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

Britain couldn't afford to keep her. Not as a combat ship and certainly not as a museum ship. That's as much a part of her history as her service. It's important to remember and learn from. That's what history is all about.
17
@jimtaylor294 the georgious aerov (not a clue how to spell that)... She survived down to pure luck. The UK had no money to spend on frivolous things in 45. And keeping around some very very old battleships which we had nowhere to put and no money to maintain wasn't a priority. Food and housing were. I also don't understand the idea that politics had anything to do with it. She could have been saved privately. Not just money was a factor. The country was looking to the future. The war had lasted 6 years. 6 years of rationing and uncertainty. The idea that a conservative government would have kept a battleship as a museum ship is nonsense and had they tried the people would have been furious. And I'm not just speaking as someone who loves learning about history. My grandparents were born in the mid 20s and we talked about all this sort of thing while we could. I remember seeing the battle of Britain flight with them. I asked my grandmother, why is that the only Lancaster (and rather naively) asked why her generation couldn't have kept examples of Lancaster's and hurricanes for my generation. The reply was wonderful and blunt... Her generation had waited for the war to be over and were sick of seeing military "things" everywhere. They just wanted to live a better life. I guess much like every generation. Imagine being told today that sorry, you can't have universal free healthcare because we've decided to spend the money on museums.... There would be outrage. And we haven't just lived through a world war.
5
Warspite had an amazing history. But nothing on victory. For science sake, nelson died on victory. As an aside. My grandparents were young adults during and after ww2 and though both brought me up to love history. Both (I'm sure) would have been dead set against the idea of keeping a stupidly expensive museum ship at a time where they still had rationing and owning their own home was a decade long slog of working 40/50 hours a week.
4
@shawngilliland243 actually he would have been. It was standard practice at the time when a ship was lost. Even if it was blatantly obvious that the captain was blameless. Courts martial would be conveened to find out what happened
4
Something that happened throughout the war. The krigsmarine were the least "nazified" of the armed forces of Germany.
3
Doctrine for aircraft carriers was very new. Had there being a standing order that a patrol should have been up from dawn to dusk. It would have happened. Bismark would still have sailed. Apart from the fact that aircraft carriers weren't yet seen as capital units. And apart from the fact that the Germans were out for convoys. And were aiming to avoid a fight. And apart from the fact that at the time. It was believed that a capital ships anti aircraft weapons can develop it... German intelligence at the time was a joke. They had no idea what ships the RN had or where they were. Certainly not accurate ones. So having one more carrier wouldnt have changed any of the operational reasons for sailing. It sure as heck would not have mattered a dot to the stratigic reasons.
2
Given what the UK left ww2 with... I'd say we are lucky to have Belfast alone
2
@amandarhodes4072 I know :)
2
He should have gotten a fair trial and dealt with accordingly. Millions of people died to fight against terrible regimes that did things like shooting people and public hangings. Maybe something you would like to remember.
2
I wonder if it was standard practice for the USN at the time. Or did they learn from this incident. I wonder where the American carriers were before and during pearl harbor If they had standard practice to always fly a standing patrol. And had they have been anywhere near the Japanese fleet (I assume they were just in a different area. As they were at sea and not far away) ... History could have been very different. Brad Johnson. Do you know this/have sources?
2
I'd be interested to read your sources
1
Happened a lot in war time. On all sides. It shouldn't be assumed such things are malicious. They often have a good reason
1
Nobody knows. It's unlikely we'll ever know. It could be neglegance. It could be that given what was known at the time about carrier warefare (very little) that it wasn't known to be "something we should be doing"
1
It's worth remembering that though this is a good summary of events. There are entire books written on what happened. There is much much more to it. We can never know who was to blame for what :( The only positive thing to come out of this. Is that your relative didn't die in vain. Every life lost fighting the nazis made a difference.
1
Such a shame you weren't in charge. Hindsight is 2020. Have you ever considered that if it was so obvious that xyz should have happened. That maybe it would have?
1
No. Just no.
1
?
1
@dennisdelany9098 thanks for the reply. But I don't get the explanation reference. I'd like to add I'm in my mid 30s and university educated. Though most certainly not elitist as I'm proudly working class. So thanks for the reply. But I'm still baffled
1
A good video. I enjoyed it. I do think your suggestion that Britain was the big looser in the fact that she built dreadnought. Is completely false. The reality is. Dreadnoughts were coming. Whether the RN was first or not. The Tsatsumas were already leaning in that direction. It's similar to the argument the USN had about building a response to hood and if they did the standards would be obsolete. The point was. Hood had made them obsolete already. It didn't matter the how and the why. In the same way. British Pre dreadnoughts were obsolete. So it mattered little if dreadnought was the ship that made it so (the way she was built however was a tour de force as you mention). I disagree with massy and him saying the german government went into panic. That's not how geo politics worked at the time. Even 35 years later in a genuine. Emergency such as that surrounding the meetings at Munich and the sudatenland crisis things still went at a pace we would consider leisurely today. In the case of the facts of a warship becoming known. The type of ship that normally took years to design, build and bring into service. The idea of a instant blind panic just isn't something that would happen among statesman of the time. However impressive it sounds in a video (perhaps intended for laymen it could be forgiven. But how long before such thinking ends up like the modern history channel? I beg of you. Keep things accurate). Things in this time were much slower than they are now. Communication took time and those in power were used to a considered approach and response to situations. Finally. You mention the high sees Fleet and a "break out". Of all people you should know this is a very poor choice of language. I really mean this as constructive criticism as the video was very good. Thanks!
