Comments by "GWTPict GWTPict" (@gwtpictgwtpict4214) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1.  @michaelblaszkiewicz7283  If you look at its service record it was demonstrably an effective aircraft. Modern monoplane torpedo bombers were introduced, for the FAA the Fairy Barracuda, US supplied TBM Avengers etc. The Swordfish remained in service because, as I've said, it was effective. A major use was aboard escort carriers and MAC ships on convoy in the North Atlantic. You could fly off a Swordfish in weather conditions that would have been impossible for your modern monoplane.
    2
  2.  @shellshockedgerman3947  I think his approach is to use whatever was used at the time by the nation in question. Makes sense to me but then as an Englishman in my late 50's I likes my Imperial measurements :-)
    2
  3. Care to provide us with your primary source for the number of marines on a quinquereme being 120 not 40? We're looking at the sources that have survived roughly two thousand years here, and maybe the numbers changed over the time period that quinqueremes where in use?
    2
  4.  @matthewhain1483  I'll not disagree, but I'll argue that sanity checking your calculations as you work through your problem can save your arse. Never forget, automation, a computer, will do exactly what you told it to do. That may not be what you intended. Ok, a joke. Programmer is popping out to do some errands. Partner says 'ooh, could you pick up bread please, and if they've got eggs could you get half a dozen? Programmer returns with six loaves of bread. I was a programmer for nigh on forty years before I took my pension and ran 🙂.
    2
  5. Isle of Wight.
    2
  6. Agreed, once I recognised it it stopped being a problem.
    2
  7. +1 pedantry. Have a pink gin.
    2
  8.  @tomhath8413  Agreed, but I'd argue that on a clear day a trained observer with top end optical equipment could probably give you more information on a specific contact than early radar could.
    2
  9.  @rafale1981  For the Royal Navy in the age of sail, rum and water. Apparently lemon juice, sugar and spices such as cinnamon were sometimes added, sources vary.
    2
  10.  @Drachinifel  Toured her a good few years ago with my girlfriend at the time. It was a quiet day and we were down looking at the engines and got chatting to one of the guides, an ex RN stoker. Girlfriend mentioned that her father went to join the RN in 1939 as a stoker as that was his job in a Manchester factory. Got told "No thanks, we've plenty of stokers." He then pointed girlfriends dad at the Royal Marines recruiting team saying "You could try that lot". He did, and was demobbed in 1946 as a sergeant having fought Italians, Germans and Japanese. The guide was highly amused as one of his neighbours was a retired Royal Marines Colonel and (in a friendly way) used to take the micky about how marines were better than stokers. Guides actual words were "Just wait until I tell him one of his marines was actually one of our rejects." Guide then pressed the button to make all the complicated mechanical bits move (hidden electric motors) and gave us a guided tour of the engine room areas. Bloody good day.
    2
  11.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  Damn but you're easily triggered.
    2
  12. Yes, it's just you.
    2
  13.  @jacksargent2925  Short answer, her Captain was an idiot who was in a hurry to get home to Court Martial an officer who had pissed him off. He also didn't really understand the requirements of naval aviation and ignored the recommendations of his officers who did, and so Glorious was not flying regular reconnaissance sorties that may have spotted the beastly Hun before they appeared on the horizon. Survivors being left in the water, no idea.
    2
  14. "Change my mind" is not an argument, it's a cop out. If you've a case to make, then make it, and we might end up with an interesting discussion.
    2
  15. A rare recommendation by the YouTube algorythm that for me actually made sense.
    2
  16.  @ericfeatherstone  I do like how polite and informative the comments are on Drach's videos :-)
    2
  17.  @kemarisite  It would be glorious though, wouldn't it :-)
    2
  18.  @MrSiameseCat  Well if you've done that level of reading why haven't you presented your counter arguments? Otherwise you too have said nothing.
    2
  19.  @MrSiameseCat  Really? You presented counter arguments? Must have been so subtly disguised that I missed them. All I saw was 'Hur, I disagree, you're wrong'. Do feel free to enlighten me.
    2
  20.  @abrahambrown3063  I used to do archery, using a modern recurve bow with compound arms. Advice was never to shoot the bow without an arrow knocked, point being without a projectile all the energy ends up in the arms, and that's potentially damaging. Your primary sources for dry firing Greek and Roman artillery please?
    2
  21.  @MrSiameseCat  "Virtually every sentence the guest mutters is a generalisation. When he tries to go into depth on specifics of artillery he is wrong". It's a generalisation because we don't, and can't, know the specifics of artillery of that time. We are dependent on interpretation of the available textual and artistic record. As you have pointed out yourself the best we can manage is to attempt a modern reproduction of what we think the original was. A clue, that is at best an educated guess. As to why I commentated on you? You disagreed with him (no problem with that) but completely failed to provide any argument as to why you were right. That's a fail. Still waiting to be enlightened.
    2
  22.  @MrSiameseCat  If you bothered reading the thread then the only insult was the original 'a bit dim' which I will admit was unnecessary, but I have not been carrying on with insults, I've been arguing my point. You are not doing a very good job of refuting it. As to your 'very good modern reproductions' the point is we don't know they're very good, they are the best we can do with the available historic information, they may or may not reflect the original weapons. As to 'You now talk arty farty drivel “We are dependent on interpretation of the available textual and artistic record.” '? This may be news to you but we don't have any extant artillery weapons of the period so yes, we are dependant on textual and artistic descriptions of these items, that's not 'arty farty drivel', that's a statement of fact.
