Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
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
-
@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