Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1.  @neilwilson5785  to achieve this we need a picture of Obama.
    6
  2.  @benwilson6145  they replaced, using the Royal Navy, the slave trade with the opium trade. And China was enforced by military action (opium wars) to accept it. The Imperium Britannicum was the biggest fascist empire the planet has ever seen.
    6
  3. Makarov's fate beside, he was the best flag-officer of the Russian navy in his era. But he suffered under the Bali-de-Suffren-syndrome. When Vitgeft broke out of Port Arthur and died in battle, there was no regulation installed who was in charge to lead the fleet. The loser Uhktomsky went back into desaster.
    6
  4. Yes after WWI the Brits established Poland and the Poles had nothing to do than attacking each neighbor soon after the founding of their artificial country and Poland became a military dictatorship in 1926. So your are right, they fought anybody in range. In 1921 their armies were already south and east of Kiev.
    6
  5.  @Athrun82  This is the point .... and not so far away from WWI. In WWII there was no real fleet as in WWI. In both cases the German admiralty failed.
    6
  6. Sovietunion was an Empire with 123 tribes and nations. So it is very similar to the British Empire, where many nations and tribes got lost.
    6
  7.  @adamdubin1276  The Spaniards built the best ships, but suffered under the nobles in the spanish society. A spanish comission was a bought privilege, public yachting. As in France spanish officers did not want to fight. In the battle of the Saintes, Drach mentioned it in the vid, you see the failure of de Grasse, who saw sea-warfare as a project. Rodney was no genius, but de Grasse had no aim to find him and to destroy the Brits. In the war of Independence the Brits were obiously lost, if there would not have been a lack of political will in France and Spain to destroy the Empire for once and forever. Check the fate of the best French admiral ever, Bali de Suffren, who was more british than the Brits. His officers were not willing to follow his ideas and orders. The secret of British sea-superiority lays behind one court-marshalled and shot british admiral, Mr. Byng, after he lost battle of Menorca. Even Admiral Hollands decision to attack immediatly the Germans at Denmark Strait in 1941, instead to wait for Norfolk & Suffolk, refers too this one judgement of 1757.
    6
  8. The Dutch missed to conquer the Isle of Wight, so they could have used british warships at the Solent anchorage.
    6
  9.  @dougrobbins5367  read the quotes of Churchill. Churchill did not cared about any German politician, anyway which direction would have been at power in Germany. This alc-junky wanted to destroy Germany and kill the people. Do not talk bullshit, read it and then come back, victim.
    6
  10.  @dougrobbins5367  oh you invented it. Check the Boer wars. Full idiot, you know nothing about your own history. You bloody sphincters genozided the Tasmanians, and made half of China opium junkies with 20 mio. victims, you bonehead.
    6
  11.  @mikemike974  Bismarck could fire 2 rounds a minute. But at Denmark Strait Bismarck fired at least 1 round a minute. PE could fire 4 rounds a minute, but smaller caliber of 8 inch caused more straddlings. For PE a closer range would have been an advantage but with higher risk being hit from a BB. PE would have been superiour to Norfolk or Suffolk. And the coward Lütjens missed the chance to persuit PoW and the sinking of it. The world record is hold by Seydlitz at the Doggerbank. When the aft-turrets of Seydlitz blew up, commander von Egidy and 1. artillery officer Förster gave the order for rapid fire to the remaining turrets. Seydlitz fired 123 11-inch-shells in 6 rounds a minute. This was an outstanding performance with the half ship flooded, never achieved by any other ship of all navies during the BB-era. A special honour to Pump-master Wilhelm Heidkamp, who saved the ship.
    6
  12.  @painiscupcake5433  Yes, good luck for PoW not to be sunk.
