Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Pearl Harbor: The Japanese Attack" video.

  1. Americans could simply bring more tankers and use them as oil tanks
    7
  2. >If they had stayed for a few days and systematically destroyed everything loss of attacking planes began to grow in the second wave. If they had stayed for a few days - they would lose the trained pilots. At the wery least
    3
  3. Koobee Wublee >subsequent operations could be carried out with better efficiencies and meeting ever increasing resistance. 5%  losses, as you said, and most of them - in the second wave >In WWII, the guns of these mighty battleships can lay waste to you without you physically seeing where they are maybe you remember accounts, when Japanese battleships succeeded in indirect firing at point targets? >I am not stupid to say any shore batteries if existed would not be any effective when the enemy had achieved complete air and naval supremacies. shore batteries, who were existed, could deny the enemy to exercise their naval supremacy >With air and naval supremacies achieved, AA should have easily be neutralized, historical accounts contradict your statements. Take Siege of Leningrad, Siege of Sevastopol and Winter War for example
    3
  4. Koobee Wublee >air losses had suffered a whopping loss of under 5%. just because thre were only two attack waves. >what the mighty guns of these two battleships could have undertaken at Pearl Harbor? they could sink miserably? Consider the possibility to get acquainted with the role of battleships in the battle for Gallipoli Don't be stupid, and do not exclude Hawaii shore batteries and AA fire from the equation
    2
  5. Koobee Wublee > Again, these initial losses were mostly due to ground AA not of aerial threats. they were not initial losses. And yes, even with the element of surprise and the air superiority achieved 5% of the attacking aircrafts was lost , and AA fire was not supressed >The battle of Coral Sea occurred when the opposing fleets never met each other. All fires were indirect. what does the battle of Coral Sea has to battleships? >The shore batteries could have easily dealt with when air and naval supremacies have been achieved nope. See aforementioned examples. >The siege of Leningrad was never isolated. Leningrad were substantially more isolated, than Oahu. But i'm talking about supremacy. The Germans could not do anything with fortified shore battteries, despite constant shelling and air strikes. Same goes for Sevastopol. >The Finnish air force was not completely annihilated. yet the soviet forces had complete air superiority. The only thing Finn's could do in the air - hit and run from time to time. And their AA fire. >The issue here is that I don't see how the Allies could have won the war if the Japanese were to stay at Pearl Harbor for a few days Easily, By losing trained pilots due to AA fire and planes from Enterprise. And by losing battleships(and other ships of the group) - due to coastal artillery, cruisers, submarines, destroyers and planes from aircraft carrier. >If so, the Lend Lease would not have achieved its objective what the hell Lend Lease have to do with Pearl Harbour? And Lend Lease did not achieved his objectives until 1943, lol. So the crusial initial years were fought without substantial aid from Allies. The picture, that you build in your head, is not consistent with the real world
    2
  6. That's unlikely. The main objectives were the battleships
    1
  7. achtungcircus you are mistaken. "The targets for the first group will be limited to about four battleships and four aircraft carriers; the order of targets will be battleships and then aircraft carriers"(с)
    1
  8. Tim Smith "the order of targets will be battleships and then aircraft carrier"(c)
    1
  9. achtungcircus so ALL the battleships. "And then aircraft carrier". That's not RTS, you can't just select the plane and click on desired target.
    1
  10. achtungcircus you might want to think again. Order of targets was - battleships, then carriers. So, nothing changes, because attackers stilll wil concentrate on the battleships
    1
  11. achtungcircus hypotetical? There is nothing hypotetical in battleships being first order targets.
    1
  12. but why the Japanese need Hawaii?
    1
  13. willythemailboy2 months? Phew, what a ridiculous idea. Weeks, in the worst case.That's a goddamn base of the Pacific Fleet, not some river pier
    1
  14. willythemailboy2 >There's no reason to think an intentionally scuttled ship would be easier to refloat or otherwise remove. there is a reason. You could just destroy obstacle and remove debris
    1
  15. willythemailboy2 they kinda occurred tens of miles away from the coast. With complications like heawy ship traffic or fear of violating  hull integrity of the ship
    1
  16. willythemailboy2 >They literally sawed the Baltic Ace into pieces to remove it. after removing fuel, didn't they? So, you agree with the argument about the distance from the coast?
    1
  17. MarkAndrewEdwards you oversimplify the situation. The roots of the attack on Pearl Harbor are in an attack on Port Arthur. And Japan had no means to capture Hawaii and continue to act in other areas
    1
  18. that looks like bullshit - the Japanese were about to seize the Philippines, so why lose battleships? In addition, about the same time, the Americans brought in the sea a few old ships specifically to provoke the Japanese
    1