Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "Why was Napoleon so Successful?" video.

  1. Number 35? Sweet! Glad to be getting my notifications in a timely manner again!
    30
  2. Off topic, MHV: I was thinking that the one off Surcouf, the French "Submarine Cruiser" was the groundbreaker, with its turreted guns and float plane for spotting fall of shot. Yesterday, however, I was researching WW1 submarines and, in aside, found data on the HM Submarine X1. Not the "X Class" minisub, mind you, but a real submarine cruiser with two turrets (one each fore and aft of the sail) armed with 5.25" guns. Seeing this, I was struck at the similarities to both Surcouf, and the cancelled Typ XI U-Boote submarine cruisers. These now seem like points on a development graph*, rather than one-off experiments, leading to the I-400 Sen Toku giants; a process that mimics that same switch in emphasis from the all gun battleship's heavy armor and large bore rifles to the aircraft carrier's "tinclad" design and very long engagement range. *The US Walrus and Nautilus fleet boats were also variants of this basic paradigm. I guess that the idea was "artillery rounds are one hell of a lot cheaper than torpedoes". This flies in the face of old sailor wisdom that can be quantified into the following: "If you want to fill them with air, bomb them. If you want to fill them with water, torpedo them." Since today's submarine launched cruise missiles are exactly aircraft strike forces it seems that the aircraft carrier sub won out over the gun armed arsenal submersible idea.
    25
  3. A good point, especially pursuant to the Battleship versus Carrier discussion. Thanks for commenting. I hope you don't mind if I open it up a tad. When dealing with Capital Ships, who and which are required to fight gun duels at all ranges their guns can reach, the paradigm falls short of perfection. Jackie Fisher came up with the "Tinclad", which evolved into the Battlecruiser; a class of ship it was hoped could "outrun anything it can't outfight". Since a capital ship's whole raison d'terre is to engage in gunnery duels with other ships, the thin armor of the tinclad rapidly reduced its functional utility to demonstrations of U.K. naval power and "showing the flag". A lot of money spent of showroom queens. Once Aircraft Carrying ships could attack from outside of a capital ship's gun range, and mass air attack it while it tried to come to grips with an unseen foe, it was time for the battleships to move over and make room for another shift in the "control of the sea" paradigm
    4
  4. We'll be the better trained army, at least. ;-)
    1