Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "The Drydock - Episode 096" video.

  1. Answer to both is the same. Neither were politically likely or possible at the time. Remember when you look at history. You have to try and not look back with hindsight. But put yourself in the shoes of the people at the time. Why didn't the Italians build carriers. Well why would they. The med is small enough that land based aircraft were a better investment. They also were stretching their yards to build what they built. A carrier would mean loosing battleships and by the time that aircraft carriers would be more useful in the med. The Italians were out of the war. Why did Germany not? Short answer. Hitler ended up at war 6 years earlier than " planned". As for the US and UK standardising. They did in some ways. Tanks being the obvious one. The UK largely standardised with the RAN RNZN etc. However nation's equip their ships for their requirements. The needs of a navy in the North sea are very different to one which operates in the Pacific. So true standardisation wasn't even the rule in a single navy. Across several navies is unlikely. Going back to the politics of the time. The interwar period relations between the US and the British empire were not totally friendly. The idea of the two competing nations being allies would be laughable to most statesmen at the time. You don't share technology with a potential enemy. Unless economics or prestige play a big role. And in this case you sell to a inferior. Not an equal
    1
  2. Not a clue what you mean. Certainly in the UK. The terms are used correctly in the media
    1
  3. Would it have been better. Probably. Unless the national structure broke down and there was revolution etc. But really its a question that's so far away from being plausible that it's a moot point. You may as well ask. Would Hitler have been better off invading Italy instead of Poland in sept39
    1
  4. Avoiding unexpected obstacles?
    1
  5. Though technically they are boats not ships. So capital boats might be correct
    1
  6. A great question but possibly impossible to answer. I cant imagine such a 'subject' would be well documented at the time. So archavists would have nothing to go off :(
    1
  7. It's not work. He has a job. This is a hobby.
    1
  8.  @alganhar1  given the massive global over population. That's just nature balencing things out. I say this as someone who is heavily immunosuppressed. I thought it interesting that Hollywood changed the ending in Dan browns novel about the plague that would drop the population 🤔 Anyway. Sar Jim. God bless the NHS. I'd be in a wheelchair or dead now without it
    1