Comments by "Asbestos Muffins" (@AsbestosMuffins) on "H I Sutton" channel.

  1. its always suprising how few warships have been in actual combat since ww2. even between ww1 and ww2 there were incidents all the time
    121
  2. an interesting side note, museum ships and subs on the great lakes and in freshwater rivers actually need a different cathodic protection system, the saltwater anodes will actually eat the hull. the USS Cod recently showed this when they drydocked
    101
  3. that or its not really part of the mission profile. the soviets never bothered much with noise dampening because they had more subs overall. if these are meant to patrol the south china sea, they might not have to worry about anti sub aircraft as much as the soviets in the north atlantic
    17
  4. Imagine, a wooooorrrld without zinc!
    7
  5. At least with the US its probably gonna be because we've kept the spec the same so we can use older torpedoes with newer ones, because we've had a shipload of mark 14,15 and 18's sitting around
    6
  6. balaeo class! those are absolutely ancient
    4
  7. I think project 50's swivel mount was for surface warfare instead of under water but man the thing would probably have been removed early on because of its complications
    3
  8. lithium battery subs would have a much more expensive operating life, the batteries don't cycle as much as other chemistries but that doesn't seem like an issue of concern by either china or japan
    3
  9. "swedish designers do their own thing" SO what 3 hulls?
    3
  10. the pettiest shit will be if russia takes the island and when there's a truce or cease fire russia will claim the waters around it IE the entire ukrainian southern coast as russian territorial waters like china does with every little rock in the south china sea
    3
  11. looks about as small as you can build a sub and still have a practical range and layout
    3
  12.  @aBoogivogi  take exercises with a pinch of salt, they're controlled exercises with very tight regulations on how the crews are to operate, often to determine like how a sub could sneak through a fleet looking for it. Its very much like how an F-16 can kill an F-35, in exercises.
    3
  13. basically every submarine until the 1950s. Even the US's submarine force had frighteningly high casualties compared to say Germany where it was like a 5 out of 6 chance you were going to die. the second world war really paved the way for submarine development as nobody really wanted to spend the money to really work out the problems until then
    2
  14. Are these sub-killers or are these going to be better at hunting surface vessels?
    2
  15. a more sophisticated country could also just stick a single AA rocket on the carrier so if you want to use a helicopter to take it out, it can fight back pretty easily. you're left using something like a ship or a fixed winf aircraft
    2
  16. give the elbonians a bunch of Echo II boats from the Soviets.
    2
  17. kind of makes sense when you think about it though, without the need for all the diesel fuel, you can make a sub that goes 2x as far, does 2x the work, for less size, plus nautilus was as much a test of nuclear tech as it was new hullforms so its not as big as it could have been built
    2
  18. kind of wonder if they've got some fighters with gunpods in the area that can help with this task
    1
  19. its quite interesting that the US shared a lot of submarine information with sweden given that this was the height of the cold war and the submarine arms race was on
    1
  20. I kinda expect a lada full of ukraininans pretending to be russians would be involved
    1
  21. never knew they still messed around with steam powered subs up to and even after ww1
    1
  22. How the hell would germany ever have managed to build Project 50, by 1918 they couldn't find two steel plates to bolt together let alone build a gargantuan submarine
    1
  23. sounds like the only major capability they have is a naval assault which could go well unless the US or some other power had a couple submarines and or drones in the area
    1
  24. testing on nuclear depth charges found otherwise. the problem is a lot of energy is dissipated by the water. Ya it would be a completely horrible thing for everyone involved but the US tested this extensively during the cold war. nuclear torpedoes get better but nuclear weapons just aren't great at taking out ships
    1