Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "The Sinking of HMS Glorious: An Avoidable Tragedy?" video.

@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
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
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
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