Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "Alternate History Special 001" video.

Bismarck's final battle is never an argument, because this was a clay pigeons schooting. The evaluate a battleship, which is not to steer and crawling with 7 knots, means an evaluation of an already sunk ship.
1
@daniellastuart3145 wrong. The british aircraft-carriers were in a real danger to be sunk by Argentinian submarines. Only the not-well trained Argentinian torpedo-crews, who could not handle their German torpedos, saved the Brits and the Prince on board. War is not always a one-sided thing, if both counterparts have submarines. The RN could never defend the Falklands without US support. One after another ship of the RN would have been sunk by the Argentinian airforce, if the US would not have interfered and menaced Argentina. The time of the Royal Navy is over. This counts for all European navies, except Russia. As you have seen, the Scandis cannot even steer a frigate without GPS, a desaster. European navies should be scrapped, because they are useless by a political indignation.
1
@xAlexTobiasxB Argentina was in the British position of WWII, to be itself a standing aircraft-carrier. Argentina's naval forces were negligible. But the RN was going to be sunk till the last ship afloat by old Seahawks.
1
@y0Milan check the comment of your fellow countryman HistoryFan476ad some comments above. You failed to check the situation. The RN was done for.
1
@y0Milan to defend the Falkslands the RN had to be close to the Islands. Check the duration of the conflict and how many warships of the RN were lost by sinking. The Argentine submarine was not eminent, only to hunt the carriers. Old argentian warplanes were enough to sink Sheffield, Antelope, Coventry, and Ardent and 2 landing crafts heavily damaged. We have to face, that the Argentinian air force was miserable led. As in WWI british ships at the Falklands were sunk by the incompentence of the british crews. The precious 5 Excocet-Missiles Argentina possessed, did not explode. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/?utm_term=.77d8fc7056ed
1
@jfangm Who is it? The Pentagon? The MI6?
1
LUCKYDUCKY 62 yes, of course, have those submarines with a lot of problems, soon you will have to pay for their home-port, when Scotland will leave the UK. But in a limited war, as both parties agreed to combat in, should nuclear weapons have what kind of effect? In the case the RN would have been sunk furthermore, the war would be lost, anyway. The threat of nuclear weapons have only any use, if Britain is manaced. British soldiers were brave, better trainded and equipped, but as in former ages, without a working navy, they would be lost.
1
LUCKYDUCKY 62 the Argentinians were not able to use their maritime forces as we have seen. The Sub-crews were not well trained and not able to use their Geman torpedos correctly to sink the British aircraft-carriers. The major success against the British forces were achieved with the Argentinian air-force, mainly old Skyhawks. There is no reason, why they should not be successful furthermore. But they were whistled back by the US. And we do not know what the US admin had promised them, threats or trading advantages.
1
The debates about the inches of battleship-guns is not really sophisticated in the vid. A 15 inch gun need much more storage than 11-inch guns, which is a cap for the total rounds of salvos. At Scharnhorst's last battle, the magazines of her stern-turret were empty. Scharnhorst's/Gneisenau's 11-inch-guns easily penetrated Renown and destroyed the galley. Speed and the penetration-factor of the shells are the main argument in a battleship-fight. Scharnhorst-class' max-range of her guns was only overruled by Yamato-class, Vittorio-Veneto-class and Richelieu-class, an evidence of the shell's speed and shape. PoWs and Hoods single broadside weight was clearly superiour to Bismarck's, but Bismarcks broadsides caused more damage and she could fire more rounds per minute than the Brits and with a beam of 36 meters, favourable for a battleship, she was only overchallanged by Yamato-class with a 39 meters beam. US battleships were restricted by 33 Meters caused by the Panama-channel problem, which means the ship is more instable and pushed more to firelee by firing a broadside.
1
The consideration about the U-Boot-Type XXI in a complete developed form in the beginning of, let's say, 1944 is wrong. They could sneak with their fuel cells much better and reached under water more speed than above the surface. The looted XXI boats changed the strategic estimation of submarines in all navies, worldwide. They were more difficult to spot, and could stay under water for a long time, which means no discovery by planes. This would have changed the course of war dramatically, if we predict nukes, which were planned for Munic and Hamburg. The US wanted to buy the Howaldt-Werke-Shipsyard when the Germans had launched the first Dolphin-class sub and commissioned it. In the Noth-Sea it came up directly in front of a US aircraft-carrier. The US ships could not locate it.
1