    5
  13.  @nerd1000ify  No, Sir, there was no strategic decision. Lütjens could not get away without fighting, this is, what we call "the battle of Denmark Strait". 2 heavy cruisers in his back, 2 BBs on his portside and the ice on starboard. But he was not able to give the permission to fire, he paniced. This was cowardice facing the enemy. Permission to fire was ordered by the commanders Lindemann and Brinkmann. The cowardice of Lütjens cost the Germans precious 2 minutes of not returning fire. Lindemann demanded the pursuit of PoW, but Lütjens failed again. The mistake of Lindemann was not to release Lütjens from his duties as an admiral, when he realized that Lütjens was not fit for command.
    5
  14. History does not matter the youth. Only elder people who inherited the traumata of war, are interested in.
    5
  15. Weserübung was improvised...and the Germans had no time to lose by the necessity to secure Narvik's iron ore rail-road. This is proved by the fact, that the Brits reached Narvik at the same day. Every heavy cruiser passing Oscarsburg in slow speed would have been sunk. What Drachinifel missed to mention, is that the failure of Blücher was caused again by those miserable German flag officers, in this case rear-admiral Kummetz. He ordered slow speed. His flag-captain Heinrich Woldag demanded to sail as fast as possible to avoid Norwegian attacks. And as usual those useless guys in the Kriegsmarine were promoted. Drach's comparison with county-class heavy cruisers, i beg pardon, is totally useless. PE's Gunnery was quite superiour, the guns longer and heavier, more AA-gun-batteries, more and better 2nd artillery, 30 meters more length, 2 meters wider beam, (same speed), more torpedos. This caused a much bigger crew (including prize-crews), nearly doubled numbers, means more mess-rooms and supply-storage, and PE loaded respectively the double weight of ammunition. So, it is easy to understand where the additional displacement of PE is coming from and out of question, a little bit more research and less prejudice would be appropriate. After HMS London's refit the ships superstructure stressed under the new heavy weight. The ship was too small, the refits misconstructed. Remaining inside the treaty was seen as a ridiculous punctiliousness in Britain. Drach's beloved triple-gun-turrets are fine for a fleet in superiour numbers of ships, but impair the ships's stabilty, shifting weight out of the mid-centre. For minor navies fighting against superiour sqadrons more turrets to fight multiple targets are the correct construction-style.
    5
  16. The Brits took the slave trade over from the Dutch, when the Bank of England was founded in 1694. Those slave-traders, friends of King William of Orange, left Amsterdam and settled in London. We should notice that serfdom in Europe established during the crusades was forbidden at first on the Prussian King's properties (Frederik the Great) after the 7-years war around 1765. Between slavery and serfdom is not a relevant difference. And we should notice, too, that till our days there is no material liberty for humans. Interesting would be a vid about the Arabian slave raids against Europe, including British coasts. In total about 1 Mio. Europeans were made to slaves. For example, the children's crusade in 1212 ended up on North-African slave-markets.
    5
  17.  @paulgreen6980  of course, but the uplift is smaller anyway...
    5
  18.  @bkjeong4302  The incapable admrial
    5
  19.  @NashmanNash  You see, we can talk now about the trash you wrote. The decision to change from coal to oil burners was made by the Brits in 1906, 8 years before the war. And the necessary and known major oil-wells were in Persia, which led to the desastrous policy of the west until now for this area. Or do you think the Persians or now Iranians were happy when the British warmongers invaded with the Sovjet-Union their home-country in 1941 again? The US-strategy to separate Germany from Russia were already formulated in the early 20th century. Lloyd George took already at this time (1902) a war against Germany as a competitor on the international markets into account. "against trade routes you just need long range cruisers". Wrong, as you see due to the battle of the Falklands, which the idiot von Spee lost. The Brits with the incapable Churchill lost WWI already in 1916 after the desastrous Gallipoli campaign. So the Brits must draw the US into the war. Do you think really this loss of prestige was not possible to foresee? The wrong British decision to wage war against Europe was made before the war, and it was wrong as we could see in the result. But the Brits did not learned anything. They repeated the wrong decision again.