1
I can think of a lot of points to bring up. But the most obvious is that they weren't in range of German bombers. It's one reason the Germans struggled to take the North or Norway... They didn't have air support. German aircraft were bias towards tactical support of land forces. Also. Fuel in general had to be considered at the time. As well as ware on machinery. Every drop of fuel had to be transported to Britain and ships with worn out engines are good to nobody but Dock workers. Every moment in history has a thousand and more elements. Each of which contribute to the how and why something happened. Presuming we know what someone did wrong. Having the gall to assume that failings were "obvious" and the tenacity to blame without all the facts. Is a poor way to remember the dead.
1
Not at the time they werent. They weren't the capital ships of a given navy. Battleships were and would be the main targets of any attack
1
Aircraft carriers wouldn't be the main targets of attack until after the end of World War 2 (some battles in the Pacific being the exception to that rule). Your applying modern knowledge and logic to 80 year old warfare.
1
@doodledangernoodle2517 and tell "but ww2 naval history" to my grandparents who were still enduring rationing years after the end of the war. Who needed nearly a decade to save for a mortgage even though they worked 40-50 hours a week. I am passionate about history. But saving her was simply not worth the cost. We are very lucky to have the IWM Including Belfast. The royal navy museum Hartlepool. Portsmouth historic dockyard and the tank museum bovingdon. And that's just the tip of a grand network of museums in the UK. I challenge you to visit them (beamish and the national railway museum as honourable mentions) and say *we should have kept her*... Oh. And I only mentioned museums in England. Let alone the other 3 countries of the UK
1
Should all Intel have been passed? History would disagree. Intel has to be used and distributed very carefully. I'd like to see the procedure manuals dated before the incident which say the captain should have been doing all those things. That's a genuine request. If you have access to them as sources. Id like to read them. It would be enlightening
1
You assume someone was in overall command. It was a confused and constantly developing situation (others would say a catastrophe)
1
All the arm chair historians in the comments, may want to read more history and remember that hindsight is 2020. Its very easy to talk about things that seem "obvious" to someone in 2019. It's important to remember history and dicuss theory. But it's just that. Theory. Throwing about blame in offhand comments and there by deciding what and who was in the wrong. Just disrespects brave and potentially blameless men who diserve better.
1
It was a turbulent and confused time. It wasn't like a computer game. Things weren't planned and thought out months in advance (like on dday for example). The situation in norway was very confused. That much is clear in the history of the campaign. Its highly unlikely that there were any other assets to spare.
1
Not easily. The deck was covered in aircraft from the mainland. Also, this early in the war. Nobody had yet seen the effect that aircraft could have on capital ships. That would happen much later. German accuracy was no better than any other navy at this time. In fact their fire control was lagging behind the RN/USN and their night fighting ability was very much behind other navy's especially the IJN.
1
"rookie mistake" This was the start of the first war in which aircraft carriers were properly used. Have you considered that they made "rookie mistakes" because everybody was learning on the job? Your applying 2019 thinking and 2020 vision to something that happened a very long time ago. If warfare was so simple and straight forward. The world's navy's would recruit their commanders from social media comments
1
In a single answer. Yes. Many will argue that in hindsight you should just push them overboard so you can still launch your own aircraft. However those hurricains were precious aircraft in the dark days of 1940. Had the captain pushed them overboard. Avoided the German ships and made it home without a scratch. Then no doubt this video would be about the stupid captain who wasted all those valuable fighters and the comments section would be full of posters saying how stupid he was and obviously he shouldn't have wasted them Sigh
1
@bkjeong4302 not true at all. The aircraft carrier wouldn't truly superced the battleship until very late war. Remember this is 1940. The battleship was still the main arbiter of seapower at this point. The balence was changing. It had not changed. It's not at all surprising that a battleship sank a aircraft carrier. The carrier wasn't armoured to withstand battleship or even cruiser grade guns.
1
@bkjeong4302 you've missed my point by a long way
1
@bkjeong4302 no. My point was that battleships were not obsolete and therefore the fact that an aircraft carrier was sunk by one is in no way remarkable. My secondary point was that battleships were meant for surface engagements and were armoured and armed as such. In this surface engagement. The fact that a surface combatant sunk a aircraft carrier was again - unremarkable.
1