Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "The Second World Wars with Victor Davis Hanson | Water" video.

  1. In WW2 technology and methods advanced so quickly. Something could be introduced being very successful, being second tier six months later.
    4
  2. The Japanese carriers were superior to the British carriers? Not quite. The British carrier were smaller, designed for a different theatre. They would operate near land being subject to land based planes, so were armoured. The British Pacific Fleet protected the US marines on Okinawa operating off the east coast. Kamikazes bounced off the armoured decks. Strikes which put US carriers with their wooden decks out of action. The British carriers were designed to be at sea for around 12 days, as the British Empire was so large they would always be near a friendly port. A constraint in carrier size was also the size of dry docks in places like Malta, Gibraltar, Singapore, etc. In contrast the Japanese and US carriers were larger with longer range, as they were designed to operate in the vast Pacific. They also had vulnerable wooden flight decks, except for the later Essex class which adopted the steel decks and many of the attributes of the British carriers. All the major attributes of the modern carrier were introduced by the British: angled flight decks, mirror landing, steam catapult, hurricane bows, armoured decks, ski-jump flight decks, land & sea aircraft control rooms, etc. The post war Midway class was based on the British armoured carriers.
    3
  3.  @samueladams3746  The USA did learn the hard way, unnecessarily so when all they had to do was do what the British told them. US top brass was full of buffoonery. King despised the British over an incident in WW1 when he disobeyed orders. He was carpeted by the British commander of a group of which his ship was a part. Even then he never liked taking orders. King was a buffoon, who should have been removed in 1942. In the first six months of WW2 600 vessels were sunk off the US eastern seaboard. After U-Boat losses in 1941 had dropped to manageable levels, with the USA entry in to the war they were now catastrophic, to the point the US fighting Germany was in question. This was because King would not lower US ships to escort civilian convoys, viewing they only fought military ships. The Americans would not even implement blackouts of coastal cities. The British were very concerned at the dramatic allied shipping losses. The British viewed the Americans as our Italians. The British insisted the Americans take 25 corvettes, with crews, the losses were so high. Eisenhower said the best way to win the war was to kill Admiral King. If such a British commander was so inept he would have been removed for ever. For some strange reason the US never removed their top men no matter how poor they were - Eisenhower should have been removed over the Bulge debacle. King and other Americans were of the view they would not support the British in WW2, if it liberated territory of the British Empire, putting the British back in charge. This was none of their concern as the focus was to defeat the Germans and Japanese. The British did not insist the USA return territory stolen from Native Americans and the Mexicans.
    3
  4. Midway was the turning point for the Japanese, as after they were on the defensive, despite making some advances on land. The importance of Midway was not recognised at the time by the U.S., only in hindsight when assessing WW2. After Midway the U.S. only had one carrier in the Pacific. Roosevelt asked Churchill for as many British carriers as possible to aid the US fleet. The British sent HMS Victorious which was away with the US fleet for around a year. The British could have given a second carrier, however did not as they feared the German carrier Graf Zeppelin would be completed. Also the Italians were building a carrier. They Royal Navy had to be ready for them. The carriers were also needed as the war in Med/North Africa was hotting up. HMS Victorious (radio signature USS Robin) was painted US grey flying planes with US markings so as not to alert the Japanese. U.S. Navy personnel inspected Victorious, adopting many of its features for future carriers. The land & air aircraft control room, which attracted great attention, they adopted into all U.S. carriers immediately.
    3
  5. A treasure made with fools gold. :)
    2
  6. Is there a war on there?
    2
  7.  @r.williamcomm7693  I know Texas raises its independence head occasionally, but California?
    2
  8.  @r.williamcomm7693  California below SF is a natural desert. It cannot survive without imported water. Take away the water, then it returns to natural desert. Most people live on the coast.
    2
  9.  @nomdeguerre7265  I pulled punches on King.
    2
  10.  @w.t.fpipedreamwithhopefull5538  No, I meant Midway. ;)
    2
  11.  @simongleaden2864  About right. The British viewed the carrier as observation for the big battleships. With later torpedo capability. They never viewed the planes to be the prime attack on ships as the big guns would do that. The US had a similar view. Then just as WW2 broke out in 1939 the US started to make rugged planes to attack ships and create a CAP, as that was what the Japanese were doing. Being in the middle of the Pacific, land based planes for protection would be rare. The British view was that land based planes could also act as a CAP. The British went from bi-planes to jets on carriers within six years.
    1
  12.  @brucenadeau2172  Not much good when a carrier is easy taken out. HMS Illustrious took more bomb hits in WW2 than all the carriers at Midway. But it was always operational - only ever down for a matter of hours. In contrast, the USS Franklin was only hit by two bombs to become a flaming inferno. "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means six months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."" - The USN liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable The US Midway class was heavily based on the British armoured carriers. Their performance in the British Pacific Fleet was noted by the USN. The longer the war went on, the more effective the British Pacific Fleet was as it was being depleted. They never lost carriers as did the US fleet, whose task forces became weaker as time went on. .
    1
  13.  @downeybill  I hope he loses that war.
    1
  14.  @joesragman8717  You like wars?
    1
  15.  @catfishman1768  His interpretation of WW2 is lacking. He fails to see others were involved. He was also a Trump fan - that says it all.
    1
  16. Blame that idiot Admiral King. The British insisted the US take 25 corvettes complete with crews.
    1
  17.  @nomdeguerre7265  King was an idiotic buffoon who should have been replaced as soon as it was clear hundreds of US ships were being needlessly sunk.
    1