Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "The Forgotten Fleet - US Navy Fighting Sail 1815-1860" video.

@propellhatt The USN would appreciate not having the Zumwalt mentioned, thank you.
12
LOL. I'm afraid my cat is starting to do the same...
10
@gunther_hermann I don't think the disguises made much difference in this battle. It was unlikely anything as large as the Cap Trafalgar would have had any innocent reason to be lying in the small harbor of Trindade Island alongside two colliers. The Carmania had been sent to the archipelago specifically because the Admiralty suspected the Germans had set up a base there, and it was known the Brazilian Navy had no ships in the area. It was quite a furious battle between the two former liners, and one that went on for hours. Considering how outmatched Cap Trafalgar was, it's amazing that she nearly sunk Carmania, with only two 4.1" guns compared to the eight 4.7" guns of her British opponent. It was a battle at close quarters not seen in the age of steam before or after. It would make, as the British would say, a cracking good tale of two passenger liners fighting each other to the death, and a great episode for Drach to present.
9
Indeed, a great book and, unlike so many other naval history books, it's available used in hardcover at a reasonable price. It has plans for almost all the ships mentioned in the video. I had to pause the playback and go dig it out of the boxes most of my books are stored in so I could follow along. It also has some beautiful halftones of some of the ships, and is one the last high quality coated stock naval history books the average person can still afford.
5
@irondarknessdarkness8900 I had to look that up since I'm not a wargamer. It's apparently the sound of rapid gunfire or multilaser masturbation from someone called an Ork? You kids today are such scamps. :-)
5
I have the notion in the back of my mind that Drach did a relatively short segment on WWI commerce raiders, but it seems like quite a while ago. I agree with the suggestion though. WWI and WWII commerce raiders and merchant cruisers could easily occupy an hour segment each. I must confess a soft spot in my heart for the last of the pirates.
5
The term actually has nothing to do with the ship per se. The most important meaning was that cargo had to be arranged so it couldn't break loose and cause damage to the hull in rough seas. When that was accomplished, the CPO in charge of stowage reported to the captain the holds were now "shipshape". A secondary meaning, but most commonly used today, is the tidying up of a sailor's quarters. Even this meaning has its base of making sure a sailor's belongings wouldn't be strewn around in rough seas.
5
@neurofiedyamato8763 I was responding to your post when you said "Now the US military spend the most on its military." My response was that, sure, the US spends the most in absolute dollars because we have the world's biggest economy. Unless Canada suddenly finds a way to be the defender of the West, how could it be otherwise. Very few military economists would agree with your assertion % of GDP doesn't really matter. We're looking at developed economies where the total spent as % of GDP is both a big number and totally flexible, spending on the political and military will of the government. The smaller the economy, the less in % of GDP a country can spend because things like infrastructure and social programs will demand a larger percentage of GDP. That will always limit the spending by % of GDP compared to absolute dollar total. Another reasonable way to look at military spending is amount per capita. Saudi Arabia leads again, with the US second. First place is because of massive government revenue available for a relatively small population. The second is because of a much larger population but still a very large revenue stream. Next on the list are Singapore, Kuwait, Oman, and Norway. Kuwait and Oman are also because of large revenue streams vice a smaller population while Singapore and Norway have made conscious decisions to spend more money per capita than other countries with similar populations and GDP. What I'm suggesting is there is no one "best" way to have an informed read of military spending. Spending in absolute dollars is certainly not one of the best. Your last paragraph is a strawman I often see in terms of US military spending. Simply because we have some failed programs doesn't mean that military spending in general is spend on failed programs. Two things can be true at once. We can spend money on poor systems like the LCS while also being world leaders in other systems. China doesn't "have way better priorities" simply because that's what you believe based on flimsy evidence. It has taken them over 30 years and the expenditures of huge amounts of money to finally commision a class of SSBNs that are at least one, and more likely, two generations behind USN SSBNs, and the Chinese only have seven in service. It has taken the PRC well over 30 years and huge amounts of money to develop its first domestically produced carrier of a size and capability roughly similar to a US Midway class carrier of the Vietnam era. It has taken the PRC 50 years and huge amounts of money to finally develop a cruiser size ship just entering service, and it's still not as capable as a USN Ticonderoga class ship that first entered service in 1978. None of this even takes into consideration the massive logistical capabilities and experience of the US compared to the PRC. The Chinese are now developing a creditable blue water navy, something the USN has had for over seventy years. "Way better priorities"? I'd have to strongly disagree with that.
4
I hope today has been a better day for you.
4
Also known by the less flattering term "hulk", it was cheap way to add to barracks space for new sailors. Some also served an important purpose as a naval hospital, and these were used right up through WWII.
3
@neurofiedyamato8763 A more accurate way to look at military spending is percent of GDP rather than absolute spending. Because the US has the largest economy in the world, our military spending seems huge. On a GDP basis, the US is fourth in spending behind Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Russia, with Turkey, India, France, and China not far behind. Our naval spending over the past seven years has been flat while Russia and China have had increases of 2% and more annually. The USN has come up with some pretty bad projects, Zumwalt being a prime example, but a lot of our spending in on aircraft carriers, carrier aircraft and carrier technology, areas we we lead the world by a large margin. Looking at Russia and China, it's not hard to see why we still need to spend on new technology. Unfortunately, part of developing new technology means some stupid technology.
3
Why were gun decks painted on the hull as a contrasting color to the rest of the scheme. i.e, a white stripe on a black hull? Some kind of psychological warfare, or was there an operational reason I just don't get?
3
@santiago5388 That's good. The best piece of advice I ever got about how to handle troubles is try to remember your biggest worry from exactly one year ago. If you're like most of us, you've long forgotten what that was, and it's a good idea of what today's troubles will seem like a year from now.
3
@santiago5388 You're welcome. I've made it to 73 through some very tough times by remembering that advice. You're still young and, believe me, you have some great times ahead of you.
3
@scottgiles7546 Well, you could, but since receiving ships are almost always in a home port far from the fighting, an enemy firing on one is the sign of much bigger problems for a country than just a ship like that being fired on.
2
@johnshepherd8687 The US also had South America to keep an eye on. Brazil and Argentina were both rich countries in the last half of the 19th century, and both countries were building up their fleets. Trying to enforce a blockade on the very long coastlines of Argentina and/or Brazil would have been difficult task.
1
@johnshepherd8687 Right, but South America was nonetheless a concern. The US couldn't look at Europe alone as a threat.
1
@johnshepherd8687 Can't argue with the basic assumptions there.
1