    5
  20.  @AttackStart  as Drach mentioned in his Channel Dash vid, there were all Swordfish shot down by the prepared Germans. This had less to do with the ability of the swordfish pilots, which were, of course well-trained, and more with the ability of the used weapons against those swordfishs. Bismarck's AA-defense would have been more effective against those japanese bombers and torpedo-planes which sunk Repulse and PoW. In Bismarck's case it was generally the wrong decision to dodge the small-sized Swordfish-torpedo instead to take it in the middle of the ship. Afterwards we are always more clever.
    5
  21.  @celebrim1  you rate the US politicians more stupid as they were. Japan was confronted with a total oil embargo set by the US and the UK. At this time Japan had oil reserves for 90 days. When they decided to fight, they had only oil reserves for 70 days. So the first target were the oil reserves in the south of the Chinese sea, all, more or less, in allied hands. During the war the main part of the IJN was located where the oil is. Your Roosevelt knew already that Pearl Harbour will be attacked and he draw his precious carriers away and let sunk those useless old battleships and those poor US Seamen died. He needed this attack to wage war, with congress in his back. The Japanese hoped to prolongate the war and for a political change in the US instead to launch a direct attack against the US mainland. But WW2 weakened the US so much, that 7 years in Korea only a stalemate was achieveable. From this point US forces were and are still able to destroy a country, but unable to win any war again. So more than 800 military overseas US bases are expensive and useless. The US soldier should go home and .... ...
    5
  22. Our US cowboy-friends are always on the opinion that their roman-republican democracy is a blessing for mankind. And the memory of US citizens is short. They had forgotten that the British loyalists from the war of independence were thrown out and their properties sacked. These loyalists fled to Canada and had no aim to welcome those cowboys. But the lessons the British Canadians gave had no impact on US weak minded politicians.
    5
  23.  @justforever96  Yes, that's correct. But at the doggerbank were only 11, 12 & 13,5 inch guns present. At Jutland the Brits had some 15 inch gun ships. The weight of a British 15 inch gun was around 880 KG on Hood. The German 15 inch gun had a weight of 750 KG,. on Bismarck 800 KG. The 11-inch high velocity-projectile of the Scharnhorst-class had only a weight of slightly above 300 KG. On paper the Scharnhorst could shot 3,5 rounds a minute, same as Bismarck, caused by the same simple reload system. But Schneider shot at Denmark Strait in average 1 round a minute. The 11 inch gun had several advantages, more projectiles in the magazine and the guns had more stamina than 15 inch guns. 15 inch guns could survive 254 rounds, 11 inch guns a 100 rounds more. Scharnhorst's 11 inch guns could penetrate most of all existing armaments except the main belts. The fatal hit on Scharnhorst at the North Cape by Duke of York's 14 inch guns reached the propulsion room slightly above the main belt. This hit was deadly by his lucky accuracy not by the weight of the projectile. When Kirishima was hit by Washington's 16 inch guns of several broadsides on nearly point blank range, the broadside weight made no difference. As You mentioned, smaller calibre, more broadsides available. And in WWII only 2 British BB-constructions were sunk by artillery.
    5
  24.  @HootOwl513  Amputated people were common in these days, but more by accidents than by action or died by illness. I give you an example. During the 7-years-war, around 1.500 RN-members died in action, more than 100.000 by accidents and illness.
    5
  25.  @taggartlawfirm  .... Hornblower, too. He managed (in the novel) the funeral of Nelson as a post-captain and commanded a sloop of 22 9pounders. I think we are too much influenced by the films with Russel Crowe, Gergory Peck or Ioan Gruffudd. Duncan was a giant, he could win against every able seaman in a fist-fight. Nelson, Cochrane, Sidney Smith, Suffren, Surcouf never looked like hollywood heroes. This is the point of view, Forester wanted to express, in my eyes.
