Comments by "ricardo kowalski" (@ricardokowalski1579) on "Kormoran - Guide 342" video.

Video suggestion: fast fleet oilers. how the shift from coal to oil and the fast carrier forces caught most navies planners by surprise
7
The actions of HMAS Sidney are almost reckless.
6
@johnnyz2378 I understand. It is the "lured" part that baffles me. The decision making is what interests me. Regards
5
@Pusserdoc Training and expectations do affect these situations. Thanks
3
@johnnyz2378 still does not explain why Sydney closed the range. That is what the boats are for
2
@Pusserdoc i appreciate the risk to the boat and boarding party. But risking a cruiser is a larger gamble. I submit that a long(er) boat ride was "necessary" to reduce the risk to the cruiser. Respectfully.
2
@Pusserdoc I celebrate that we agree that there is a similarity between the Uboat/Qship and the Sidney/Kormoran The difference, and to ME what was the "reckless" .. was that the Qships happened 25 years before the Kormoran fought the Sidney . The Uboats that got sunk in WW1 by Qships are the only ones that can claim to be "surprised", naive or careless. After that, nobody can. If Burnett knew about the Qships and the abandonment of the "cruiser rules"... since 1920s, he was reckless. Are you going to argue that Burnett did not study naval warfare for over 25 years?
2
@Pusserdoc "he'd've immediately let rip." THAT would be my choice. I would rather be court martialed than risk the life of my sailors
1
@Pusserdoc Yes, I understand what you are saying. in war you shoot and you get shot at. Someone is going to be hurt. The people, the cargo and the hull of the other ship are the responsability of THAT skipper. If they are incompetent or uncapable of communicating, it is on him. My crew? My ship? It's MY responsability. Why would I risk my command and crew on the assumption that they can't communicate? It is not hindsight I am using. As I said, the HMAS Sydney actions are close to reckless.
1
@Pusserdoc we disagree 👍 And, as far as thousands interactions. The Uboats were quick to learn to stop surfacing when the british Q-ships proved "cruiser rules" obsolete. My point stands, you admit HMAS Sidney was "wrong ". Now we are arguing the adjective. So we need not agree.
1
@sugarnads I am not being "smart" I am actually saying I am fully unqualified to take command of any ship, much less a warship. Having said THAT, the decision making process is a separate issue from myself So now that your as hominem is taken care of... Just so you know, Sidney's captain did plenty wrong. As for the mind reading where you believe I am disrespectful.. go be "disgusted" somewhere else with some other imagined offense.
1
@Pusserdoc "Burnett got himself killed, and all his men killed" That is all I care about. Your rant about Burnett's qualifications does not beat my argument: was he aware of uboat/qships, the abandoning of "cruiser rules" and the progress of naval warfare between 1915 and 1941?
1
@thisherehandleIdospout i have no "feelings" about these matters, other than respect those who risked their life.
1
@Pusserdoc So you have to strawman. Please refrain from telling ME what I care about. The narrative is simplistic because the facts are simple: there was no need to close the range. If Burnett got it wrong, that is not good enough. I still have to understand "why" he got this wrong. This is not a case of lacking resource, or intelligence failure. The motivations, the incentives and the rewards that his superiors laid out are under examined, and may well be reckless by themselves. And for the 5th time.....the uboat/qships were hindsight to Burnett for over 25 years. Your rant and insinuations do not explain how such a "meritorious" commander ignored something 25 years in the making.
1
@Pusserdoc You pretending to know what I care about Stop talking about me.
1
@kimj2570 I have read about Burnett wanting to take the Kormoran as a prize for (reasons). I agree with you, that is speculation. And I also agree, the only relevant and known fact is that Sidney closed the range. Regards
1