Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "World's Worst Warships - Book Review with Drach (Part 1 of 2)" video.

  1. 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