    2
  23.  @MrSiameseCat  No, I've being arguing a point which you have failed to answer. Can't be bothered counting them up, but I'm confident you have thrown far more insults and abuse around than I have. Now, can you respond to the points I've made above or are you just going to sulk in your bedroom?
    2
  24.  @MrSiameseCat  66 years old and can't take someone disagreeing with you? Show me the evidence that modern reproductions are 'very good'. We can't know that, all we can manage are our best interpretations of the 'arty farty' textual and artistic information available. Sorry if that's news to you.
    2
  25.  @MrSiameseCat  Buttons successfully pressed :-). Textual = the written text that has survived. Artistic = the images that have survived. Not actually that difficult I would have thought.
    2
  26. I suspect it was more of a case of decided not to. Take a hit to a mount containing oxygen fueled torpedoes and you are going to have a really impressive explosion amidships. The Japanese decided it was worth the risk, other Navies thought 'Nah, maybe not'.
    2
  27. Tricky one as Navies aren't keen on publishing the exact performance of in service warships. That said most sources I can find report 30+ knots for a Nimitz, Abdiels 40+ knots so no difference.
    2
  28. Yeah, but Warspite gets bonus points simply for the name. Metal as f*ck
    2
  29.  @matchesburn  Volume of metal in the .50 Browning rounds versus volume of metal in the target ship, can't see it having an effect. Does rather depend on the efficacy of the magnetic fuse in use.
    2
  30. Well done that man, thumbs up for the python reference.
    2
  31.  @sarjim4381  When in doubt, Ramming Speed :-)
    2
  32. A tactical victory to Germany, yes. It was however a strategic victory for Britain. The Grand fleet was ready to sail again in days, for the High Seas fleet it was months, and it never happened.
    2
  33.  @VersusARCH  So over thirty percent down. The High Seas fleet was outnumbered at Jutland, and was still outnumbered after Jutland. As I said, a tactical victory for Germany but a strategic victory for Britain, much though it hurt. The High Seas Fleet never attempted to engage the Grand fleet again. 16th August 1916 two battle cruisers, all that were operational, along with three battleships sortied, it was a raid, not an attempt to engage the Grand Fleet. Scheer was warned of the Grand Fleets approach and retreated. A second sortie was attempted 18th October but abandoned due to bad weather and the torpedoing of the Cruiser München. Again, not an attempt to engage the Grand Fleet, but a raid. Britain retained control of the North Sea.
    2
  34.  @VersusARCH  By your argument, ie casualties inflicted, the German army won every battle it ever fought in WWII against the Russians, up to and including the Battle of Berlin. Whose flag was flying over the Reichstag on the 2nd of May 1945?
    2
  35.  @VersusARCH  Barbarossa was unquestionably a German victory? It was intended to defeat the Soviet Union, it didn't.
    2
  36.  @VersusARCH  So, as I said, tactical victory to Germany, strategic victory to Britain. The High Seas Fleet never challenged the Grand Fleet again. Britain was (and is now) an island nation, survival requires command of the seas. The German navy challenged that, wreaked serious damage but suffered heavily itself, and never challenged again. As I said, tactical German victory, strategic British victory.
    2
  37.  @VersusARCH  You can dribble on all you like about 'nibbling away'at the Grand Fleet, the fact is that didn't happen, The High Seas Fleet never again challenged the Grand Fleet. The Royal Navy retained command of the sea which was its job.
    2
  38. Can't beat having the facilities for a comfortable dump. Major morale booster.
    2
  39. There isn't room to swing a cat in here. Does that help?
    2
  40.  @ericdickison7995  They would probably be aware yes, but I think at that point in the war you really needed to get a visual on your target to develop a firing solution on it, I don't think what we call now call sonar was precise enough.
    2
  41. Hit pause and come back later. It's not difficult.
    2
  42.  @kimleechristensen2679  Thanks, but I know, I was trying to let @Cogitator down gently, I suspect s/he's a wehraboo and they seem to be quite fragile.
    2
  43.  @cogitator1213  So, having "won", why did the High Seas Fleet not take advantage of that victory and move on to control the North Sea? A clue, because they couldn't. This may come as a shock to you, but warfare isn't a game of top trumps. If we're going to decide the victor on the basis of casualties inflicted then Germany won the battle of Berlin in 1945 because they inflicted more casualties than they took. Maybe think about that?
    2
  44.  @LordChesalot  Thank you Sir, I'm old enough to have learned that 'live and let live' is a pretty good starting philosophy.
    2
  45. Wheraboos. German military bestest eva! German technology bestest eva! RN couldn't have sunk the Bismarck because Bismarck bestest battleship eva! Similar sort of mindset to the recent Russian claims that the Moskva sank due to an unfortunate accident, rather than Ukrainian action. Some people are really committed to what they believe, the facts are irrelevant.
    2
  46. You could argue it goes back to the age of sail, a 'ship of the line' being a contraction of a 'ship of the line of battle', ie a ship fit to serve in the line of battle, hence a battleship. I may be playing with words here.
    2
  47.  @dylanwight5764  Erm, you are aware that HMS Victory was launched over 30 years before the USS Constitution?
    2
  48. HMS Hood, HMS Valiant and HMS Resolution all carried 8 15" guns in 4 twin turrets.
    2
  49. Right, just finished this. I should probably do some work now...
    2
  50. Kamchatka is not allowed, binoculars have become a serious maritime pollution issue.
    2