Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1. Good point. It's amazing how many times people forget that the rest of the world was at work 3 or more years before the US was. The bonus to the economy and experience gained after years building arms for other countries help a heck of a lot as well.
    2
  2. He talked about this in a dry dock. It’s in the works. Same as a fair few specials :)
    2
  3. @2:00 this has really pissed me off. My defense to Americans who say 'why didn't you limys save Warspite or Dreadnaught' has always been. "Well that's because the only country that left the world wars with huge profits and no debt was the USA. We couldn't afford museum ship's. So the more appropriate question is, why didn't you use your riches to preserve the world's most significant ship's!?" In this case the USA actually wanted to do just that! Use the profits from ww2 to save said ship(s) and the UK threw a spanner in the whole deal. This makes me angry in many many ways.
    2
  4. That question has been asked in a dry dock. I'm sure the answer is that it's large flakes of paint :)
    2
  5. Your comments are interesting and a little contradictory. But it's fun to see how different people have been educated about the same subject 😊
    2
  6. John Brakes not sure “ain’t” is an Americanism. Could be wrong, but it’s a word i would associate with Yorkshire, long before I thought of the US. In the context “ain’t she a pretty lass” or “I ain’t goin th dance Mary and that’s that” or “ain’t that grand”
    2
  7. This really does boggle the mind of an Englishman. I've seen 3 guns this year. All carried by specialist police officers, and I only saw them at large events where the police were specially deployed (they don't patrol the streets)... It's cool in a movie kind of way, that you can shoot guns over there. But I'll keep the lack of murder we have here over the fun of fireing guns personally 😂. Good tourist industry though "come to America imperialist scum. Fire some guns. You'll love it. Free steak with every 100 bullets" 💪
    2
  8. My name is Adam Bainbridge. And I approve this ship.
    2
  9. He's mentioned a few times his sources. The answer is largely books, magazine/periodicals and the historic dockyards prime sources. Life before the internet :)
    2
  10. It's not a name. The translation is basically "replacement" or substitute. For example. In both wars, but especially the first, the Germans were very low on commodities. In ww1 German troops had erzats coffee which was gravy granuals (because they couldn't get real coffee). In this case it basically means "the replacement for the monarch class"
    2
  11.  @klobiforpresident2254  don't open that can of worms. He drinks like a colonial. Shuffles feet and moves my tea with teabag still in to one side
    2
  12. Question for q&a. As a follow on from the BBC TV show last night (Sunday 9th). The shows references to the Queen Elizabeth's as super carriers. Do you think the QEs should have had nuclear power and/or angled decks and catapults? And. As they are designed now, do you agree they are technically super carriers? By what yard-stick is the term measured? I know it's a bit recent for the channel. But I'm very interested in the thoughts of someone who has your knowledge. Love the channel and as a side note, I felt great pride watching the BBC show for the RN and our service people.
    2
  13. In this episode of the drydock, the krigsmarine get a polish battleship sent at them. And they get to modernize the Nassaus! Yes. It really is a bad time to be a German
    2
  14.  @TraditionalAnglican  Yeh, I understand that. I remember making my comment not long after a discussion with a chap where I had commented asking something like. "Could you explain which you mean by "Civil War"?' the video was discussing US/Spanish war and covering general history of both navys so knowing which civil war was important. I had an angry reply from an american who said something like 'I suppose you want it called the war of northern agression'. Which meant nothing to me at the time. Had to google it. I had a good few chaps all thinking I was some sort of southern american racist/history revisionist. But it did track with the whole 'well americans discount any history other than their own' ,thing. Which seemed to continue when i was commenting here. Ironically. I had never heard of this 'war of northern agression' and the Americans didn't consider there would be a civil war other than their own.
