Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "SMS Moltke - Guide 032 (Human Voice)" video.

All German battle-cruisers achieved a definite higher speed than designed.
24
@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
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
@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
@strixaluco7423 you should know the Germans were not prepared for war. Your a.m. Z-Plan was designed for 1944. In 1938 the French budget for military expenses was still bigger than the German budget. Beside the Sovjetunion (the Red army had more war-planes and tanks in 1939 than the rest of the planet, including the US), France was the major continental land-power and Britain the major sea-power. Study the German operation Weserübung to secure the iron-ore delivery in Narvik, it was totally improvised. Most of German losses were caused by the wrong decisions of the commanding officers, but strategically successful in total. This is the exitement of warfare at sea, technical datas are standing behind in my opinion.
3
Maybe a communist sabotage action :-)
3
Beatty was maybe a coffeehouse baffoon, maybe not. His major incompetence was his lack of communication. As a seaman, he was obviously proper. Hipper's inclusion of Blücher at Doggerbank was a great failure.
3
@jannegrey the top-speed of German BCs was in reality, not on paper, faster than of the Brit BCs. Without Blücher and the comradeship to stay in line of battle to support the Armoured Cruiser we would not have seen the Battle of the Doggerbank. Blücher was, as you mentioned a fine ship, but not in a BC-action. In technical questions like the ammunition-handling the Germans had an easy task to use the experiences of this battle. But the Germans had, as always, difficulties to use the tactical experiences of major battles since the Battle at the Yellow River. Still at Jutland they included slow cows. German admiralty was still in WWII a big band of idiots.
3
@mikemusikable .. check Drachifinel's HMS Tiger guide, 18 minutes of your life and a private gain.
2
Turkey failed to cross the Suez canal and to throw the British lads out of Egypt. The Palestinian and Arab idiots trusted 2 times the perfide Brits and payed for it obviously. The Turks saw the donation of 2 warships as a commitment. They were aiming at Russia. Unfortunately Bismarck was dead a long time. He would have adviced the Habsburg-Bonehead-Emperor to give Bosnia to the Serbs, the Russians would have gained an Adrian port and the Brits and the French would not have accepted. We would have seen a British-Russian war, much better for Germany.
2
@Bird_Dog00 At Denmark Strait PE was preparing a torpedo launch, too. But due to PE's evasion manoeuvre the distance became too far.
2
You see the new British super-frigates/destroyers could not sail in warm waters. And they needed an expensive replacement with German diesel engines.
2
@RobJaskula i am a freak, but not such a freak as Drach. Scheer hated the pre-dreadnoughts, but i have no insight in decision-making of the German Admiralty. If do you study the battle of Tsushima you will see not top-speed, but reduced speed of the line of battle by slow ships is really a major factor. The Russians were always outpaced by the Japanese. In the battle of the Yellow Sea, Russian speed was high enough to break out of Port Arthur, and admiral Tōgō's aim was to avoid severe damage. But admrial Vitgeft failed to implement a clear command-chain in the case he will die in battle, what then, indeed happened.
2
Maybe the German engineers had a better feeling for female ship-shapes.
2
@strixaluco7423 i am an declared enemy of the former German admiralty, not of German ships or common crews. I like Drach's vids. But as Mr. Felton, Drachifinel's political comments tends to a falsification of history, as you can see in the RNs role of the slavery theme or the term of "Nazi" coastal batteries in France. When the Brits were ever the good ones? Funny idea, isn't it? So i would prefer to debate without politics. But this seems not to be easy. Simply the battle of Denark Strait describes German and British mistakes and their symptoms for more than 3 decades, even in the evaluation of historical events concerning technical datas. I like Drach's vids, even the British humor, no question. I am not here , because i am a masochist.
1
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12085305/Flying-pioneer-Amy-Johnson-chopped-to-pieces-by-Royal-Navy-ships-propeller-historian-says.html maybe to avoid an accident like this one.
1
@RadioactiveSherbet The Brits defeated the Germans with friendly rammings. Sometimes it happens, when officers bought their comission.
1
Yes, funny, the Germans designed and built battle-cruisers for major battles. The Brits designed and built goalhangers for bargains overseas, but used them in major battles. The only exception was the battle of the Falklands, a donation of the German boneheaded admiral.
1
@RobJaskula there should be not a big difference between the functional abilities of both admirals. The tradition of the RN might imply that British ship-commanders did not need any signal to fight a battle. But there was no real battle, except the Crimean war, since the Napoleonic wars. And British admirals were convinced to be always superiour. Beatty's major mistake was, to draw no consequences from the experience of Dogger Bank. Hipper was a cool guy, of course, but to put Blücher into the line of the battle-cruisers, was a capital failure. Speed is a major factor, and without Blücher the Germans would have outpaced the Brits from the beginning, when the Brits came in sight. We might have seen a battle between 3 Brits against 3 German BCs. Hipper's bonus was to debate the experiences from the Doggerbank, mainly the damage control on Seydlitz. About speed, i assume, it was a mistake of Scheer to bring pre-dreadnoughts into the line of battle at Jutland. When Jellicoe sailed south, the pre-dreadnoughts saved the heavily damaged German battlecruisers, but with a higher speed of a smaller high-seas-fleet, Scheer perhaps would have avoided such a delicate situation. Scheer would have been further in the north, before the Brits could establish the long line of battle. This would have given the chance to hit the Brits decisively, when they sailed in 5 or 6 lines of march formation.
1
@kevinmitchell8626 if i understood you correctly, it is torpedo protection.
1
@derzauberer8605 most of the British battle-ships had an ugly male-shape, only a few exceptions (for example Vanguard). Check them and tell us, which ones you like.
1