    5
  26.  @tembot6363  Unfortunately we had no sponsors to preserve all those remaining warschips in the past.
    5
  27. Good short vid. The Lissa battle is a synonym for the entire history of the british navy. Countries which depend on a good leadership at sea send the best guys into the naval forces, and not any Coffee-house heroes.
    5
  28.  @jaredmiller9021  after the industrial revolution continental middle-class was in % bigger than Britain's. Paul Kennedy wrote in his famous book "The Rise and the Fall of the Great Powers", that Germany could stand in 2 WWs such a long time against an allied x-times superiority by the better education of it's soldiers.
    4
  29.  @mikemusikable  you can intensify Drach's fine explanations of british and german battlecruisers in the web. The Tiger story shows a british example of higher speed than expected. And Tiger shows us a british example of a German battlecruiser, ok, as Drach said with a poor hit-performance. The stability of Tiger or her German opponents is not only a question of numbers and statistics. It is obvious that officers on Tiger, ordered the crews to work according to the manuals, and not to cheat to get favours of the admiral. And the Germans accepted a smaller shell size to save weight. But this is only dedicated to the guns. The Germans had usually more shells stored on board, a logical consequence.
    4
  30.  @HMSConqueror  Lütjens was a british human mine.
    4
  31. As a German baker you get rich in England.
    4
  32. This would not happen to the Royal family. Another evidence of Spee's stupidity.
    4
  33. According to Drach, it seems that Hood fired torpedos at Denmark strait, and this would be plausible, because the hydrophone-section of PE reported a British torpedo-attack. Torpedos on battleships make sense in the case of operations in close waters.
    4
  34.  @NashmanNash  make it better. You did not enlightened us, you covered us only with bullshit. Where are your arguments, intellectual giant?
    4
  35.  @NashmanNash  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(1906) Jacky Fisher was no fool, dear Nashman. About von Spee is to say, he tried to escape in the morning in good weather-conditions & good visability to the open sea from faster enemy-ships. This was the worst option. The best option would have been to attack Port Stanley to enforce torpedo-attacks on anchoring targets and close-range combat. And the crews of sinking German ships would have had the chance to reach the shoreline. The second option would have been to escape into the Falkland Sund. About the Ottoman-Empire is to say, that the control of the Suez-channel was decisive. Without the US-support the war was already over in 1916.
    4
  36. As a symbolic gesture austrian troops occupied Germany with a handshake. The separation of Austria happened due to chancellor Bismarck who wanted to avoid an Habsburg guy on the throne of the Reich.
    4
  37.  @highwatercircutrider  There were only 2 real Polish Kings, most of the kings of Poland were Germans. Historically the Poles were an eastern germanic tribe which prowled with other 20 germanic tribes about the region of Warsaw. A duchy is ok, but an own country, no.
    4
  38. The major point is not mentioned in the video. The German invasion of Norway was implemented by the experience of WWI, and the iron ore shortage on the German side. The Brits would never had accepted a Norwegian neutrality, which is evidenced by the fact that the Brits invaded Norway one day later than the Germans, which made the strategic necessity to secure the German supply-lines obvious for everyone. There is no point of Nazis in the Norwegian political scene, anyway they existed or not. The Brits, according to Winston Churchill, waged war, anyway Nazis or not were in the German government. Churchill waged war against the German people not against Nazis, as he did already before someone would know anything about Nazis at all. So this misleading and moralising justification for waging war of the video is complete bullshit apart from the first class battle research of Drach, we all respect and enjoy.
    4
  39.  Yar Nunya  the Frenchies and Brits demanded several times German presence in Belgium and France, just to remind you.
    4
  40.  @RadioactiveSherbet  shit happens as you see here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3629306/Royal-Navy-s-advanced-destroyers-break-Gulf-water-WARM-bungling-defence-chiefs-admit.html
    4
  41.  @genericpersonx333  Battlecruisers would have been much better for every nation building warships. The Brits developed ships as Repusle, Renown & Hood after the conclusion that the Germans built battle-cruisers able to engage the enemy in the line of battle. The major misconstruction of cruisers or armoured cruisers is the unsufficiant speed to outmaneuvre bigger ships.