    2
  15. Mod list on the hatches. Never fails
    2
  16. How would you scale the density of the materials the ship is made of?.
    2
  17. I'd be interested to learn more from a trusted source. Not that I don't trust wiki. But I don't trust wiki. Now I want to buy books on code braking in the early 20th century. Because of course I do
    2
  18. That’s really confusing
    2
  19.  @Bronasaxon  if you watch the channel regularly, you'd have seen him post up in the comments. Don't worry. He'll be along shortly I dare say :)
    2
  20. Ironically she would wonder what the bleeding heck a BB or a BC was... Unless you mean a Ball Bareing? BC can't be the British commonwealth, was still the empire when she was launched 😂
    2
  21.  @horusfalcon  it can mean that. It can mean miss represented. It can mean a design that doesn't seem sound. It can refer to poor workmanship. It doesn't suggest intentional wrong doing or something criminal Of course it can mean those things. But it would be fairly normal for me to say to my nephew "you took the last ice lolly, you Dodgy bugger". That would be more meant in jest. We use "shifty" but that does generally mean something negative/suspicious.
    2
  22. If I listen to drach. I can't sleep 😂 but your premise makes sense
    2
  23. Would the Von Der Tann not make the Invincibles immobility enevitable. As Invincible underwater shooting is inconcivable if not impossible then this scenario is impossible.
    2
  24. Myself and BK had a debate about battleships and their ‘obsolescence’ the other day. Good timing! We were on a slightly differenttopic. But still!
    2
  25.  @davidwright7193  indeed. Cameras had been in used since the late 1830s. They may have been novel, but they were an established technology by the time of that war.
    2
  26.  @FandersonUfo  no, just looking for clarification which civil war you mean. But given you've mentioned states, I can deduce you mean the American civil war. As the Spanish civil war was royalist/republican etal
    2
  27. Her and Warspite are laughing at the brakers from the warship retirement home.
    2
  28. @24:45. Think you got your dates mucked up there sir.
    2
  29. bificommander Germany would still loose. The American forces tipped them over the edge and the moral factor for the British and french (plus allies) is not to be under estimated. But the war was lost by winter 17/18 and following the failed German offensive. A/H was on its last legs and the ottomans were loosing most of their southern front. America played a decisive role in Ww2. That’s true, and thank god they did. But as a result their impact on ww1 has always seemed over played. Not that the men who came to Europe and the UK to serve weren’t American hero’s. They were. But the central Powers had lost the war by the time the Americans started to have a real impact on the western front.
    2
  30. I see your logic in the benefit of hoping to over run France with the 1918 offensive. But it would still have failed. A interesting thought is this. Knowing the successes at tannenberg and in the east in general. What if the west was not supposed to be the first area the Germans won? In other words. If you persuade the general staff to attack in the west with a plan to establish trench ware fare on french soil. And ASAP release divisions after the race to the sea to the east. You make sure no atrocities are committed - world option is important. You do not attack in the west. Other than small scale things to keep the enemy off balance. You win in the east. Either through Russian revolution as it happened or because it happened sooner thanks to greater defeats. You could then use the spare man power to help the ottomans push for the Suez Canal. All the while your stopping AH form ever listening to hosendorf and your making them defend only against the Italians. The whole time you do not shell Scarborough and Hartlepool. You don’t carry out zeppelin raids on cities and you don’t instigate gas warefare but make sure your own side has masks. Why all this? You approach the allies by constantly saying “we didn’t want this war. We were all dragged into it. Let’s return to status quo ante bellum along the french/lux/bel border and agree to demilitarisation In Alsase lorrain with a possible plebiscite in 10 years time (this may be more acceptable to the reichstag) The British have this situation then: The Germans have avoided aggression since defensive warefare started. BUT losses have been horrific when the British attacked. Same for the french. The Germans acted with honour and seem to manage world option in their favour or at aleaat in nutrality. They just want the war over and the uk/french people want this too. Especially as they can hardly be told the Hun are war criminals. All the while, french soil is occupied, Belgium over run and the British have to worry about loosing the Suez Canal. And the two “sick men of Europe” are holding strong and have conquered Serbia (great loss on both sides) but you use your future knowledge to get Aus to play nice in negotions. Net result. Peace without horror seen in reality. Germany and AH gain massively in the east. Poland may be created as a puppet satellite of the CP. the ottomans gain more land around the Black Sea. The British keep Suez and gain some German colonial possessions. The french get their land back, gain a buffer to the Germans and hope of peace for a decade and maybe Germany throws them a African colony. A good trade for huge tracks of the east of Europe. Italy gets sod all as usual The Austrians get a chunk of Serbia but the Serbians still have a small state and AH get parts of Russia. I’d say that’s doable with small changes to the timeline and access to the heads of state in the central powers. And it’s definitely plausible. Either way. It won’t stop a Ww2. Just change the lineup
    2
  31. This Iowa Vs yamato would be short and bloody. I doubt this Iowa would even get a chance to fire her guns. Ironically a Japanese destroyer would probably be able to sink her. Infact I'd go further and say that in a night action or in bad fog. The Iowa would never know the destroyer was there. The Japanese destroyer would simply get into fireing position. Launch a spread of torpedoes. Turn around in a lazy way to get ready to launch reloads. Then wonder how the Iowa sank so fast. Then they'd trundle off home for tea and biscuits.
