General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

HaJo Os.
Drachinifel
comments

Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "The Loss of HMS Hood - But why did it blow up??" video.

@dropdead234 no, Sir, it is a British problem waging too many wars. Britain was responsable for 2 WWs, which Europe lost against the US.
13
@davidcolin6519 Even 16 inch shells of Rodney could not sink the sitting duck Bismarck. To destroy the superstructure of a ship there is no need for 16 inch shells, 8 inch are enough. At Denmark strait the Brits were from the beginning in advantage. 10 big guns against 8. The Germans were forced to offer their broadsides, not a favourable angle receiving hits, as we had seen with the PoW-hit in Bismarcks bow-section. And additionally the Germans suffered under a stupid admiral, who gave no order to open fire, so the Germans started 2 minutes after the Brits with firing, an infinity during a sea-battle.
9
@bernhardlangers778 WWII Scharnhorst-class-ships sailed with a flat silhouette. So, they were wet ships. You are right, but flat silhuettes cause sea-damages and turret-failures.
7
@dropdead234 the Frenchies replaced the Dutch, a quote by Frederik the Great, "the french sloop, towed by the RN".
6
@mikemike974 Bismarck could fire 2 rounds a minute. But at Denmark Strait Bismarck fired at least 1 round a minute. PE could fire 4 rounds a minute, but smaller caliber of 8 inch caused more straddlings. For PE a closer range would have been an advantage but with higher risk being hit from a BB. PE would have been superiour to Norfolk or Suffolk. And the coward Lütjens missed the chance to persuit PoW and the sinking of it. The world record is hold by Seydlitz at the Doggerbank. When the aft-turrets of Seydlitz blew up, commander von Egidy and 1. artillery officer Förster gave the order for rapid fire to the remaining turrets. Seydlitz fired 123 11-inch-shells in 6 rounds a minute. This was an outstanding performance with the half ship flooded, never achieved by any other ship of all navies during the BB-era. A special honour to Pump-master Wilhelm Heidkamp, who saved the ship.
6
@painiscupcake5433 Yes, good luck for PoW not to be sunk.
5
@nerd1000ify No, Sir, there was no strategic decision. Lütjens could not get away without fighting, this is, what we call "the battle of Denmark Strait". 2 heavy cruisers in his back, 2 BBs on his portside and the ice on starboard. But he was not able to give the permission to fire, he paniced. This was cowardice facing the enemy. Permission to fire was ordered by the commanders Lindemann and Brinkmann. The cowardice of Lütjens cost the Germans precious 2 minutes of not returning fire. Lindemann demanded the pursuit of PoW, but Lütjens failed again. The mistake of Lindemann was not to release Lütjens from his duties as an admiral, when he realized that Lütjens was not fit for command.
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
@rambysophistry1220 this is the propaganda-story for the British underdogs who had to die in battle. About British sea-dominance is to say, that Britain's situation was not the same as in the 19th century. The Germans built always ships with the intention not to use them. If the Japanese would had used the same approach Tsushima would not have happened. The strategic decision to wage war against Germany is to wage war against Europe, because Germany is Europe or Europe is nothing without Germany. And the result of both WWs is the sell-off of the British maritime overseas bases to the US for 53 old destroyers in WWII and Bretton Woods in 1944. The US is dominating now the 7 seas. The US replaced Britain. This is the major result of 2 WWs. And do you think this is coincidence? For Germany there is no big difference. Germany had no real counting colonies, now Germany is smaller and had to suffer 8 Mio. dead during the war and some more after the war by a holodomor. But globally nothing has changed for the Germans. So, you see, Britain had lost both WWs and an entire empire.
3
@rambysophistry1220 Dear Ramby, historical research is helpful. The FED was founded in 1913 to enable the US financial system to give loans to the Brits. Wilson did everything to lead Europe into war. The Berlin-treaty from 1878 was broken by the Entente-Powers. An the Mittel-Powers did not realized the Entente-will of total destruction. Always it is helpfull to look for the profit-takers. If the stupid Habsburgs would have given Bosnia to Serbia, it would have generate a probability that the Russians would gain a port at the Adriatic-coast. This would have led to a Brit-Fanco-war against Russia. Better for the middle-powers.
2
@rambysophistry1220 Till 1914 Deutsche Bank was the biggest bank on the planet. The Brits thought they could destroy German competition on the Global Markets with war. Instead to find a European way Britain declared war. Britain declared war in WWII. These are the facts.
