Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "SMS Scharnhorst - Guide 012 (Human Voice)" video.

This would not happen to the Royal family. Another evidence of Spee's stupidity.
4
@Nyctasia the best admiral was WWII flag officer Wihelm Marschall. He was sent home, because he was a more British-style-sea-officer. Hipper was not bad, his worst mistake was, to implement the armoured cruiser Blücher into his sqaudron at the battle of the Doggerbank. It makes no sense to include slow ships into the line of battle, as we can see in the battle of Tsushima or the Jutland-clash.
3
You are the first guy here, who has understand the failure of Spee.
3
Drachinifel's pure technical analytics are not adequate in this story. Gneisenau and Nürnberg were the scouting vessels. Several ship-commanders had doubts to attack Port Stanley. Why they came closer in the morning, not in the evening? An attack against the Brits in the harbour would have given the chance of torpedo hits with no possebility for the Brits to start an evasion manoeuvre. Even in the case, that all German ships would have been sunk, many crewmen have had the chance to reach the shores. Enter-attack in harbour could have been successful, too. An alternative would have been a course to Port Howard. The cover of Swanisland would have enforced Sturdee to a close combat.
3
@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
No, there are many publications of the history of the German overseas-squadron. The british are very good, but sometimes too polite with the German idiots in command.
2
The main disadvantage of Blücher was the low speed. With an adjusted speed, she could have led the squadron in the van and better protected by the 3 battle-cruisers, Hipper had under his command.
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
No, the German navy lacked the tradition of warfare on the seas in their officer's staff. The most losses were made due to the commanders-in-chief's wrong decisions. Crews, artillery-officers, engineers were fine. But nobody can outdo his superiour officer.
2
The Brits did not respected the international law, as usual, they had signed in the case of SMS Dresden. A bunch of pirates.
2
@johnlavery3433 those idiots missed the chance to sink the drunken Brits.
1
@Raptorrat yes of course, de Ruyter was comparable to Cochrane, Duncan, Blake, Sidney-Smith and much better than Nelson. De Ruyter is one of the 5 best known Dutch guys at all.
1
No, the Germans should have dismissed the idiots to the front and to order the smart guys to command their ships.
1
Yes, Sir, this would have been the tactic every able flag-officer would have ordered. The launch of torpedos of 5 ships, could not be rejected by the British squadron. The Brits would have had enourmos losses. Even in the case all German ships would have been sunk, parts of the crews had have the chance to reach the shores to survive. Spee was an idiot.
1
No, the German ships were sunk by a wrong decision of the most senior officer.
1
@CaptCondor check the simple British wiki about the Falklands. Even the Brits did not understand why, seen under the current circumstances, von Spee did not attack. 2 Battle-Cruisers in the harbour, close range possible. 10 o' clock in the morning, good weather, fine visability. An escape-course could have been the Falkland-Sund, but never the open seas. For what do we need a vice-admiral if he decides the worst decision? A midshipman would have been enough for this miserable job.
1
@CaptCondor The 3-leg-masts specified the battle-cruisers. Gneisenau signalled BCs in the harbour. Von Spee knew that he will be chased by the Brits. And what kind of ships the Brits will send? A destroyer squadron?
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
@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 Craddock was in the Pacific to hunt von Spee, in a way british insanity. Here von Spee missed already the chance to sink all enemy ships. This is, of course, not british it is foolish. The only non-Brit, who acted more british than the Brits, was Bali de Suffren. Every british flag-officer serves/served under the verdict of Admiral Byng. And you mentioned the ammunition-situation on board of the german ships. More than 40% were already consumed. This is more a reason to look for a close range battle, using the torpedo launchers. Btw. Pemsel's Books are more favourable than the Nimitz-book. But i do not know it is available in english.
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
@mebeasensei it was Admiral Canaris, later on in WWII the boss of the "Abwehr".
1
Bravery is not so effective as smartness. As an admiral Spee was a total flop. Read the British wiki of the battle of the Falklands. His duty is to defeat the enemy and not to let sunk his ships without any chance to engage the enemy.
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
@thurbine2411 Ok, Spee was a degenerated noble idiot of the German estate-based society, which costs more or less the Germans WWI. Gneisenau was scouting in the morning Port Stanley. Why not in the evening before dawn? Gneisenau identified very clear the masts of British battlecruisers. This means von Spee's armoured cruisers were outrunned by 3 knots of superiour battlecruiser's speed. It was the best good sailing weather, clear sight. So, why von Spee set course to the open sea? Why he sailed in line? Faster ships could not use their speed advantage. There would have been 2 better options. 1st, an escape course along the coast to take cover behind a lot of small islands, trying to reach the sund of the Falklands. The 2nd & best option would have been to attack the British squadron in Port Stanley. The Brits were not able to outrange German guns. They could not dodge torps & German crews on sinking German ships could swim to the shore. Von Spee was a slacker. he achieved the sinking of his squadron without any result. Not drowned, he must have been shot, court-marshalled for stupidity facing the enemy.
1
@tanegashima5395 they faced often the superiour russian battleships in the Black Sea.
1