Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1.  @hhale  I appreciate your excellent response.
    2
  2.  @bjorntheviking6039  I agree, however, there is nothing confusing about Jefferson's behavior. Just the perception by others that he was contradictory.
    2
  3. the US plan for the Battle of Midway was developed by the Naval War College in the late 1920s. Just as the three war plans for defeating Japan, of which Orange was used, were developed before WW2 as well. In the 1920s and 1930s the US and Japan already knew they were going to fight each other eventually, and were already planning accordingly, and US leadership had anticipated the Japanese attacking Midway and having a carrier battle. This is why the US rushed its carriers into position when they knew of the Japanese attack coming, and how they knew exactly where to place their carriers in relation to Midway. This was the battle plan that had been devised and tested repeatedly in wargames at the US Naval War College.
    2
  4. but no matter how much technology changes the battlefield, the basics of warfare always remain the same.
    2
  5. Also, NEVER make Subjective comparisons that you cannot backup with Objective facts and hard evidence. Don't repeat common myths, don't inject your personal opinions. just share the facts if you want videos to hold up over time.
    2
  6. Warspite, Dreadnaught....
    2
  7. WW1 version of an Arsenal ship
    2
  8.  @Conn30Mtenor  the war in the Pacific didn't really happen on the East Coast either (aside from a few minor incidents most people have never even heard of). Having a museum of a famous person in their home state/town is common. Where in the US would you put a museum for the North African campaign. Africa doesn't exist in the Americas, but we're still going to have museums anyways. Plus, the US is large, good to have museums about the big topics scattered all across the nation so more people can learn about it.
    2
  9. The Japanese also hated the Me109. Japan had a different idea of what they wanted, doesn't mean non-Japanese designs were far better in many cases, just that they didn't suit Japan's needs or fighting style. Japan believed in maneuverability at the expense of speed, and range at the expense of armor, self sealing tanks, and other features. Fact is, Japan got it wrong. Speed was more important than pure maneuverability, and those other features were key for survivability, especially against a logistically superior foe.
    2
  10. What's really interesting is that by war's end, the F4U corsair was arguably the best dive bomber in the Navy, while doubling as a fighter. Also, had the war gone on the A-1 Skyraider would have joined the fight, leaving basically two aircraft to fill all roles, aside from a TBM or two per carrier. F4U takes the role of fighter and dive bomber, while the A-1 takes the role of dive bomber and torpedo bomber. You end up with more fighters, as well as more bombers.
    2
  11. Iowa are 100% fast battleships, as opposed to a Battlecruiser.
    1
  12. 27:52 my vote goes to Richard Whitcomb
    1
  13. And yet people complain about the F4U as a carrier fighter early in the war..........
    1
  14. how did they solve water getting into the hull due to propeller shafts?
    1
  15. the engine vibration and aircraft failing apart likely stems from the earliest engineering test flights of the Zero when a plane disintegrated due to vibration and the engine separated. But that issue was addressed by the engineering team. Read the book written by the designer of the Zero itself, Jiro, he explains what happened.
    1
  16. such an unfair and disingenuous analysis of Mitchell.
    1
  17. Love videos like this one.
    1
  18. US WW2 cruisers look great, but so often overlooked. But I do understand why they get overlooked. But they just look so good.
    1
  19.  @rogersmith7396  "In the age of sail, boats were towed behind the ship to protect them in combat. Boats on an Iowa class are just as vulnerable to combat damage." what's your point? tell him, not me. I'm not the one who's confused her. but clearly you can't read and think I'm the one who doesn't get it.
    1
  20.  @rogersmith7396  who are you talking to? learn to read
    1
  21. a similar video on torpedoes would be much appreciated if possible.
    1
  22. you're very clearly pro-Navy. how obsolete a target ship was has no bearing on the concepts. Mitchell was a visionary and everything he claimed ended up coming true, as he predicted.
    1
  23.  @jacobdill4499  and what did he say, exactly, that you claim having ships and infantry disproves? Infantry are no good on the ocean. And he's not wrong about the US being able to defend itself solely with air power against naval attack/invasion. Rapid Dragon, using USAF cargo planes to wipe out entire fleets? B-21 raider?