2
@OrdinaryEXP Germans were able to sink British BB-ships by artillery, the Brits were never capable to do this, anyway they shot with 12 or 16 inch shells, what in my point of view made no difference. Higher caliber means lower fire-rate. Decisive hits are important, not the caliber.
2
@CrusaderSports250 Britain declared war, that's the fact. About Bosnia is to say that the Berlin Treaty of 1878 (Lloyd George was present for the Brits) organized the international legal matter about it. The Entente broke this treaty, The assassination of Ferdinand was about the conflict with Serbia about Bosnia. Habsburg had already lost the so called "pigs-war" from 1906-1909/11 against Serbia. The High-Seas fleet is not an argument. In WWII the Germans had no fleet, but the Brits did not care. To use the route via Belgium was a strategic or tactical decision. But do you think the fascist empire of Britain, which occupied the half planet, should use moralised arguments? Czechoslovakia is an artificial state. Praque (contents the first German university) was for 300 years the German capital and much better than Berlin.
2
@CrusaderSports250 Dear Roger, someone, who can read, gains the advantage. I did not wrote about Austria's wishes for ports outside the Adriatic Sea. I wrote about Russia. If the Habsburgs would have admitted Bosnia to Serbia, instead to fight the "Pig'sWar", the probability of an Adriatic port for Serbia, would had been plausible. And if Serbia has a port, Russia has it, too. A main target of western policy till our days is, not to allow Russia a southern port.
2
@1controversial most actions in wars are improvised....
2
@robertbraconnier8466 SMS König, flag-ship of the III. Squadron of the Highseas-fleet at Jutland led the entire Highseas-fleet into the T of the entire homefleet in action. SMS König recieved "only" 10 heavy hits and 6 middle-sized hits, an evidence for worse British shooting-abilities. The Brits were never able to sink German big-ships with artillery, even not Bismarck or Scharnhorst in WWII (even Lützow was sunk by the Germans themselves). The only well performing British ship was DoY at the North-Cape, with a well developed radar-technique. But in 1943 the time of the RN was already over. Now the RN, as the Bundesmarine, are not even a shadow of their past.
2
@davidwong825 Dear David, the Nazis had a small Reich, the Islandapes an empire, which they tortured for centuries. And the Islandapes joined forces with the commies. God shave the Queen^^
2
@davidwong825 The points are not british or german engineers. The main factor are the protagonists. Except our best friend Beatty, the Brits had selected better staff for posting the Lords of the admiralty. The OKM instead was flooded with political decisions and the available ships were not used for the purpose they were built for. In my view it is caused by a lack of tradition in the German navy. German crews and officers were fine, but commanders and flag-officers not.
1
Admiral Sam Hood never got any command again, after his failure at Toulon in 1793. Sidney-Smith must solve the situation as far as he could. Maybe as many German flag officers, too, the Hoods made the wrong choice for their profession.
1
@johnbishop5316 Could you, please, explain your answer more detailed?
1
@brentm9848 Do you have any historical content you could provide us with? If do you have only personal assaults, simply shut up.
1
@brentm9848 The main question is, who unleashed the World War? And brought in an entire empire? In both cases there is only one possebility to answer, Britain. Only Britain was in the position to do it. In both cases Britain declared war over Germany. And it is obvious, that I am not an American, very funny. But it is obvious that you belong to the warmonger-nation, the "albion perfide", which mistreated, tortured the entire planet for more than 300 years. When you will start to pay for it, to fulfil the obligations of your guilt against so many nations?
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
@brentm9848 The Afghanistan war of the Sovjets was a desaster, because the US armed AlQaida with manpads. Even the Chechenian war under Putin went not well. But the Russians were enforced to use their unfortunate experiences to transform their military. The US did not. As Trump said, the US can destroy everything, but not win (asymmetric) wars. Russia did it in Syria with a minimum of military engagements. You, my dear, are used to write always historical bullshit?
1
@brentm9848 Ok, you lost the debate and you want to piss off? Who cares about revisonism? Do you cannot check history as everyone interested, is doing? For example Drachinifel is a top-researcher, does he need the opinion of prof x or y? And what you are talking about religions? Everybody is allowed to believe in jesus, climate, the moonlanding or something else. And i beg pardon, losing the battle is always boring. I recommend you to start to think yourselfes.
1
@dmbinns1 you are an uneducated fool. Of course, Britain declared war over Germany in both WWs. This is a fact you cannot debate away. Your country and it's inhabitants tortured the planet for 300 years. The british arrogance to unleash 2 WWs ended in escalation, which led to the destruction of your fascist empire. One more of you islandapes, who understood nothing.
