Comments by "ricardo kowalski" (@ricardokowalski1579) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1. When the government doesn't (no longer?) like what the "experts" have to say, they get rid of the "experts". History, literature and language are the memory of a society. By attacking these, it becomes easier to control large masses lacking a shared culture.
    1
  2.  @jorgem.alonso5409  Good question. He did not defeat the navy, he defeated the army ferried by said navy. The objective was the taking of Cartagena, and it mostly involved a land campaign. There really was little ship-to-ship battle, so it gets a "meh" from naval historians. Lezo played the rains and tropical diseases pretty much the same way russians played the winter card. The location of Cartagena greatly enhances the defense. The shallow waters in front of the Baluarte Santo Domingo prevented ocean going ships from coming into range and firing on the city. The shallows also made troop landings exposed to cannon fire while approaching, denying a direct assault with fire support.
    1
  3.  @drcovell  yes 🙂😂🙂
    1
  4. Fine, don't pay me. It's my boat and the confederates would love to take it off my hands.😂
    1
  5. Check out the supplies and history of quinine, salt, cocoa, coconut oil, tar and coffee. And, of course, the Royal navy needed rum... lots and lots of rum. 👍
    1
  6. The funny thing is that we have historical examples and proof of media misleading the public for (reasons)... and yet with the technological advances and powerful capabilities that we have today... it is still called "a conspiracy theory" when you ask "cui bono?"
    1
  7.  @davidchambers8697  carriers go brrrr 😁
    1
  8.  @davidchambers8697  The plan orange to retake the Philippines required a navy, so yes a navy was needed. Had the navy NOT being rebuilt, the war in the pacific would have stalled in Guadalcanal? Maybe earlier? ---- To achieve unconditional surrender, you needed a navy. Peace!
    1
  9. Top shelf content.
    1
  10. "a few minutes later" 😂
    1
  11. Because "british invasion" is already taken... 😁
    1
  12. 52:40 grappling hooks are cool
    1
  13.  @milferdjones2573  Yep. 👍
    1
  14. the engineering gods are angry!!!
    1
  15.  @dagdom1280  thanks! 👍
    1
  16. Solid content. 👍
    1
  17. Why not sink blockships in Mers-Al-kebir? The french keep their ships, their lives and save face. The germans cannot take the ships to sea.
    1
  18.  @WALTERBROADDUS  There was ample supply of combat damaged ships that were low priority for repair/upgrade.
    1
  19.  @lamwen03  agreed, the USN had aerial and spotters advantage. And that is why Guadalcanal was decisive. In the real timeline, USN lost many cruisers early on, could not and did not risk the carriers, and did have to send in the few and available battleships. Because there was nothing else left Send the Yamatos into Guadalcanal early, and risk them in daylight in the same way they were later risked in the Phillipines or Okinawa. Beach Yamato if neccesary, hit Henderson field hard. Guadalcanal was the moment to gamble the surface fleet. Time was against the IJN. Waiting favored the USN buildup.
    1
  20. 1:22:13 no war with Japan = no kamikaze. Soooooo... No air search radar picket destroyers? VT fuze kept unused? No Alaska class dakka-dakka super cruiser? 🤔🤷‍♂️
    1
  21. Solid content.
    1
  22. Why no kantai kessen? The IJN believed that an attack on the Philippines would bring out the US fleet in force, which was reasonable because it was included in war plan orange. I submit that actually taking the Philippines backfired. Merely blockading/threatening the Philippines would have created urgency to relieve the Philippines. Taking the Philippines removed that urgency. After Bataan fell, the US planners took it as a sunk cost (pun intended), and focused in something else.
    1
  23.  @gregorywright4918  fair points. After Bataam fell, the "thrusters" had no argument, and the "cautious" carried the day. I submit to you that the IJN did get two "kantai kessen" moments: Force Z and battle of Java seas. So in their mind "it worked!" .....Only the USN refused the bait, for reasons. ----Respectfully.
    1
  24.  @stevevalley7835  that is a great "what if?". 👍
    1
  25. Solid coment
    1
  26. If I had a nickel for everytime my bow was ripped off, I would have two nickels...which isn't a lot, but it's wierd it happened twice.
    1
  27. The most inaccurate part of the movie scene is Russell's signing. 😁
    1
  28. Let's hope that Amazon is not listening to Drach's ideas.... least they change the trucks and drones for indirect fire missions.
    1
  29. Solid content
    1
  30. 43:40 If you build the canal, you also tell Denmark that you have no intention/need to invade them. It forces them into neutrality or ELSE
    1
  31. Did Tang get a patch of a pirate eating ice cream? 🏴‍☠️🍨
    1
  32. Why is it that Carthage flourished and was rich, and the same space later became poor and unproductive? Rome fought and vanquished a peer in north Africa... but why did it stay down for centuries?
    1
  33.  @Fenris86  Agree. But it begs the question, why did they turn to piracy and not trade? Hypothesis: Did the larger, longer range tall ships bypass them? Larger, safer, tall ships could sail directly from Egypt to London, and made the intermediate stops useless? /// I have the idea that Carthage traded, but also produced and exported a lot of olive oil wheat. What happened to that farmland?
    1
  34. The ship is on 🔥 fire!... ..........Panik!! 😲 Flooding🌊puts out the fires...Kalm 😑 Flooding🌊is sinking the ship!!...Panik!! 😱
    1
  35. Did any of these mount even a basic search radar? Would a search radar give away the disguise?
    1
  36. 37:00 Yeah, the french have that in the bag Yeah... this was funny
    1
  37. 39:30 The russians are still claiming they won WW2 single handed. If the RN had sunk anything larger than a cruiser, we would never hear the end of it.
    1
  38.  @benwilson6145  I agree, if in open sea. But within neutral Norweigan waters...it was a pickle. 🥒 Regards
    1
  39.  @benwilson6145  1-you cannot know in advance they have POWs onboard, 2- It's for the Norwegians to enforce that in their territorial waters. Britain cannot barge into the waters of neutral Norway. Not without an invitation or a call for help by the norwegians.
    1
  40. Sunday dose of Drach
    1
  41. I see what you did there.
    1
  42. Ji ji... He said "sloop" 😊
    1
  43.  @TraditionalAnglican  the proverbial "lucky shot" 😁
    1
  44.  @rohanthandi4903  it didn't take long for the horde to arrive 😁
    1
  45.  @88porpoise  it doesn't matter what let the water in, it only matter that guns can not let the water in.
    1
  46.  @88porpoise  of course you can sink something with gun fire. That is not the point. But how long did it take? How many hits did it take? It is much more effective to sink something using torpedoes.
    1
  47.  @rohanthandi4903  not the point. How many gunfire hits would it take to sink the "relic" of thr Belgrano? How easy was to sink it with "relic" torpedoes?
    1
  48.  @88porpoise  sorry. Yes it can be compared. Just how many bombs did it take to sink Tirpitz? How big were those bombs? Yes, that can be compared to relic run of the mill torpedoes, two hits and you are done. Sometimes only one.
    1
  49.  @88porpoise  once again... you conflate "torpedo bomber" and "aerial torpedo" with "torpedo" It's not going to work. Try again
    1
  50.  @88porpoise  not the point The issue is that many many airplanes and bombers went to Tromso...and could not sink Tirpitz
    1