    1
  24. war is stranger than fiction. things happen that no one will ever believe because it wasn't caught on camera.
    1
  25.  @InchonDM  but the events in his book also correlate and line up with other first hand accounts of people in those battles as well, as well as lining fairly well with historical records. If we discounted all first hand accounts of historical events, where would that leave us? second and third hand sources, while having benefit of hindsight to see the bigger picture and correct minor errors, were not present at the events in question, and can easily misrepresent the truth of what happened as well.
    1
  26.  @InchonDM  I didn't accuse you of saying they were unusable.
    1
  27.  @mahbriggs  That's what I said. There were multiple subs of the Hunley design, but only one named Hunley. hence, "Hunley type". But there was also the Alligator and other subs the North had. I apparently learned more than you about the Civil War in school, and 20yrs later than you did.
    1
  28.  @mahbriggs  One, nothing I said was wrong. You're conflating multiple separate things. Two, you didn't learn that in public school. You're making a false argument. Three, I never said what I learned in school, only that I learned more than you based on your own statements. Clearly you got the lesser education of the two of us on multiple counts. What you learned on your own time doesn't count. You're refuting claims that were never made....
    1
  29.  @dawnfallon6812  "A good teacher inspires and equips their students to explore the subject on their own. Mine was such a teacher, and she gave us the tools to learn beyond what she could show. A lot of us did. " all true, but self-study material is not stuff a person learned in school. "The Confederacy tried all manner of unorthodox concepts with the David standing out." yes they did, but the North did too, though not as much nor as well. the Confederates were forced to innovate more due to their situation and disadvantages.
    1
  30. US considered doing this to Illinois, but realized it would be faster and cheaper to simply build another Essex or two.
    1
  31.  @blackbuttecruizr  they eventually fixed them too...
    1
  32. Most of the Japanese long range torpedo shots were the work of one man, Captain Hara.
    1
  33.  @gregorywright4918  there is an entire video about it here on Youtube with all the details. they even went to the US Naval War college to film it. there are multiple books too.
    1
  34.  @youmukonpaku3168  Native Americans A great many cities, counties, rivers, lakes, etc. in WI are named for Native Americans.
    1
  35. correct, Midway was all about taking out the Japanese carriers, not about actually defending Midway itself, which Japan had no serious means of holding onto anyways.
    1
  36. please elaborate on this little shed and the cable cutting ships!
    1
  37. 42:47 this is blatant misrepresentation. just because it acted like a mine, and caused damage, doesn't invalidate the results. face it, the bombs worked, and now you're trying to make up excuses why it didn't count. This if anything, proved the aircraft COULD damage ships, especially if they used the weapons correctly, and that you didn't necessarily have to hit teh ship directly to do it either. But people who have a bone to pick, and agenda to serve, and a narrative to spin, will twist any detail to suit their narrative.
    1
  38.  @adamtruong1759  the point of the test was to prove airplanes could attack ships. walk before you run. nobody is EVER going to test live weapons on a brand new warship. " It's also not like nobody thought aircraft couldn't damage ships, which was why they were carrying out the tests in the first place to examine their effects." yeah, because some people advocated for it. Mitchell was a visionary, and he would have understood the resistance he would be up against pushing new ideas through. He went a little overboard in a few cases needlessly, but given the ridiculous resistance he would be up against at times, from people like you, he had to get a little heavy handed at times and make sure he wasn't denied opportunities to get his point across.
