Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
135
-
109
-
100
-
76
-
71
-
70
-
63
-
47
-
45
-
40
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Weirdly enough, a class of ships named HMS Ampersand , Apostrophe , Bracket , Comma , Degree , Hyphen , Interrabang , Percent , Quotation , Slash , Squiggle , Star & Thorn ... don't sound bad at all ^_^ .
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
^ Complete nonsense. A~and nope, more than six nations had Capital Ships.
Fact is, from the Tudor period until WWII the Standing Navy was the best political symbol of national power, that also gave a physical real world ability to contest world trade.
The Must-Have Weapon thereof for centuries was the Battleship (different names over the years but functionally the same thing; the most expensive, best armed & protected class of ship in the fleet's Battle Line). Every country that could try to build them had to if they were to remain militarily - and thus merchantably - relevant. The French tried to flout convention in the late-1800's and got stuck in catchup mode for decades after, usually behind the relative newcomers of Germany & the USA 😆 .
(even Brazil for a time had a better pair of ships than they did)
Postwar the Politicians moved onto Nukes, the buckets of instant sunshine that some even claimed rendered conventional forces themselves redundant (they of course weren't), but finally lost Navies their Premier place, with the three branches of every country's military then battling for as many slices of the nuclear arms pie as possible.
(Spoiler, the Army lost that race almost every time, as did most surface ships)
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
^ The inevitable "bu~but France won so many wars!!"
Not most of the wars that counted.
They lost heavily in the 7 Years War, the last two Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, WWII & the 1st Indochina War.
Performance in WWI was poor also, despite having a better prewar defence budget than Germany. Until the British Army stopped the germans on the marne, the german advance toward Paris looked unstoppable.
The French are ridiculed as to war though, because of WWII, and the almost comically ungrateful and distorsionist claim by DeGaulle in 1944 that ""France has liberated herself!".
Postwar french war narratives wouldn't help this either, with even more straight up lying as to the scope of the other allies contribution.
The Allied troops and politicians alike would never forget that slight, and the french remain a topic of humour in CANZUK countries, as a result.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
^ The US didn't "bail out" the UK. We'd entered into a material aid agreement during WWII, and simply game to an agreement postwar as to how to pay for it, not a great deal when considering that everyone else's material aid was waved in light of the by then obviously approaching Cold War, but a deal none the less.
The UK retained a defence budget of more than 11% of GDP post-1945, and would until 1957, where for political reasons it began to shrink toward the 2% typical today.
With that timeframe in mind; everyone of note still had Capital Ships in the postwar period, even the hapless French. Standing navies were already 2nd fiddle to the new Atomic weaponry, and the means to deliver them, but that was not clear in 1942/43 nor 1945.
The RN did in the late-'40's what everyone else did; take stock of their assets, retire the outdated ones, and keep the most modern. This was the same as after WWI, and as the KGV's & Vanguard were the only modern Capital Ships in the fleet capable of topping 25 knots only they were kept. Until 1949 the plan was to restart the Lion class (with modifications), though changed government priorities meant this didn't happen.
Only when it became clear that the USSR was unable to build new Capital Ships, and their cruisers downgraded in threat perception, did the politicians have their excuse to cut the fleet further.
There was no reason not to preserve Vanguard, as unlike with Warspite (a ship that actively was considered for preservation in 1946) the ship was in prime condition and the apitomy of several centuries of Royal Navy engineering, so much so she'd always topped the USN's lowa class ships in gunnery competitions.
Same thing with HMS Ark Royal (R09) in 1978*, and HMS Illustrious in the 2010's. The means and public support was there, but the politicians just didn't give a shit.
*A decision everyone would regret in 1982, as operating Phantoms & Buccaneers down in the S-Atlantic was no longer possible.
(not until after the conflict was won & the islands given a fighter squadron anyway, only then did Phantom FGR's get down there)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
^ In other words; you're willing to accept a demonstrable tribalist falsehood (and a cliched one at that), over fact. #Noted
From the middle ages until 1945 a Standing Navy was the ultimate symbol of national power, prestige and engineering ability, and though not always called such, there was always a form of Battleship therewithin.
(the very word 'Battleship' means '[foremost] ship of the line', shorthand for 'line of battle ship')
The Carrier never supplanted the Battleship, rather simply surrvived* the postwar political shift, that would see strategic and tactical nuclear arms take a lions share of the budget, that would once have been for navies.
Indeed it was Navies snatching some of the nuclear pie back from airforces in the form of SSBN's, that helped them remain politically favoured.