1
@davidwong825 all BB-lovers or interested poeple in maritime history regret the lack of museum-ships.
1
@davidwong825 you see the development of the worse british gunnery throughout 41 to 43. The progress of radar-technology made it possible that DoY made 13 hits on Scharnhorst, with one fatal hit slightly above the main-belt into the propulsion-room.
1
@joeyreidelbach5509 The point is there was no possible decision making, anyway what the OKM ordered. It would had been the duty of Lindemann to dispend Lütjens form his command as an admiral, because he was obviously guilty of corwardice facing the enemy.
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
@pamboulton4422 <---- 0-infinte
1
@clovisra the game is already over. It will beome maybe obvious in an era, when we are already dead. China and maybe Russia are invincible. Trump had the only strategy to counter China, drawing the own production facilities back to the home-country, what means a nationalisation. US wars are very cost-intensive. Russia invested successfully only the 10th part in Syria in comparison to NATO. The Irak-wars brought nothing, only in the Kirkuk-region controlled by the Kurds is some oil-business for the US. We see more a counterproductive impact of these wars. Saddam was easy to control. Now the Shiits are in power. Honestly, this is more than stupidity. And if you look more back to the past. In Iran (1953) Mossadegh was kicked by the US and Britain, because he wanted a bigger share of the oil-money for his country. The US installed the Shah instead. He was in power for 27 years. But the Iranians had enough. The Shiits are now in power for more than 40 years. The decisive people in the US are really boneheaded. Ther are more examples, but i do not want to bore you.
1
@clovisra This is nonsense. The US is able to destroy everything. But since WWII, as Trump said, the US won no war again. And the question "why" is not so difficult to answer. Every military expert on the planet knows, there is no chance to win a symmetric war against the US. So we only consider asymmetric wars as a logical consequence. And the IQ in the US army (od Nato-state-armies) is very low, a big difference from the past in every western country. The Chinese or Russian officers staff is in this question quit superiour.
1
@mwnciboo this might be, but please tell us a case, when enough deck-armour prohibited something?
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
@Debbiebabe69 It is a question of the era. in the late 1890s and early 1900s ships were sunk by gunfire. And superiour gunfire led to the sinking of ships as during the battle of the Falkland, when the idiot von Spee tried to escape in open waters. The question of sinking battleships is, how conclusive were the battles. It was cheaper and less rsiky to bomb ships than to shoot at them. A cheap swordfish sealed the fate of Bismarck, not Rodney, not any other ship.
1
@28pbtkh23 This the point. The Royal Navy did nothing eminent, exept against Scharnhorst, but this happened late when 2 German BBs of 4 were already knocked out by planes. The RN was successful against U-Boats. The main job against German BBs and Cruisers did the RAF. If the risk is higher to be bombed to the bottom than to get shot out of the water, it makes no sense at all, to avoid sea-battles, as the Germans did it. German ships and crews were fine, but the German admiralty was a complete failure, a big band of Beattys.
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
@dovetonsturdee7033 the construction is decisive, and Kirishima's construction plans were british. Do you think there is any difference between a British and a Japanese shipsyard? When John Company built ships in Asia, they were not British? Bloody nonsense. Renown's galley was destroyed. There is enough debate about this theme on KBismarck.com with more competent people as me, for example Bill Jurens spent his time. In a stormy sea as we saw it off the coast of Norway hits are more lucky than usual. The destroy the rangefinder of Gneisenau do you think really the caliber was decisive? I do not think so. You remain an on-paper-seaman.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 count the number of British shells fired at nearly point blank range at a sitting target and count the hits. In this case the performance was miserable.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 Scharnhorst was sunk by 14 torps. Even in Bismarck's case, if not scuttled, Bismarck was sunk by torps, not by artillery. This is so obvious, my friend, the your debate remains ridiculous.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 Kongo-class-battleships or battlecruisers were constructed by George Thursten, anyway where they were built. Do you cannot accept this fact? Is is a British construction, established with British knowledge bought by the Japanese. At KBismarck.com the ability of modern 11-inch-guns to penetrate common BB-armour was sufficiantly debated. Our debate here circled mainly about this theme.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 "Between 1900 & 1945, there were 31 heavy calibre hits on capital ships of the High Seas Fleet, and 2 on ships of the Grand Fleet." You tell me anything of sense? You are a funny clown.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 in relation to the crossing-the-T-situation. you should think about, how many ships could fire at how many ships of the enemy. Yes, Scheer's idiocy to add pre-dreadnoughts in his line, which reduced the HighSeas-fleet's speed eminently, is a German problem, but causes the ability to shoot and hit something.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 You are still a clown. doveton. Jellicoe had no idea, where the High-Seas-Fleet was, only coincidence. The Brits were so happy with their tactical defeat at Jutland, that they replaced Jellicoe with the best admiral of all times in her/his majesty's service, with Beatty. But you are right, here we are. With a faster and (smaller) fleet, Scheer would had crossed the T of the Grand-Fleet. And the Grand-Fleet did not exercised such a battle turn. The Brits again were lucky to fight idiots and no admirals. A German Togo would have sunk the entire Grand Fleet. But unfortunately whether the Brits nor the Germans had any genius hoisting his flag.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, obviously the right choice for 8inch-guns against BBs at this range.
