Comments by "" (@VersusARCH) on "The Drydock - Episode 119" video.

@deidryt9944 Well then it doesn't count. There was also an attempt by the French and Montenegrins in 1914 to shell the Austro-Hungarian fleet at Cattaro (today Kotor) by land based guns situated on the reverse slopes of mount Lovćen, which was defeated by the counter-battery fire from the battleship Radetzky directed by aircraft. But since the guns in question were actually converted naval guns it also doesn't count.
4
@Drachinifel The pre-dreadnought Sevastopol did move out of range of the guns, to be attacked by the IJN (she repelled the attack sinking two torpedo destroyers, while a Japanese cruiser got sunk by protective mine barrage) but was later scuttled when the town surrendered.
4
@dandarling152 True. Serbian field artillery fired on Austro-Hungarian armored river monitors on the Danube many times in the 1914-15 period, scoring many hits with regular HE shells, sometimes forcing them to retire but never managing to sink any that way.
3
00:56:47 The First Pacific Squadron of the Imperial Russian Navy lost most of its ships that returned to Port Arthur after the Battle of the Yellow Sea to the Imperial Japanese Army's siege howitzers once the Japanese managed to capture (at great cost) some of the key surrounding hills within range. The ships sunk in harbor included 4 pre-dreadnought battleships and some armored cruisers. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Port_Arthur
3
Was it a coastal defense gun?
2
They had 22 light cruisers (+3 training cruisers) vs 18 heavy cruisers in WW2. 5 of the said light cruisers were built just before and during the war with more started but not completed.
2
@kemarisite Ning Hai and Chao Ho could only be considered coast defence gunboats due to their low speed. I separated the 3 Katori class training cruisers for the same reason. They really had just 22 and indeed many were old and weak (but then also, they made Kitakami and Oi into ubergrown torpedo boats which really should have been used in night actions off Guadalcanal and/or the other Solomon islands...) . Other nations also had many light cruisers far smaller than the 10,000t limit, the British Leanders, the Italian Condotierri and French La Galissonierres, Dougay-Trouins and Jean'd Arcs were some of the many examples. Some of those rendered useful service nevertheless.
1
Russian army was not seriously damaged by the Russo Japanese war. Only small part of the army was ever engaged (and suffered defeats) due to transport capacity limitations of the (at the time) single-track Trans-Siberian Railway and the ferries across the Lake Baikal (the rail loop around the lake was not yet completed at the time) that carried supplies necessary to sustain an army in the Russian Far East.
1
... and when the RN regains control of the Channel all the British need to do is to apply scorched-earth tactics and see the invasion force starved into surrender...
1
@calvingreene90 Check Russian Campaign out...
1
@calvingreene90 If you think the Russian serfs were incapable of rebelling check out Pugachev's rebellion that took place a few decades prior... Also the big losers in Russia's scorched earth policy against the Napoleon's invasion were also the aristocrats who owned the land scorched and the serfs settled on it. You think they were not capable of staging a rebellion with those serfs? How to conduct a scorched earth policy: show up with enough soldiers to discourage any resistance and do what has to be done. As shown in the HBO's Cernobyl. Order the civillians to evacuate and bring along whatever they can carry. Burn the rest. And give them an IOU promising to cover much of the damage after the war. You need a concentrated force that has a hope of winning to stage a rebellion.
1
@88porpoise If Napoleon managed to have command of the English Channel for only 12 hours he would have been defeated in Britain for sure. You need local command of the sea until you finish your conquest to ensure suppy ships can maintain your overseas invading army. Those soldiers need food, ammo, reinforcenents etc. The British know damn well how difficult an oversees conquest is simply because they conducted more such operations than anyone else in the preceeding 200 years. Napoleon failed against the Ottoman Turks in Egypt once the RN cut his supply route and the Turks also made efforts to deny him supplies from conquests. And some diseases helped too. Case closed.
1
@88porpoise Why do you assume Britain would surrender if London fell? Prussia DID NOT surrender until the Russian forces sent to help were defeated, Berlin having fallen long before. Austria DID NOT surrender again until Russian relief force as well as remaining Austrian forces were defeated at Austerliz, Vienna having been taken long before. Spain continued to fight guerilla-style even when the entire continental Spain was supposedly occupied by the French, hoping for British and Portuguese aid. And Russia of course did not surrender when Moscow fell (although the actual capital was St Petersburg at the time). If London fell the Brits would have retreated northwards burnung everything behind themselves, relying on the Royal Navy to cut the French lines of sea-borne communications, and once that was done, the invading army would have been nibbled away by lack of supplies and further British ground resistance. Just as it happened in Egypt. And in Saint-Domingue. And in Canada during the 7 Years' War. And to the Brits at Toulon as well as at Yorktown during the American War of Independence. Napoleon's army melted away in Russia and Spain due to, in no small part, lack of supplies.
1