    1
  39.  @adamtruong1759  obsolete has nothing to do with it. they're testing the idea of attacking ships with airplanes. first steps are to see if they can even hit a ship, find a ship, sink a ship, etc. then they evolve tactics, improve aircraft design, develop specialized weapons, etc. this is a BS criticism of Mitchell to whine like a child about the state of the art of the warships. What even made them obsolete compared to newer ships anyway? "And for a visionary, the only thing he got vaguely right was the importance of air power. " shows how childishly little you know about Mitchell. That guy predicted a great many things often times to within a year of when it actually came to fruition, decades in advance! " Wanting to scrap the Navy's flying boats just because they weren't under his control" this is a blatant misrepresentation. even today the debate about the USAF and other air assets continues. "having extremely sensational claims while rarely expanding upon them" not true. if your only source is this video, then yes, you'd be led to falsely beleive that. " and arguing the US can do away with the army/navy and win with only air power." The US was largely an isolationist country, with a defense-only mindset before WW2. Even the Founders argued about having no Navy. And Mitchell was 100% correct taht the US could be defended against naval invasion purely by airpower if they wanted to. he was absolutely correct in that regard, and that claim holds ridiculously true today. Just look at Rapid Dragon and the B-21 for starters. "Doesn't sound like a visionary I want to follow, especially since the aviation wing of the Navy seemed to have a better grasp on reality and much more prepared than Mitchell's boys." Becasue you're a moron who doesn't know anything about american history, warfare, nor what Mitchell was really all about. this video barely scratches the surface of Mitchell's story. He has been completely vindicated by history. "As for getting the point across, all Mitchell did in that test was prove with enough explosives an unmanned and unmaneuvering capital ship in a known location and clear weather will sink, which everyone knew. " this lame attack again? did you know fully armed and manned ships sink EVEN BETTER!?!?! Yamato? USS Arizona? USS Maine? the list of ships that blew themselves apart from a single hit is VERY LONG. And you can't learn to hit moving ships until you TRY IT, and learn what does and doesn't work, adapt and develop new tactics. Childish ignorant nonsense. "It's like if someone bombarded the decommissioned super-carrier USS America with hypersonic missiles in a SINKEX until it outright sank (instead of testing it with various explosives and carefully examining how each "hit" affects the ship over the course of a few weeks which actually happened), and then claimed it proved the superiority of the hypersonic missile and the obsolescence of the carrier." Except that's not what happened. It wasn't sunk with hypersonics. And they tested to see how much it could Survive. Have you seen how easy it is to sink a modern warship with an airplane? A single hit can sink a modern Destroyer or Cruiser. Just look at teh Moskava. And they kept the America sinking classified so we don't know how vulnerable the carriers are. "It doesn't take in numerous factors in to account, and nobody would actually learn anything new or useful." Wrong! they were testing something that had never been tried before. you're judging mitchell completely out of context.
    1
  40.  @adamtruong1759  "Okay, there's no need to be throwing insults. You might hurt someone's feelings. " don't be weak "Anyway, I welcome you to inform me on what Mitchell actually did." go read a book. I'm not here to give you an education. I'm here to call out the blatant bias and ignorance of supposed "experts" who can't remain objective. And to call out mindless followers of such "experts" like yourself. So easily swayed and manipulated by such little info, taken out of context, and dripping in bias.
    1
  41. 10:00 Mitchell wasn't telling people what WAS, he was telling them what was on the Horizon. Essentially, "soon we'll have bombers capable of __________, so let's start planning accordingly." And what happened in teh future vindicated him completely. He was a visionary, that understood the march of technology.
    1
  42. Member of CAP, but I get annoyed when CAP members try to claim they are military. They are not. CAP is a corporation, and they are civilians. They are like Boy Scouts, but actually provide assistance to the military and provide search and rescue functions, etc. But they are civilian and not military. CAP members can quit any time, voluntary only, not subject to UCMJ, no military service or training required, etc.
    1
  43. Chennault did witness zeroes in China, from the ground, and knew the impact it was having on the chinese air force.
    1
  44. exactly, Hitler had no serious means of conducting and sustaining a cross channel amphibious assault with the Royal Navy still in existence. Germany lacked the ships and support ships to pull it off, and had no means of defeating the Royal Navy surface fleet.
    1
  45.  @sixstringedthing  so Pearl Harbor wasn't responsible for the US joining WW2? The invasion of Poland wasn't the reason why the UK and France declared war on Germany?
    1
  46. It seems Japan sees Yukikaze as a lucky charm, but it may well have been a curse.
    1
  47.  @cholodelrosari0543  well, the US scrapped a number of famous ships as well...as did the UK... But you make a good point.
    1
  48.  @jamesm3471  trolling I see
    1
  49.  @jamesm3471  wasn't sure how to interpret your comment.
    1
  50.  @ph89787  yes, but Enterprise didn't fight for Japan.
    1