Comments by "" (@thomasneal9291) on "Historigraph" channel.

  1. well, it was surrounded by ships that were more than capable of fighting back, especially against a sub. What happened there? 3 destroyers let a single sub slip past them. weird, especially for that late in the war.
    4
  2. grow up.
    3
  3. if you look at his maneuvers, they were textbook. so there WAS skill there, but nothing overly remarkable for the time and place. the remarkable thing was the paranoia of the Japanese carrier captain flaunting proper screening maneuvers from his own destroyers.
    2
  4. it was still under construction.
    2
  5. they did try when she went past 10 degrees. it was insufficient.
    2
  6. you're a bit late to the party there.
    2
  7. theoretically.
    1
  8. likely the deck wasn't ready for lauching, AND they weren't worried about a single sub.
    1
  9. your god does not exist.
    1
  10. pretty sure the vid mentioned that it was, AT THE TIME, the leader in tonnage. that was in 1944. there was a whole 'nother year of the war at that point.
    1
  11. exactly what I was thinking.
    1
  12. 3 destroyers cannot hold that many extra crew.
    1
  13. yes, but only because of much better destroyers and early warning systems.
    1
  14. OTOH, there were two famous cases of single subs penetrating modern screens of US warships during wargames in the 1990s and early 2000s IIRC. but adjustments were made. seems very unlikely now.
    1
  15. subs in 1944 had both sonar AND radar. my guy.
    1
  16. yes. I found that curious as well. they apparently KNEW they were being shadowed, yet did nothing about it?
    1
  17. apologized.... 50 years later you mean. My dad's best friend's entire family was interned in those camps in California. disgraceful. And we damn near did it again with Muslims in the early 2000s. I'm glad that didn't happen, but it was a clear trigger to me that America is crazy, and after 45 years and 5 generations, I was no longer going to put my support behind that insanity. Much happier living in NZ.
    1
  18.  @southstar9931  he's doing a kids analogy based on using a playstation joystick.
    1
  19. Read (or watch) "The Man in the High Castle". It explores one possible future where Japan and Germany won wwii. Great read.
    1
  20. better that than having it sunk at port, which it would have been if they had left it there much longer.
    1
  21. if they had left it another couple of weeks, it likely would have bombed from the air. Japanese ethos as it was at the time, they probably preferred the risk of it sinking at sea instead of still in the construction harbor.
    1
  22.  @Cholin3947  that wasn't it. pretty sure the issue was the commander of the carrier overriding anybody with any actual experience with subs in the destroyer screen. hard to deploy a towed array at 20 knots in 1944.
    1
  23. pride and supposed psychological impact on the enemy. just like Hitler putting so many resources into building the Bismark.
    1
  24. remember when there was no internet filled with lunkheads dropping irrelevant comments everywhere? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
    1
  25. I think it was inexperience on the part of everybody involved.
    1
  26. there were MANY differences in the two ships. it's detailed in the video. did you watch it?
    1
  27. I'm sure Titanic survivors scoffed at the idea they were sunk by a scratch from an iceberg. But they were.
    1
  28. "This is fantasy" everything you said after that... was false. run along troll.
    1
  29. I guess you missed the part where she did indeed have 3 destroyer escort. How was a sub able to pass within 10 feet of a destroyer in 1944 is what I want to know.
    1
  30. the japanese destroyers DID have sonar, and radar. just like the american Balao class subs did by 1944. I gotta think it was just down to inexperience. they KNEW they were being chased by a sub. It's gotta be just a series of poor decisions on the part of the Japanese that allowed that sub to get a perfect spread on that ship.
    1
  31. did you notice how he stymied the subhunting behavior of his destroyer screen? that was fatal.
    1
  32. LOL
    1
  33. actually, they pretty much did their best to maximize their potential early in the war. just bad luck for them and good luck for the allies at Midway tipped the scales... after that, it was an inevitable defeat. The US inevitably would have attacked Japan eventually, there were too many assets involved. The Japanese strategy of trying to get the US to consider they would lose too much if they started a ware on two fronts was the ONLY strategy they COULD pursue. It just didn't work out. it was not a mistake on their part.
    1
  34.  @lanceamadantebonife3987  it was a wargame specifically designed to test whether the then modern american screening was sufficient to protect an american carrier from sub attack. it clearly was not. that was the entire PURPOSE of the exercise. I do wish ignorant americans would stop foaming at the mouth every time this comes up.
    1
  35.  @Excentrix54  plenty of people blinked. you must have missed it.
    1
  36. destroyers are literally built to hunt subs. seems a bit like taunting an entire football team after scoring a touchdown... and there's no refs.
    1
  37. politicians don't live life?
    1
  38. dumbest thing I have heard anybody say in this thread. congratulations.
    1
  39. seems remarkably lucky to me.
    1
  40. entirely depends on the ship.
    1
  41. it was meant to act as a self-defended supply carrier for the rest of their fleet. it wouldn't have done much in the end, but that was not the Japanese vision at the time.
    1
  42. so Italy was chopped liver? oh, wait... I guess they kinda were.
    1
  43. so, being a murderer is the standard YOU want to set? pretty sad.
    1
  44. is it really? must have sunk pretty shallow if so.
    1
  45. yeah, so....? by 1944 most us subs had both.
    1
  46. yes, but NOT subs sinking naval war vessels, it was subs sinking supply shipping.
    1
  47.  @kinbolluck476  believe it or not, the americans DID have plans on the board for a flying carrier. so did the germans. just turned out there never was a real NEED for them.
    1
  48. hey, by definition, if it's airtight it's also watertight.
    1
  49. that was before about 1943. the finally fixed the problems and redistributed better torps by then.
    1
  50. I wonder if anybody will really care. No, wait... I don't even wonder that. I KNOW nobody really cares.
    1