Comments by "Not shaped for sportive tricks" (@notshapedforsportivetricks2912) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
233
-
197
-
175
-
160
-
97
-
86
-
84
-
73
-
73
-
66
-
65
-
62
-
59
-
48
-
44
-
44
-
40
-
31
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Yeah, the blimps were surprisingly effective escorts, even without radar. They had great visibility and could loiter around a convoy for a long time. I feel a bit sorry for their aircrews, mind.
Imagine the scene., a Pensacola bar. An attractive blonde approaches three naval aviators.
Girl: So, flyboy; what sort of plane do you fly?
Pilot 1: I fly an F6 Hellcat, miss. The plane that wiped out the Zeros at the Turkey Shoot.
Girl: What about you, tall, dark and handsome?
Pilot 2: I fly an F4U Corsair, miss. The plane that drove the japanese out of the Solomons.
Girl: And you, hot stuff?
Piĺot 3: I fly the Goodyear blimp, ma'am, and we've never lost a collier
20
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheNecromancer6666 If materiel was all that counted, I'd agree with you. But the war was deeply unpopular in the North at certain points. The south, by contrast, was much more united behind the war effort. Morover, they had unambiguous aims, which the north did not.
Had Grant not been such a positive force in the west, then the confederates might well have held on to Vicksburg, the fall of which was crucial for Lincoln. And consider; if no Grànt, then probably no Sherman. That would mean no march through Georgia and the Carolinas, no fall of Savannah and no electoral boost for Lincoln's reelection. Then McClelland wioud have become president with a negotiated peace very likely.
No, I still think that Grant was essentual for victory.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
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
-
2
-
I might have been spending too much time watching Dr. Sheldon Cooper's "Fun with Flags", but the purpose of both ensigns and jacks is to: a) identify the nationality of a ship and b) to identify it as a naval vessel. Or, in the case of the Bolivian navy's jack, to induce seizures in the enemy when they see it flapping in the breeze.
Strictly, jacks fly fron the jack staff while the ensign can fly from either the ensign staff or a masthead.
In Commonwealth navies, a white ensign is usually flown from the ensign staff while the national flag is used as a jack. Republican nations like the US use the national flag as the ensign, and so had to invent a jack for the navy. The french use the tricolour for both, while the canadians can't make up their bloody minds.
Also, in Commonwealth navies, the jack is only flown when a ship is at anchor or tied up alongside. Both it and the ensign are raised ar Colours and lowered at Sunset.
As far as I know, the only flag generally flown continuously is the ship's commissioning pennant, which is only lowered when the ship is decomussioned.
And so to string theory.
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
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wow! Talk about the long arm of coincidence. On Friday night I finally got around to watching your interview with Jon Parshall on Midway, and tonight I watched the second half of Nick Hodges' two part review of the movie Midway on his History Buffs Youtube channel. Lets just say that your views on the movie don't entirely coincide with his.
While he did point out some historical inaccuracies in the movie, he was generally laudatory of it and even praised the director for at last attempting to make an "historically accurate" movie. I was wondering if you have seen either part of the review and, if so, what you thought of it.
The second half of the review seemed to me, to be based on the received knowledge of Midway, and didn't address the common "myths" which Mr Parshall covered in his interview with you. I suspect that Nick hadn't read "Shattered Swòrd", relying instead on commonly accepted historical accounts.
That said, I very much enjoy Nick's movie reviews, finding them to be a generally accurate historical critique of the film under review. I can especially reccomend his videos on Zulu, Waterloo, The Terror and Goodfellas.
I hasten to add that I don't want to start a Youtube rumble between two channels whose work I very much appreciate and admire; I'd just like to hear your take on his summary.
And for what its worth, your views and his on the movie Pearl Harbour gel precisely.
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@afx935 I think you're being a bit generous with the USN here. While I concede that the attitudes in the US Congress to naval budgets caused the navy major headaches in terms of equipment, the continual outbreaks of, shall we say, novelty, in US ships of this period reflect that the navy just didn't know what its role was supposed to be. This gets in the way of coherent design policy and might explain why the Maines had an outmoded design even when conceived as armoured cruisers. And while the Keersages might have been nice, stable gun platforms, that wasn't enough to enourage anyone to repeat the double8-decker turret format.
In the end, everyons adopted the general design concepts of the Majestics. Some of this was probably due to a desire to counter whatever the RN big dog was doing; but there was also a large element of convergent design and the Majestics addressed 90% of fleet requirements 90% of the time.
In addition, the RN's iterative approach to a successful general design allowed them to form homogenous squadrons; which is always an advantage in terms of capability and command. Sure some iterations were more successful than others, but overall the advantages were significant.
On a question of pure aesthetics however, I don't think that there are prettier pre-dreadnoughts than the Swiftsures; even if they were under-gunned ana bit rattly at high speed.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not necessarily. Nelson was certainly not above showboating and self-publicity.
There is an account of Wellington (then simply Arthur Wellesley) bumping into Nelson at the Colonial Office. Wellesley said that Nelson, by then a national hero ...
"Entered at once into a conversation with me, if I can call it a conversation, for it was almost all on his side and all about himself, an in, really a style so vain and silly as to surprise and almost disgust me."
At this point, Nelson left the room, presumably to ask the door-keeper who the hooky-nosed bugger in the next room was. At any rate, he re-entered the room and made quite a different impression on Wellesley, who continued,
"He was altogether a different man, both in manner and in matter. All that I had thought a charlatan style had vanished ... and he talked of the state of the country and of the aspect and probability of affairs on the Continent with a good sense and knowledge of subjects ... that surprised me equally and more agreeably than the first part of the interview had done".
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