had to sail always with reduced sail in the line of battle, anywhere at Trafalgar or St.Vincent. Usually those ships were slow which had after a long time of service a lot of seaweed on the hull, which reduced the speed. On copper-plates this process of growing seaweed on the hull was exceeded, so the ships faster. On battle-sketches of Trafalgar in the lee-line led by Collingwood on Royal Sovereign usually we recongnize more gaps in the line caused by different speed of Collingwood's ships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 Doveton, stop your stupid on-paper-seaman-bullshit. The US-Navy did the opposite of what you are talking about very successfully. After Washington was lucky to sneak Kirichima, the US navy never exposed their BBs anymore to imperial Japanese BBs, too cost-intensive, too dangerous. The US navy fought Japanese BBs with planes and destroyers. The Germans, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau & Hipper, with the best secondarys on the planet, had difficulties to hit Glowworm & Co. PoW was on the escape-tour, hit 7 times. The point is, to invest a German heavy cruiser to sink a British BB to the bottom of the ocean, where it belongs. Fortunately the Japanese fulfilled the job, with a much cheaper investment and ended 300 years of British piracy for once and forever.
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 "Try reading Vice Admiral Schmundt's Report of 16 June, 194" Please post us the link to it. About 8-inch AP shells is to say, that i defined the use of it against other cruisers. The disadvantage of AP shells is obvious, the penetrating bow-hit of PoW against Bismarck did not explode, and Bismarck's penetrating hit against the waterline of PoW, did not explode, too. Beside the hit on the boat-deck of Hood, PE hit PoW 3 times, could have been better, but still better than the performance of their British opponents, who made 3 hits on Bismarck and fired more salvoes than Bismarck. About your Schmundt-report is to say that it does not exist. When the Germans opened fire, Hood was clearly identified as Hood and PoW was clearly identified as KGV. For a better accuracy PE had to get closer to the enemy, which would have been no problem at all, because PE was faster than all BBs and cruisers present at the battle-field.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 No, Sir, your information is wrong. The hydro-accoustic-section of PE identified the turbine-propulsion noises clearly as heavy units, means BBs. The idiot Lütjens hoped about heavy-cruisers in a suicide-attack, what was over, when he saw himself the shell-splashes of both Brit-BBs impacting around his ships. But in spite of this personal perception this coward gave no order to open fire, facing the enemy. Again you are the on-paper-seaman. If there would have been engaging light or heavy cruisers, the necessity would have ordered ap-shells, against destroyers HE. But against BBs with 8inch guns you are able to penetrate with AP the superstructure on point blank range. At Denmark Strait PE was never shooting on point blank range, caused by the orders oft this boneheaded vice-admiral. And Captain Brinkmann was no idiot, he knew against what kind of ship he was shooting at. And Brinkmann disobeyed in his clear conscious mind the orders of the admiralty not to engage enemy BBs. But in which direction he should had left the line? There was no other possible decision than to fight. So Brinkmann gave on his own the order to open fire at the leading ship, Hood. Some minutes later, he received orders from Bismarck to open fire against PoW, before Hood was blown up. Adm. Holland was not so much more clever than Lütjens. Why Holland ordered Hood as the leading ship, when PoW was better suited for the job, to lead the British squadron?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, you ar right, we talked about BBs. Graf Spee was demaged by the idiocy of Captain Langsdorff, not to set course from the enemy away. Spreading the Cruisers would had Harwood costs more time which would had enabled Langsdorff to knock out one British cruiser after another. And you know, doveton, that Langsdorff was a fine officer, but in battle an idiot. Scharnhorst i admitted, but again Bey was a destroyer man, and not sufficiant to decide for a battle-ship. In Bismarck's case the Swordfish was decisive. To sink a sitting duck could be done by everything, not a decisive performance. The destroyers at Narvik, we not talked about, were sunk by the inability (they were never able to calculate fuel demand) of the German admiralty. WWII-Blücher was sunk by the idiot Kummetz who did not heard on the advice of his flag-captain. But in Germany you get promoted for failure. And at least, doveton, we talked in the debate mainly about British artillery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OrdinaryEXP you deserve an answer. The British performace to shoot at a slow moving sitting duck at nealy point blank range in the final battle of Bismarck (a target of 250 meters) was extremely miserable. Bismarck hit the bridge of PoW at Denmark-Strait with a 15 inch-shell, only captain Leach survived by coincidence. Very late the Brits developed a better shooting performance with radar-technique in 1943, when DoY made, very precisly in complete darkness, 13 14-inch hits on Scharnhorst with 2 formidable hits. One hit knocked turret A out of action, and the main century-hit slightly above the main belt the propulsion room, which limited the superiour speed of Scharnhorst down, the ship could not escape anymore. And it is most difficult to hit the very flat hull of a Scharnhorst-class BB. But to sink Scharnhorst, the Brits needed 14 torps. The point is the hit, not the caliber. High velocity 11-inch-shells from Gneisenau or Scharnhorst penetrated easily the armor of Renown, which meant cold food for Renown's crew. About Lütjens is to say, in his back 2 heavy cruisers, on his portside 2 battle-ships, on starboard the ice. There was no escape without fighting. And Lütjens never gave the order to open fire. Captain Lindemann and Captain Brinkmann gave the order to open fire as commander of their ships. Honestly speaking, a Holland in the same situation as Lütjens would have been court-marshalled and shot post mortem on his quarterdeck, judged for cowardice facing the enemy. I had the debate with doveton sturdee on Drach's Channel. Doveton is a well educated on-paper-seaman. Armor on paper is not the reality. The construction is decisive, and we see the results in rare historical battles. The German idea to build unsinkable ships made no sense, because the Germans, in case of losing the battle, always scuttled their ships. In the case of Lützow an entire fleet protected the evacuation of the Lützow's crew at Jutland. But without a fleet in your back it is nonsense. And the Germans had no fleet in WWII and the stupid German admiralty denied their 4 BBs combats against British or French BBs, a failure for the main purpose they were built for. And there were officers in the Reichsmarine who voted against the conversion of Gneisenau from 9 11-inch guns to 6 15-inch-guns. In WWII BBs were already to expensive to build and too vulnerable against air-strikes or torp-attacks. About Kirishima is to say, it was a British ship and old, in spite of several reconstructions. Kirishima failed to hit South-Dakota decisively. 9 16-inch-hits at point blank range of the undetected Washington were enough to sink Kirishima after many hours. But the main aspect were the hits, not the caliber. Washington was able to hit a magazine. And with this experience the US navy never exposed their BBs again, too expensive, too vulnerable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brentm9848 You wrote the complete bullshit of school-teachings. It is completely wrong. The Royal Navy caused more than 20 holodomors in 300 years with more than 80 Mio. victims. The most famous prevented holodomor was the seabattle of the glorious 1st of June. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_First_of_June
It costs the Frenchies 7 ships of the line, better than to starve.