*Let's be real, without the postwar inmovations of the British (Angled Deck, Optical Landing Sight, Steam Catapult, Skijump, etc), Carriers would have died off, as the ever increasing size, speed & weight of aircraft postwar was pushing the WWII stock of Carriers into near irrelevance, compared to landbased airforces.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
^
""I do think the advent of guided munitions was what really put the nail in the coffin for the battleship""
A demonstrably false notion, as no allied Capital Ship was ever sunk by such a weapon, and no [non-nuclear] example of such a weapon was ever used postwar to successfully sink an armoured warship, of any kind
.
In practice Guided Munitions ended up being a tool used By postwar Battleships, and other vessels of similar size and purpose. This was a logical choice as a smaller vessel [such as a Destroyer] had neither the operational range nor the hull capacity for such large weapons, nor their complex firing and guidance systems.
(as Drach' tries at length to point out; sensors & computers [+ the operators] take up a lot of space and tonnage on ships)
""I mean, if you look at it this way, a battleship is only a show of power for a nation heavily reliant on overseas trade.""
Hardly. Every major nation in the world engaged in global trade, and thus had a stake therein, requiring a Navy to police their share of it. Within that structure Capital Ships were just one of various assets, all to be used in combination to maintain peace, and achieve victory in war.
""I mean the British’s supposed most potent weapon had a range of about 30 miles from the coast...yeah.""
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. "most potent" also means nothing without context.
Look up the use of shipboard missiles between WWII & the 1990's; there isn't much in the way of instances, nor success. In the Falklands the British and Argentines both had shipboard Exocet missiles, yet neither made a serious effort to use them, nor did the British consider having them a counter to a WWII Light Cruiser with 6" guns (otherwise the fleet commander wouldn't have had to go to such lengths to get a Nuclear Attack Sub' to eliminate said Cruiser).
Incidentally: That Cruiser had a gun range of just 15 miles, yet that was deemed more of a threat than the taskforce's missile armed ships could cope with.
Heck; the most visual use of shipboard missiles [with a theoretical anti-ship capability] in the war, was in an ad-hoc shore bombardment, intended to both rid the ships of obsolete weaponry, and inspire the troops as the [Sea Slug] missiles were militarily unfit to do much damage to anything, but looked rather impressive when launched.
One decent Cruiser or Battleship; could have shortened said conflict for the British considerably, pounding the enemy with un-returnable ordinance, from an armoured warship they lacked* any counter thereto.
*contrary to what some may think; most ASM's aren't even designed to penetrate armour, and indeed missiles are ill suited for armour penetration full stop. For why see what a A/P shell from a [relatively small caliber] gun does to a concrete block, vs a fighter plane crashing into one at high speed.
2
-
^ "now as for guided munitions"
Worded like a 2nd comment; a typing mistake or has YT deleted something?.
"not sinking any capital ships, that’s just wrong."
No it isn't; for I stated "no Allied [and Modern ] Capital Ships", which is demonstrably True. Roma* was an Italian vessel, and Warspite was neither modern nor sunk.
Indeed: the allied nations only lost one modern Battleship in the entire war, whilst Germany & Japan lost all of theirs. whilst Italy lost one and surrendered two.
Kindly read a statement before replying. Saves everyone time.
*Furthermore; Roma was mid-voyage to being surrendered to the British. She had barely enough fuel and thus was steaming at reduced speed. She also had no Radar Direction for the AA Armament [which was also inferior to allied standards] and had only a partial crew compliment. All of those and more are factors in her being lost to a weapon that had failed [thrice] to sink a vastly older warship.
""The fritz x (guided bomb) sunk many ships""
sank*, and no. The weapon is considered an operational failure, as only small warships and merchantmen were lost thereto. Even the Kaiten and Kamikaze achieved more in WWII.
""proving to Britain and in fact the world, that battleships at this point were nothing more than expensive toys""
As nonsensical a statement as it is demonstrably false. The British retained a Battleship force long after WWII, alongwith the French. Defence cuts and shortage of threat countries with counterparts [the USSR gad no modern Capital Ships nor the means to build them until the 1970's] put paid to them; not Glide Bombs, which saw no postwar use with any country.
Indeed: The USN had Capital Ships in their inventory, right into the late 00's. The last one wouldn't be de-registered until 2011.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
^ laughs in SMS Pommern
Seriously though; the Germans were the only ones to lose a Battleship at Jutland (of any kind), as well as the only Capital Ship in the battle to be lost with all hands. They learned their lesson; and would never again risk the Pre-Dreadnoughts in open sea combat.
They almost lost a Battlecruiser to explosion in a prior battle too, to the same issue as that of the British (relaxed ammo' handling practices), so no german exceptionalism there either.
The armour on WWI German ships is also overstated, as they lost the newest Battlecruiser of all at Jutland (to Gunfire), and their ships proved to be vunerable to every gun caliber (12" [45 & 50], 13.5", 14" & 15"/42) the British had present, to the extent of several being completely disarmed, despite issues with the RN ammunition that reduced their effectiveness.
