Comments by "Mar" (@swunt10) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1. what he is totally missing is how germany always builds ships that (even today) on paper look bigger than other countries ships of the same class and with smaller caliber guns, but in reality these ships are well balanced and just worked. they can take enormous damage and they can accurately hit the enemy unlike british ships which somehow always end up exploding from being hit by a single shell or rocket (ww1, ww2, falklands), rolling over when taking in a bit of water eg. from a torpedo hit, to outright sinking because they hit a single mine and can't stop the flooding. german ships just work better than that, maybe because they are better balanced. just looking at the datasheet doesn't tell you that but reality proved them right.
    12
  2. yeah everyone was clearly ready to call it a day and go back to their respective corners to do some thinking
    7
  3. german interwar ships where neither "world war 1 designs" (in fact they where innovative with diesel propulsion) and neither where the rejected designs "sad" since they are comparable to US and UK design concepts of the time.
    3
  4. what he is totally missing is how germany always builds ships that (even today) on paper look bigger than other countries ships of the same class and with smaller caliber guns, but in reality these ships are well balanced and just work. they can take enormous damage and they can accurately hit the enemy unlike british ships which somehow always end up exploding from being hit by a single shell or rocket (ww1, ww2, falklands), rolling over when taking in a bit of water eg. from a torpedo hit, to outright sinking because they hit a single mine and can't stop the flooding. german ships just work better than that, maybe because they are better balanced. just looking at the datasheet doesn't tell you that but reality proved them right.
    2
  5. how can he say the other ships all had bad luck? the Admiral hipper sunk many ships and survived the war. only the blücher had bad luck by getting sunk by coastal artillery and torpedos in a fjord in norway which was more operators error than bad luck.
    2
  6. when the germans run the ship it worked. one day with american crew and 11 out of 12 boilers are trashed. you sure it's the germans fault for "over-engineering"?
    1
  7. it was a resiliently build ship that was still perfectly afloat even after half the ship was under water. it might not have sunk fully at all so better blow it up. after all the only reason they abandoned the ship was because the props where out of the water and no ship near by was powerful enough get it moving again.
    1
  8. it also is important for preventing a deadly bacteria, Clostridium botulinum, to grow.
    1
  9. air circulation, light, emergency escape.
    1
  10. so the germans, despite being outnumbered, still killed twice as many british sailors and sunk twice as many ships as they lost themselves.
    1
  11. but the zeppelin could launch proper fighter aircraft that where miles ahead of the usual bumble bee navy fighter planes of the day. that makes up for a lot.
    1
  12. what he is totally missing is how germany always builds ships that (even today) on paper look bigger than other countries ships of the same class and with smaller caliber guns, but in reality these ships are well balanced and just work. they can take enormous damage and they can accurately hit the enemy unlike british ships which somehow always end up exploding from being hit by a single shell or rocket (ww1, ww2, falklands), rolling over when taking in a bit of water eg. from a torpedo hit, to outright sinking because they hit a single mine and can't stop the flooding. german ships just work better than that, maybe because they are better balanced. just looking at the datasheet doesn't tell you that but reality proved them right.
    1
  13.  @dovetonsturdee7033  the bismarck was not "crippled" until a torpedo hit her rudder. every ship ever has that achilles heel. I think you really have no idea about the subject but just wanted to troll around. the fact is german ships didn't explode at first touch unlike a long list of british ships (some of which even exploded without enemy action) and german ships didn't sink as easily as british ships (again a long list of ships sinking on first touch within minutes). examples are plentiful. not every ship can win every engagement especially when outnumbered or cut off, but the least they should do is stay afloat for a while and especially they should try not to explode at first touch which is something british ships never really managed.
    1
  14.  @dovetonsturdee7033  the bismark survived the battle against hood and pow and sunk the hood and made the pow run away. only when the torpedo jammed her rudder was she out of battle order. I think you should read up on british ship building. the all or nothing armor is just bullshit. here let me quote you from the king george V armor protection. "The horizontal protection over the magazines consisted of three layers with a total thickness of 9.13 inches; the weather deck consisted of 1.25 inches of Ducol (D) steel,[23] the main armoured deck was of non-cemented steel armour 5.88 inches thick over a .5-inch D[24] steel deck and above the shell rooms there was another 1.5-inch splinter deck.[25][26] The powder magazines were below the shell rooms for added protection, a practice that was begun with the Nelson-class battleships.[22] The weatherdeck thickness was the same over the machinery spaces but there the main armoured deck was reduced to 4.88 inches over a .5-inch D steel deck. The main armoured deck was continued forward of the forward armoured bulkhead and gradually reduced from full thickness to 2.5 inches, while aft of the after magazines an armoured turtle-back deck covered the steering gear with 4.5–5 inches of armour whilst also providing protection along the waterline.[25]" basically the same as bismarck using the same concepts. so you can stop lying now. it will get you nowhere with me.
    1
  15. the most stupid layout and an ugly< design. what a joke of a ship class. it's like they've never seen a battleship but someone told them about it.
    1
  16. there is no such thing as a strategic victory. I have no idea why people always make these relativistic excuses. if you lose a battle 2 to 1 counting dead and sunk ships you can still be larger in force over all. no need to call it a strategic victory. might as well say they managed not to loose strategically. that would at least make sense.
    1
  17. so what. just build a dry dock. it's not a big deal.
    1