Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Inter-war ship designs - 5 Bad Ideas" video.

  1.  @atpyro7920  True but it was their issues that led to the Fletcher. Even without them, there were still the Benson and Gleaves-classes between the Fletcher and the Sims neither of which count as real predecessors to the Fletcher as those earlier classes were treaty designs and the Fletcher was an all-new built without the treaty.
    11
  2. The Fletcher was actually a follow up to the Somers and Porter classes. It was also larger since they no longer had to follow the treaty restrictions.
    10
  3. It was an interesting time for everything. There was no idea too stupid to not get funded back then. Making a one man tank, pillbox on tracks, a motor car where the driver is basically lying on their belly like it is a sled, flying boats, floatplanes, half-tracks, mounting the howitzer in a massive turret, continue to build biplanes when everyone else switched to monoplanes, planes made out of wood, twin boom pusher aircraft? All valid back then.
    6
  4. Shells can’t change course.
    5
  5. I was thinking the worst designs would include more stuff the like Bearn and Ranger due to their status as being retrofitted from one role to and not being all at that good at their new job. And the Edmen which was obsolete before it left dry dock.
    4
  6.  @cameronnewton7053  I just love how the pride of the German Fleet was sunk by some museums pieces of bombers because they were so old the German couldn’t counter them.
    3
  7. Sounds like most American Battleships too. They were built with an all or nothing armor scheme meaning you had no armor because it was either you armor the entire ship (pretty much impossible particularly if you wanted to remain at anything resembling the Treaty restrictions) or don’t armor it at all.
    3
  8. Germany never had a prayer of facing the Royal Navy and Hitler knew it.
    2
  9. I am surprised the Nelson wasn’t on here. The ship was horribly crippled by the treaty and worse than the York because of it. I also like the sense of humor the Brits had by nicknaming it the Cherry Tree class.
    2
  10. It was based on a loophole, but then people realized the loophole and wrote a new treaty to ban it leaving it a one-off. It is also better than the similar M-class.
    1
  11. One slight correction. The Battleship was still on the table for Italians and French under the Washington Naval Treaty
    1
  12.  @Drachinifel  True, but it stands out as an exception compared to the signatories.
    1
  13. Please the Germans were violating Versailles every else primarily by having Krupp and other armament companies buy shares in Swedish and Swiss armament companies and outsourcing the R&D. Don’t see why they couldn’t have done it with their Navy too particularly when wielding technology was adopted which allowed to them to cut back on the displacement quite a bit. Just ask the Soviets for a few pointers on shipbuilding while you were testing tanks with them. I mean sure the Soviet Navy isn’t that big or powerful, but the Kriegsmarine was intended only to deal a knockout blow to the French and never engage the Royal Navy.
    1
  14.  @gokbay3057  I was thinking they had some. They used front companies for everything else. Though doctrine was another reason they suffered. Hitler believed that the Kriegsmarine wasn’t meant to go up against the Royal Navy but the French. In fact the decision to arm the Scharnhorst-class with 15-inch guns was done by him to avoid passing off the British despite the Anglo-German Naval Agreement putting 16-inch guns as an option.
    1
  15.  @sillyone52062  Which I why I give credit to the Swordfish. They left the Bismarck a sitting duck.
    1
  16.  @notapuma  Except it isn’t they were only able to hit the Bismarck because a Swordfish torpedo jammed the rudder. I call that a shared kill with Repulse and Hood.
    1
  17. In that case does the main battery guns of the Kirov-class count?
    1