(showing how much of a one-sided slaughter Jutland could have been for the Germans if but one factor had been otherwise; and they knew it)
Germany also never adopted All or Nothing Armour (not even by WWII), unlike the UK & US.
So yeah; they had fine lines, but like the French & Italian stuff; let's keep an ounce of wider perspective too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not really, as there's a great difference between "obsolete", and less useful.
Post WWI the gun caliber had jumped to 15"/42, with 16" & 18.0" having already made some appearance. Fleet speed was also rising from 21 knots, to 24.
As such would happen after WWII, the RN set the minimum new gun standard (in this case 15"/42), and planned to phase out all other ships, in order of oldest to newest.
The change in standard was unpopular with some though, as export countries with British 12", 13.5" & 14" guns feared an ammunition shortage. Australia gave up their namesake Battlecruiser, partially because of this concern, as their politicians didn't want to have to spend the cash needed to produce the shells domestically.
In this the Colossus class were directly behind the Orions, Iron Dukes & KGV's.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ False, on all points.
Carriers replaced nothing, and nearly died out after WWII, until multiple innovations by the UK (Angled Flight Deck, Mirrored Landing Sight & Steam Catapult) saved it from oblivion.
What was rendered obsolete by WWII was the Torpedo Bomber, when its painfully slow attack airspeed - limited by the laws of physics - made attacking warships with Air Search Radar, Radar Direction for the AAA, and Proximity Fuses... well suicidal.
Battleships by contrast: the west made none after 1946 not because they were redundant or not wanted... but because the only threat country left [the USSR] lacked the ability - for various reasons - to build any. That, and the west had plenty of modern ones in service anyway.
Politically though: everyone wanted Atom Bombs after WWII: Navies ended up in a solid 2nd place re' funding priority, apart from where nukes were includable.
A~and no: there are various instances of warships having Spotter 'planes onboard for gunnery spotting against other ships (as well against shore targets), though Radar would see greater use as events played out.
Examples of this are HMS Exeter during the Battle of River Plate (tried to launch the 'plane, only for enemy fire to scupper it), the Bismarck (which had one, yet due to an engine defect couldn't use it), and HMS Warspite during the Battle of Narvik, where the Spotter 'plane both bombed a U Boat, as well as performing recon' and fire spotting of shot for Warspite.
(said battle led to Warspite sinking a group of Kreigsmarine Destroyers)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GARDENER42 I'm not "wrong", for I researched the term rather more thoroughly than those whom write dictionaries, or make tv documentaries.
The term "Capital Ship" is inherently linked to the Line of Battle, over the centuries, and always was. Carriers don't operate as part of one, and thus do not count. Same with SSBN's, which only have names in common with past Capital Ships, and the role of 'most potent weapon in the navy'.
(in potency of directed firepower, SSBN's vastly outclass Carriers, and always will)
The fact that a Carrier's main weapon isn't even a part of the ship itself, doubly disqualifies it.
They'll always be carrier tribalists in navies whom like to talk up their asset as being the "capital ship", but that's no more true now, than when Admiral Yamamoto claimed it in the 1930's.
1
-
1
-
^ Ah, rattling off tired distortionist cliches that've been debunked ad nausium, yet remain popular with tribalists as a lazy narrative, how predictable XD.
Refer to my prior statements for why, as I don't do repetition.
I will add though; that Torpedo Bombers were outlasted on the USN's books by the Iowa class, by nearly half a century.
Why? ... because TB's are an actual case of obsolecence*, whilst the Battleship is not.
*TB's after all had hit an impassable wall of physics, where the drop speed of the 'fish' couldn't be raised higher, and flying so low & slow in visual range of a modern warship's AAA & FCS [even in 1943] was suicidal.
(the allies losing only 1 modern Battleship in the entire war being case in point, with even that solitary loss being due to mitigating factors; including faulty FCS & construction defects)
This is why only Submarines use torpedoes against ships today, with only anti-sub torpedoes featuring on anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ False, actually. The British had trialled a turreted vehicle in 1915, prior to the introduction of the MK-1 on the western front. It was found that the center of gravity would be too high for the terrain, and sponsons were deemed an acceptable compromise.
The placement of the engine on the Rhomboidal Tanks was also not without reason, as it meant - in theory at least - being able to perform repairs while the Tank was under fire.
(which happened more than once).
The Landships Committee after all was chiefly staffed by the Royal Navy; which knew more about turrets than any navy on earth. They also had plenty of marines serving in flanders, thus a vested interest in having a Tank that could navigate the awful terrain.
The sole surrviving vehicle from the Landships Committee's testing period, Little Willie , even has the mounting points for said rejected turret.