    2
  32. I remember the first voice guide. Can’t recall if that was before or after DD1. I think before. It was something of a shock. Not as much of a shock as seeing him interviewed by chieften. I had imagined him as a retired professor until then 😂
    2
  33.  @alganhar1  interesting info there. I also could add that prien was a skipper of costal submarines in the first days of the war. It's how he got a sea going command. No doubt he had much better experience of costal areas than skippers who had been posted to the seat going boats. Even if the krigsmarine had 5 skippers as good as him. Would they have the necessary experience to matter? As a side note. The amount of fleet units the Americans had in PH is much higher than the RN would have had in dock in September 39 anyway. The ships were already at sea. Basically the entire question of a German U-boat pearl harbor goes from unlikely, to impossible to laughable. The more anyone with knowlage of the circumstances thinks about it. I'm surprised Drach' used up as much time as he did to consider the question. God knows what November-Bravo has to complain about 😂
    2
  34. You can't find any reference to a series as there isn't one. The reference "last seen" is because Sharnhorst was part of the channel dash (operation Cerberus). Drachinifel did a video on the channel dash. It's not a series and not connected to this video in any way. Just another historical moment the ship was present for. Organising this video as a follow on to the channel dash would make no sense at all. Or as a follow on to the 5 minute guide where the class of ship was covered. The reference is just to point out that he has covered the Sharnhorst/other ships in this video, in other videos. Thoes video's can be watched in any order. It doesn't matter :) I'm other words. You can't find an "order" or method of organisation, because there isn't one and shouldn't be one. It's not a failure of any kind. I hope that helps, and that you enjoy the channel. It's got some excellent videos.
    2
  35. I don't know. I'd have happily bought a miniature model of say HMS Ark Royal that was made of her melted down steel. I don't mind most ships being broken up. How it has to be. But knowing some (such as warspite) had to be lost to history is a real shame.
    2
  36. @28:00 a bit (OK a lot) of additional info which is really worth thinking about. (sources at end) At the time the Germans were well behind on payments they owed the Soviets for food and raw materials. The German economy had been built on a foundation of sand. They'd pulled off their 'economic miracle'. But the economy was fundamentally weak and they had little in the way of hard capital to buy things on the world market. So basically they really had sod all else to pay the Soviets with. Add to this that they were well aware of the fact that they were now seriously dependent on the soviets as the blockade was in force*. And there was little option but to give the soviets the ship. That's the main economic factor. The other often overlooked# factor, were in diplomacy and geopolitics. At this time and shortly before. There were huge efforts from the allies to fix Russia into an alliance. That had narrowly been avoided due to ribbintrop/molotov pact and the criminal- laxidasical attitude of the allies in getting the Russians on side (sending their envoy via SHIP! Not aircraft or even train, at a time when days mattered, they sent an envoy via ship via the Arctic circle for god sake... Sigh). Because of this, stalin knew he was in a strong position to get as much as he could out of Germany (German accounts all note how shrewd a negotiatiator he was). AND the Germans knew they were at the mercy of stalin in many ways and Ribbintrop had orders from Hitler to really lay it on thick (there was a bit of a feeling of "we have to make up for all the anti communist stuff")... So when there was a chance to give the Russians a half completed ship instead of hard gold. They jumped at the chance. Not paying at all wasn't an option. Germany needed russian raw materials and they REALLY needed to keep Russia happy so that they didn't join the allies. To emphasise how important this was to Hitler. He even condemned Finland and withdrew support for them in the winter war. In spite of a huge backlash domestically for doing so. In every way. Keeping Russia on side in 39-40 was worth one half finished cruiser. If pushed I think they would have given up the whole class. So for the patron who asked the question and mentioned Germany surely wanting ships... The answer is yes. You'd be right if your only thinking militarily. But considering everything. There were more important things happening. History isn't about weapons it's about people after all. *(Hitler for all his faults when it came to learning lessons from history... was well aware of what this did in ww1. He was obsessed with not loosing the 'home front' which meant keeping the people (and industry) fed. # especially among people who think of historic stratagem in terms of computer games lol Main sources: W. SHIERER (obviously), some Kershaw and Hastings
    2
  37. Your forgetting politics. The ships had been started already and Congress was pretty set on a conversion of them rather than new hulls. Plus. The treaty allowed for their tonnage because they would be conversions. Economics played a part as well. Given the various domestic political, economic and geo political (treaty) factors involved. The USN managed to come out well ahead. Yes your theory may fit nicely into a ideal fleet or what not. But the conditions at the time wouldn't allow it. History isnt about ships after all. Its about people. And all the comicated reasoning there involved.
