Comments by "DasBubba" (@dasbubba841) on "CaspianReport"
channel.
-
377
-
33
-
26
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
@patrickcloutier6801 Those examples aren't really good. The 1894-95 war was against the Chinese, who lacked their own naval tradition, and were terribly corrupt and poorly trained and led.
The Russians had the disadvantage of geography and poor leadership, and they could not combine their fleets. They were also undergoing serious internal problems, which prevented them from taking advantage of the fact that, for all their victories, the Japanese had taken serious losses and were on the verge of bankruptcy.
And, let us not forget, when the Japanese themselves faced a well-organized, modern, and serious naval power, the US, they lost the war and their empire.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patrickcloutier6801 And yet Japan still lost the Pacific War. While they had made impressive leaps in naval development, they were still far behind the Americans in various aspects, such as damage control, radar, fire control, and overall material quality. Also, their designs were rather primitive (Sticking as many guns on a limited hull as possible).
A functioning navy is not something that can be conjured up overnight. Modern warships are highly complicated pieces of machinery that required skilled personnel. China of 1992 was largely a coastal defense force, consisting of missile boats and small frigates. The rapid construction of ships may look impressive from a paper view, but leaves many questions. Immature design (more to a ship than missiles and guns), lack of skilled manpower (especially qualified officers), and poor quality construction. China is especially backwards in terms of submarine technology, with their subs widely said to be some of the loudest.
However, these aren't issues that are readily seen in peacetime, but become very apparent in the event of war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2