(she's at Bovington, take a look for yourself)
The french had a decidedly inferior design team, as evidenced by the fact that the FT-17 was not only poorly armed and pretty much unarmoured, but had abysmal lateral stability, and even poor longditudinal stability when descending a slope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WALTERBROADDUS Opinion noted, but irrelevant (as this isn't your Q&A section)... and demonstrably untrue as well, as 1939 proved the Polish lack of a counter for any of the German Capital Ships, giving the Schleswig-Holstein free reign to demolish their fortresses in Westerplatte, disrupt Polish troops movements and so much more, functionally unopposed.
Denmark similarly was walked over, as unlike Sweden, Finland & Norway they & Poland lacked even a Coastal Defence Ship or two, meaning even ancient ships like Schleswig-Holstein could walk all over them.
Given Poland was a military dictatorship at the time, this gap in defence capabilities is even more ironic, and interesting.
(at least in the contemporary Dutch case of naval capability gaps we know they tried to develop a counter for the Scharnhorst's, only to be too slow in getting their ships built)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ As nonsensical an argument as its SPaG is lacking.
If I was seen to order military hardware from abroad as a civilian, my home nation would [quite reasonably] have concerns long before I would over delivery XD.
As for what I assume your metaphor was aiming for: nope. the PRC's companies really doesn't give a damn about honouring deals with individuals abroad, as the latter can do nothing about it.
(same thing with IP Infringement, which the PRC ignores all the time, with even wealthy corperations like BMW getting nowhere legally)
Within the legal framework of the 1910's, Turkey lost the ships thrice over, by:
• Reacting in bad faith to the building nation stating they would temporarily be appropriating the ships for national defence (as is the right of any nation re' stuff in her shipyards), but would reimburse the Turks and re-offer them for sale at a later date.
• Later going to war with the building nation, ensuring all agreements with the latter no longer had to be honoured at all, as no sane goverent supplies completed weapon systems to the enemy, during nor after a war therewith.
• Losing the war they'd started with the building nation (enough in itself to invalidate any prewar arms deals) and then ceasing to exist as a state.
By contrast no other nations the UK was building ships for behaved so, and got their orders after the war, with Chile being compensated in cash after one of the 'Admirale Cochrane' couldn't be delivered, and political disagreement in Chile itself over what to buy instead led to cash being chosen instead.
A~and as such; only the Turks hold any blame for the collapse of the deal, and paid the price for it too, as the Greeks and [pre-revolution] Russians foisted any naval ambitions they may have had during the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ Ah yes the "5 year plans", the comically inept examples of "be better" programs that saw even larger numbers of people starve and worked to death, to erect great edifices in the permafrost, of monolithic stalinist folly.
It took repeated imports of foriegn knowhow and material to get the USSR going post civil war, and keep it from collapsing during WWII, and post-1953 to 1991 [in food imports chiefly] to prevent mass starvation, as had been repeatedly transpiring since 1945.
It took post-soviet Russia many years to bring down the foriegn debts from the bad old days, and the former soviet bloc, will likely remain poor, rabidly politically corrupt, and backward.
(ask any Romanian, Albanian, Latvian or Pole; they certainly don't miss the periods when their countries were totalitarian prisons, nor like living in grinding poverty now as a knock-on result of those times)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^ That's a lot of words, for a disjointed assortment of overstated, misquoted and discontextualized "points" .
Then again you do seem to think that pointing out that the Dutch lost the 4th war is a grave insult of some kind; when I was simply stating a fact.
How effective Dutch troops were is also rather irrelevant, for reasons aforementioned.
(can't send troops to another country's turf when they have naval superiority, among other advantages [various French & Spanish kings, Napoleon & Hitler both learned that the hard way])
Here's some hard facts though about the period:
• The UK was the #1 economy, with the leading currency. The US had grown but was still smaller in both aspects, for various reasons.
• The UK at the turn of century held 80% of the global Shipbuilding market; a record never surpassed by any nation since, nor likely to be.
• The RN had a relatively high standard officer corps (especially those who'd been trained to use their own initiative); see the Russian Navy for an example of what you're thinking of.
Also: By century's turn UK-German relations had not only started to sour, with Kaiser William II's poor diplomacy being mostly why, but the Kaiserlichemarine had started its expansion... a race that it lost, as the UK proved she could not only outbuild the boch, but stay ahead of them technologically. By WWI the RN was not only larger, but outmatched the Kaiserlichemarine in firepower, range, speed and how swiftly ships could be repaired / replaced.
The previous Kaiser - aided by Bismarck - had been wiser, in keeping his navy chiefly small and mostly for coastal defence.
(a period incidentally where the UK also was happy to build warships to order, for Germany)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1