Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Plan Z - Practical, Effective, or High Seas Fleet Mk2?" video.

Hitler: "Enough really big boat?" "... probably not..." *Hitler looks displeased and reaches for the 'send for the Gestapo' button" "...BUT!...Wait...err..." Hitler hesitates "... U-Boats!...yes, erm. cough Yes! U-Boats.....lots of them!" Hitler looks unsure ... "Annnddddd" "...And... Goering will supply the planes!?!." Even Hitler face palms
45
Not sure I can agree there. Call me bias and I guess I could be. But apart from the outlying terrible designs on both sides (I'm looking at you, so called "Invincible" class)... The British ships were ahead of the German classes. Can hardly blame the Germans. The British ship building industry was the thing of legand. They started the race for Dreadnaughts and never really lost the lead. German armour was excellent. British was arguably as good. British power plants were much better in every respect, especially overall efficiency. Guns were of larger caliber. Obviously I'm talking about capital ships. As a purely qualitative argument. I think the British ships had a technical lead of a couple of years at least. Before factoring in the size and quantity of British ships. That said. I'm no expert (my knowledge is much more 30s and 40s and geo-political rather than technical). So any good source on the subject is one id enjoy reading. Also Whisper's The German ships were cooler. Especially Von-Derr Tann, Sydlitz and Baden.... Other than Warspite. Because. Warspite.
28
@1Korlash I dunno. The seeadler did rather well for a sailing ship! Lol But yes. If you can make one sweeping statement about Germany* in the run up to and during ww2 that's totally accurate, it's this. "Did not learn lesson of ww1" *I of course, actually mean Hitler. A man so determined to avoid a war in the east and west. That he managed to end up fighting a war in the west. The east. The south. The north AND in the skies over Germany. (Insert back to the future "your just not thinking 3 [sic] dimensionally" quote here)
7
From now on I'm using the term "Bismarck's Rudder" Instead of "Achilles heel"
7
Just a small clarification. The whole plan was intended as a pre war building effort. Infact (as mentioned in the video) the plan was fundamentally based on the premise that war would NOT come with any power before 1945. So the dockyards position in relation to bomber command is irrelevant as as soon as war started, the plan was instantly defunct and didn't exist. Hope that makes sense. Also, the unrealistic plan part of your post is bang on. And sums up pretty much all plans made under Nazism 😂
6
Just a thought here... The whole not Manning aa guns and having crew shelter seems to be a standard practice in accounts I've read of various battles. And Drach' has mentioned same on his channel. The story of Nelson/Rod and the effects of her guns causing temporary blindness come to mind. So this would lead me to believe this is a issue/known to be a fact of life when it comes to much "smaller" guns than 18s. Also I know accounts differ as to the yamatos using the main guns in their anti aircraft role (Christ that's both scary and comic to think about. Just as a sentence... Anyway).... But we can all agree I think that they had that built into to the design. Surely the designers didn't think the regular as crew would stop fireing and shelter when said rounds were fired. I am probably being naive here and the concussive blast is much reduced with such rounds. So I'm looking to be caught out here. I'd love a explanation/correction to my thoughts here as it's not my area. Just musing and looking for info
5
You are of course 100% correct But your reasoning is irrelevant... Think of it this way... The stratigic situation is irrelevant to the Z plan. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship and Hitler wanted a big powerful navy and that was that. So he got the Z plan. Ok. Over simplified a bit. You could argue that what he wanted was to say he wanted a big powerful navy. To bang his bathtub. maybe he just wanted to ruffle a few feathers internationally (especially in Britain) mayyybeee he was just drumming up support amoung the populace and the (militaristic) party faithful. My thinking is that given he was ( if nothing else ) a political mastermind. It's likely this was a case of all the above and more (he was very good at accomplishing many positives out of any one action). But the point is. He wanted a plan for this big navy. He got the Z plan. The actual reality of the situation from a geo-political point of view is irrelevant to the how and why the plan came about. The plan doesn't ignore the theory you stated. It's just that your theory (reality) isn't a factor. Hope that makes sense. It's a different way of looking at history and my favourite. Especially when it comes to Nazi Germany. So much of what happened goes against anything that we see as being rational and logical. So it's always interesting to work out the Nazis "reason" behind the action taken.
5
He has done it. Hms habbakuk
3
This is a very confusing comment 😂
3
@1Korlash "Out of a book, actually" Had me in stitches. A true drachism. I'm lucky enough to have collected a fairly extensive library of history books (all bargains from charity shops!). And they have this amazing ability to teach you things.... Something the internet and thoes that parrot what's said there just don't seem to understand... I'll have to look out for any books on the GZ now. Seems a grand story. I always wonder what was going on in the ports where such ships were built during the war... Did the locals look at the super slow progress and wonder what the hell was going on? Did they care? How many man hours were wasted on people sent to train for a role that would never arrive on a ship that would never sail. How much work was wasted. And how lucky were the allies that "waste" was something the Axis were able to do in sooooo many ways. I went off topic there. Thanks for the history lesson :)
3
@Masterchiefkf3 not really fair to say a German response. But very true to say a Nazi response. Though more so later in the regime as things went to shit. Before then the summary execution of officers was rare. Also. This isn't just a Nazi thing. * Warning. Sweeping statement *: this is true of all dictatorships. Political backing for the dictatorship or its country make little to no difference. Napoleon in France. Stalin (well just bout all rulers) in Russia, Hussain in Iraq etc.
2
Nah. The high seas fleet wasn't that far down. I can't imagine scapa flow is more than half a mile deep? 😒
2
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
@neurofiedyamato8763 so if anything, proof the aa rounds for the main guns were a bit pointless. Good info there thanks!
1
All that is applying hindsight. At the time, what happened made sense to the experts at the time. Always worth remembering in history. Also. The Japanese navy would never have sold the zero to Germany. They wouldn't let their own army use them lol. Also. It wouldn't be polically acceptable in Germany. For a whole host of reasons.
1
I came here it make a humorous comment about said admiral. I was too slow :( Still. Agree with the spirit of your satment
1
Sean.... You started your comment saying "question..."But didn't ask a question.... Did YouTube cut it off? (We all know how iffy YouTube and it's software is these days). Just curious. I quite enjoy looking through the comments here and answering questions where I can :) after too many years learning early 20th century history. It's nice to share a bit.
1
In fairness. The role that dedicated anti air ships would play (and how useful they would prove to be). Wasn't something that could be seen in the late 30s. It didn't become obvious until a year or 3 into the war. Also The idea of a anti air cruiser just didn't factor at all into the doctrine, theory and concept behind the fleet the Germans were looking at with the z plan. They were thinking offensive against merchant ships and their escorts. The expectation being that each individual ships own anti aircraft armament would be enough to defend a ship being attacked. There was no reason in the mid-late 30s to doubt this theory. It was a totally reasonable expectation given what was known at the time and was shared by all the world's navy's. With the benafit of hindsight, we can see that it's a possible flaw in the plan. BUT. The videos point was to look at the plan and assess it based on its merits and flaws as and when it was drawn up. If you start picking it apart with hindsight. Where do you stop?
1
Both arguments of course are irrelevant when it comes to the Z plan as it was drawn up for Hitler. And he didn't care about such things. He wanted a plan for a large navy and that's what he got.
1