1
@flimflannery3192 pls could you explain whose hit on which ship? The useless debate with on-paper-seaman doveton made the thread unclear.
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
@flimflannery3192 It was the hit of Bismarck on the bridge of PoW, when only Captain John Leach survived, a happy coincidence in an unhappy event for PoW. But Leach was lucky anyway, because Lindemann requested to times to finish PoW off, and the coward denied it. Lindemann failed insofar, that he not discharged Lütjens from command. Lütjens was obviously unfit for it.
1
@dovetonsturdee7033 I read the Log of PE several times and it is debated on KBismarck.com. There is nothing you are talking about. Hood fired against PE, because the Hood-guys thought it is Bismarck, Captain Leach had better eyes. To fire 14 or 15 inch ap-shells against a heavy cruiser which was superiour to any British heavy cruiser, except in the sailing-range, would have been quite useless, because the shells will only penetrate and not explode inside the ship. Insofar Captain Leach was the only commanding British officer present with a clear view on it. And it would have made no sense for PE to fire 8-inch ap-shells. The shell-hits on this range would have dropped from the armament into the sea. Only direct explosions damaging unprotected infrastructure on BBs promised success, as it happened. To stay in the line of battle was not a question of courage for Brinkmann. Astern of him Norfolk and Suffolk in luv 2 enemy-BBs, in lee the ice. And his superiour speed would not have been fast enough to escape southwards.
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
@dovetonsturdee7033 As i mentioned Lütjens hoped for cruisers. And even on the bridge of Hoods they were mistaken in their judgement at the beginning of the battle. During the battle Bismarck increased speed up to 30 Knots and catched up to protect PE. But the height and the size of the 15 inch shell-splashes around PE were an obvious feature to evaluate the opponents. There the famous photos with Brinkmann checking pieces of Hood's shells falling on the deck of PE. The question of closing up to PoW is a general question for what are warships built for. The German admiralty denied to use warships for the purpose they were built for. They preferred to lose them to air attacks.
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
@dovetonsturdee7033 Yes, of course, Yamashiro was able to fire some shots with the forward turrets against the flanking cruisers of Adm. Oldendorf's battle-squadron. After recieiving radar-steered hits from Oldendorfs BBs, Yamashiro tried to escape, funny BB-battle. Fuso was already sunk by destroyers. The insults you concern are only polite paraphrases. You are so out of question for any maritime debate, that only politness is keeping me on board. Your interpretations are taken out of nowhere. You might search for another hobby, perhaps breeding pigeons?
1
@johnfrancis2215 What do you mean, i suppose, is the knock-out of the radar on the forcastle of Scharnhorst. So, Scharnhorst's gunnery was directed with rangefinders locating the muzzle-flashes, insofar existing in complete darkness. As i wrote in 2 years the Brits developed their miserable rangefinder shooting to a developed radar-steered shooting. DoY achieved the best shooting in British history. But the decisive century-hit 14'inch into the propulsion-room slighty above the main belt of Scharnhorst, was in a way lucky, because of Scharnhorst's flat silhouette. Scharnhorst was more steady than Musashi or Yamato, if do you compare the received Torpedo hits. And ship-torpedos are much bigger than aircraft-torpedos...
1
@bigblue6917 Graf Spee was an idiot. He admitted it with his last signal to commander of Gneisenau.
1
@maunsell24 Dagegen will ich nichts einwenden. Allerdings traf die Bismarck erst nach dem Gefecht in der Dänemarkstraße bereits schwer beschädigt mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht zusammen.
1