    2
  38. There is a case to be made for a German fleet tieing down enough of the RN for the RM to gain the upper hand in the med. Combine that with a thrust through Egypt and then the ability to drive north to the Caucasus once Barbarossa set off. And that's a great source of oil and even a potential win for the Nazis. Plus this would rob the RAF of bases to hit ploesti. I realise this is sort of a house of cards argument. But it's one scary "what if". Yes Britain would have built to match Germany. Neither could afford a arms race. BUT. If America continued to stay far from a ally of Britain (which was the case pre war) then the USN would no doubt have built to match the RN. Even if no war kicked off between the US and GB... The air of mutual suspicion and general animosity that surrounds arms races. May well have kept the US public so anti war that a now financially weakened GB had to face the axis alone AND without the assistance the US gave historically (before entering the war). An unlikely scenario?... It seems so now. At the time? I'd say scary and worryingly plausible.
    2
  39. Only the first few dd are sub one hour. I remember the first or second where he said it seems there will be enough for more than a dd a month!!! I bet run time now is closing on 200 hours. Remember he did some vs and alt history videos before dd
    2
  40.  @lamwen03  not all of them. I think the polish would disagree on the freedom part. Also. The British people never lost their freedom ;)
    2
  41.  @MS-gr2nv  I think you may need to take rudimentary economics and history again....
    2
  42.  @chemputer  best reply I've seen on his yt People forget he has so many followers and a normal life Got to admit. He still runs the channel like he has 3000 flowers (around when I subscribed) His videos asking for more questions and review requests in yt comments is a bit ott now
    2
  43. I'm just watching this DD now. Didn't realize the 4th of July had come and gone. All the best to our old colonial cousins!
    2
  44. Given the sorry state Texas is in, I don't think a greater quantity of museum ships would be a good idea. Maintaining the quality of what was kept seems hard enough:(
    2
  45. Q for drydock (and a personal note). Q: If Germany had the type XXI U-Boat in service at the beginning of the war. Could they have won the battle of the Atlantic? Personal note: I've watched the channel for months now and want to thank you Drach. I've always been a history fan and an engineering fan. But your channel has really given me a new love of naval history. Please keep it up and thank you!
    2
  46. You had me at 'snook off to warspite"
    2
  47. It's called a joke... Sigh 🙄
    2
  48. I remember this rant. I felt so bad for what I saw in my mind's eye as a teenage Drach really annoyed by the silly museum people. I think this may have been before seeing you at tankfest when he was just a voice...
    2
  49. Glad to see your still watching S-Jim. Hope you all staying safe on the colonial side of the pond ;) Still wise drach would do a Q&A where you both talked US fire control and suchlike. Hope your well. :)
    2
  50.  @sarjim4381  a very happy birthday to you sir. If you have anything as civilised as Yorkshire tea in your part of the colonies. Then please, have one and think of your fellow history nerds on this side of the pond. I would happily listen to that video. Too much of the history of the two world wars are X Vs Y and technology like fire control is just waved away :( Glad your keeping safe and happy birthday again! Hears to many more S-Jim
    2