Not prevented were more than a half mio. dead Germans, died of hunger, during WWI. Germany never attacked Britain. The fleet ambitions were not the point. The III. Reich had no fleet, but Britain again declared war. As Churchill said, Britain wanted to wipe out the Germans, not a regime change. The most famous wipe made by the Brits, was the tribe of the Tasmanians, annihilated, so diplomatic. The same bullshit story you told us about the isolated US. The US waged war against Spain in 1898, not to free the inhabitants of former Spanish colonies, but to take over those colonies, not as they said according to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
They took the Philippines, too. The result of both WWs was, that Europe including Britain lost both wars and the US won it and overtook the military empire. If do you watch carefully Drach's channel, you will see, that the current Brits do still not realize, what has happened, as you, too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joeyreidelbach5509 This describes a major problem in the OKM. Lütjens said to his predecessors as Marschall, that he will not give any reason to be sent home or taken from command. In this situation at Denmark Strait, all advantages were on the British side, except the light-circumstances in the morning. There was no chance to avoid battle. Even Brinkmann and Lindemann were afraid of consequences. With 2 heavy cruisers behind the stern, the ice on starboard, 2 BBs on port, a commander has to open fire to fulfill his duty, anyway concerning his own fate. It is simply stupid not to do it. This was the central debate between Raeder and Hitler after Bismarck sunk. Furthermore, in contrary to the Brits over decades, failing admirals, as Kummetz, and officers were promoted or their names hailed, as we can see with the destroyer Lütjens or the Panzership Graf Spee. The brave guys in the Kriegsmarine or former Highseas-fleet were degraded or lost their command. This is a total political failure in the II. and III. Reich.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sobobwas6871 Check yourself the famous quotes of Winston Churchill. Churchill never regarded the Nazis, Churchill & his comrades had produced them himself at Versailles, leaving the former Kaiser-Germany in the gutters. But Brits elected Churchill in spite of his disability for good decisions, early seen at the battle of Gallipoli. If the Brits & Frenchies wanted to protect Poland, why they did not protected it against the invasion of the Red Army? No, more worse, they fought together with the Red Army, bringing the people of Poland after 20 years military dictatorship another 45 years the dictate of Bolshevism. God shave the queen, i would say, if i would be a Pole. And there is never a black or white liking. Britain got things to love and things to hate, but Churchill, the worst european politician during the last thousend years hated Britain. Churchill destroyed everything, which made Small Britain Great. But we should not debate about emotions, we should debate on this channel about facts. And if i quote facts, you, please, should not come with emotions. One last alcoholic Churchill-quote for you, after he recognized his total failure ... "We slaugthered the wrong pig".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@20chocsaday The Kaiser was more or less an idiot, a psycho in a lifelong carneval, changing 4 times a day the phantasy-uniform. The British royals are not British, they are Germans, like the French nobility, too. The Brits suffered even more under insanity than the Kaiser & his comrades. The thinking that a war among Europeans including the island-apes from the British isles, would solve any problems of competition ruined the (British & other) empire(s) and the entire Europe in favour of the US. Later on, Hitler could no believe it, that the British idiots repeat the same mistake a second time. So, in any result, we are able to watch British policy of this era. This policy never served king & country, but for the US. Now the Europeans lick those dirty cowboy-boots 24/7.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nahuelleandroarroyo No, the Marshall-Plan was kind of credit-loan. The Germans bought US products to support the US economy. And the Marshall-Plan was not accepted by Stalin for the Sovjet-Occupation-zone, later on GDR. After the war more Germans died in a holodomor than during the war. That's common British policy. The Royal Navy caused around 21 holodomors in 300 years with around 80 Mio. victims. In the famous battle of the glorious First of June, Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse lost 7 oder 8 ships of the line. But the holodomor in France, intended by the Brits, got avoided. Back to WW2, the entire war was a race to steal German technology, rockets, jet-engines, agricultural licenses. If the Alliies would pay it back with interest, 3 entire annual budgets would be necessary. The major point of the Marshall-Plan was Stalin. Some kind of support was eminent, because hungry Germans would change sides to the Sovjets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1