    4
  42.  uncletigger  it was war .... what you would have done, if the British and French imperial & colonial fascists enforced the entire planet to attack you?
    4
  43. These Italian BBs are nearly symmetric from the middle to bow and stern-section.
    4
  44.  @KroM234  This is not only your and my opinion. Numbers are obvious. To evalue the history we have to check political intentions. The Brits, incorporated by the RN, followed the real imperial strategy (copied from the Romans) to destroy all enemy forces. Till today, continental forces, at this time the Frenchies and Spaniards, except the admirals Suffren and de Bazán, saw warfare at sea more as a political instrument, as a noble hobby, and comparable to the Germans in WWI and II. The fatal error was to underestimate the brutal atrocity of anglo-american policies of permanent warfare, which was fairly copied from Augustus, who was famous for his pax romana, but who waged permanent war in reality. The big french fleet, which gave the US independence, ruined the french economy, which led to the French revolution with it's well known outcome. What guys as de Grasse never understood was, with a sunk Royal Navy the brit colonies would had become automatically french ones. The deGrasse' made useless enterprises and adventures instead to bottle up the RN in british ports and to kill John Company.
    4
  45. With a British captain and a british crew Santisima Trinidad would have shot the Brits to pieces.
    4
  46.  @Dave_Sisson  (1757) till 1942, when the superiority of the Royal Navy ended and the empire died by self-destruction. Adm. Byng was not jugded guilty for cowardice, the main words in the court marshall were "not doing his utmost", easily to understand even for non-native speakers.
    4
  47.  @genericpersonx333  the US navy controllers were not enthusiastic about Prinz Eugen's abilities. What the most of the participants, who answered to you, do not understand, is the relativeness. US navy, as airforce and army, could rely on never-ending supplies and most of the infinite ressources were wasted, but who cares. Small countries as Germany, Italy or Japan with no empire in their back, had very limited ressources. So, we should evalue their achievements under those circumstances. This is more evident, when we notice that soviet and us military after-war-development is based mainly on robbed German technology, one of the main reasons for this war. It would take several annual US budgets to compensate in favour of the Germans the world's biggest bucaneering ever.
    4
  48.  @gregzeigler3850  I beg pardon, i meant the US took profit from WWI and WWII. But the US was after the end of WWII too weak to influence the political situation in China. The Chinese civil war between Mao and Chiang Kai-shek, beginning 1927, ended 1949 and the result of the Korean war ended with a stalemate. Here we see the start of the US decline as the leading world power from it's beginning. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping took over and created the current China (& the entire far east), which dislodges the US and the entire West, as you decribed it. The imperialistic thinking of US policies, inherited from the Brits, led to the expensive expansion of the military complex. 800 US overseas bases against one of China in Djibouti, (Britain still 16), charges the taxpayers a lot, and the US charges the entire planet with indirect taxes, enforcing the planet to buy the worthless Petrol-$. Your president Donald Trump is the first one in Oval Office who understands, that the US policy of military threats (for centuries) is over, already a long time. And he tries to counter China in the right way to support the own economy outside the military complex.
    4
  49.  @keithmitchell6548  of course, the fascist Brits tortured the planet for 300 years. Who likes them? Only annglophilic jealous submissive people. Europe has to pay now for british sins. Guilty for 2 WWs or do you think the Chinese have forgotten the Opium wars or the East-Indians the empress of India? Some Argentine pilots and squadrons acted bravely, but check the military comments. A fish rots from the head down.
    4
  50.  @tommiatkins3443  To defeat Constitution would have been no problem for him. He took the Southern-Americas with some hundred men. Have a look how many south-american warships are named "Almirante Cochrane".....
    4