Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Mark Felton Productions" channel.

@jasonclarke6194 LOL! Nice try. So, to summarize, "the German column had Tiger tanks in the same action. Same result". Of their 17 Tiger, 10 had been lost there. THEN there are the ones that simply caught fire during the retreat, THEN there are the ones that broke down and were blown up by their crew (that, to clarify, had been a little less than 17), THEN there had been one that had been carried back to mainland.
1
@jasonclarke6194 What happened to 17 Tiger "blown up by their crews to prevent capture"?
1
@jasonclarke6194 LOL! The crew abandoning a disabled tank during a battle is not "destroyed by their crews", is disabled in combat, even if they set it on fire while abandoning it. Nor a tank that caught fire during a rethreat had been "destroyed by their crews" (by driving it?). Hardly a tank that broke down and THEN was blown up by its crew count as "blown up by their crews to prevent capture". It broke down, first.
1
@jasonclarke6194 Did they have Tiger thanks? Check. Did they try to retake Gela? Check Did they fail? Check. Did they loose 10 out of 17 tanks in the attempt? Check. Same result? Confirmed. Then you tried to correct me by telling a fairy tale about "The fate of the 17 Tigers on Sicily was they were blown up by their crews to prevent capture." You had been disproved by your own source, and you are still blabbering.
1
@jasonclarke6194 What's so hard to understand? IT DOESEN'T COUNT if or where they had been hit, or all 10 had been disabled by their crew banging their heads on them because you bored them too. THEY HAD BEEN DISABLED IN COMBAT AND FAILED TO RECAPTURE GELA, THAT WAS THEIR TASK. 10 OUT OF 17 TIGERS IN SICILY HAD BEEN LOST IN THAT ACTION. Same result, confirmed.
1
@jasonclarke6194 Getting bogged in the mud during the action and loosing the tank means to have lost the tank in action and having failed at your task. Did they have Tiger thanks? Check. Did they try to retake Gela? Check Did they fail? Check. Did they loose 10 out of 17 tanks in the attempt? Check. Same result? Confirmed. "The fate of the 17 Tigers on Sicily was they were blown up by their crews to prevent capture."? NO. You have been disproved by your own source. What's so hard to understand?
1
@jasonclarke6194 Have you came to this level? LOL! How many Tigers "had been blown up by their crews to prevent capture" again?
1
@jasonclarke6194 So you still fail to understand, doesn't you? IT DOESEN'T COUNT if or where they had been hit, or all 10 had been disabled by their crew banging their heads on them because you bored them too. THEY HAD BEEN DISABLED IN COMBAT AND FAILED TO RECAPTURE GELA, THAT WAS THEIR TASK. 10 OUT OF 17 TIGERS IN SICILY HAD BEEN LOST IN THAT ACTION. Did they have Tiger thanks? Check. Did they try to retake Gela? Check Did they fail? Check. Did they loose 10 out of 17 tanks in the attempt? Check. Same result? Confirmed.
1
@jasonclarke6194 The task of the Tigers was to recapture Gela, the result was that they failed and lost the tanks. So yes. Same result. IT DOESEN'T COUNT if or where they had been hit, or all 10 had been disabled by their crew banging their heads on them because you bored them too. THEY HAD BEEN DISABLED IN COMBAT AND FAILED TO RECAPTURE GELA, THAT WAS THEIR TASK. 10 OUT OF 17 TIGERS IN SICILY HAD BEEN LOST IN THAT ACTION. Did they have Tiger thanks? Check. Did they try to retake Gela? Check Did they fail? Check. Did they loose 10 out of 17 tanks in the attempt? Check. Same result? Confirmed. How many Tigers "had been blown up by their crews to prevent capture" again?
1
@jasonclarke6194 Your mind is the only place where it counts (in reality we both know it doesn't count there too, and you are only clutching at straws. I'm not expecting a different result. I know you'll keep on negating evidence, but it's funny to see you doing it). How many Tigers "had been blown up by their crews to prevent capture" again?
1
There were thousands of people.
1
the Kaiten had been a failure, and the only ship surely hit by a A Kō-hyōteki was an old ferry probably worth less than the sub. It seems that the only axis power that successfully used such devices had been Italy.
1
Then you know the weapon too. A Breda 31 heavy machinegun (13.2mm).
1
@vonsprague7913 No problem. Happy to be of help.
1
You can see some other video on this same channel and learn something, for a change.
1
@melle9155 Actually the convoy battle was the only battle that had a purpose. Warship vs. warship battles went both ways.
1
DOUG HEINS For example?
1
DOUG HEINS No. They NEVER wanted the Littorios to have the longest range. That had NEVER been found in ANY Italian document. The high muzzle speed had always been intended to enhance penetration to the level of a 406mm gun (and infact it was on par with the US 16"/50). Longer range was just a consequence, and infact it had been only analyzing the Battle of Cape Spartivento (27 nov. 1940) that Adm. Campioni reported that the 381/50 could effectively open fire at 29.000 m with good visibility, while the maunal on the use of the Italian artilleries stated that the fire had to be opened at max. 22.000m with decent visibility and at max. 26.000m with good one. Italian 381mm AP shells weighted 885 kg. More than the German (800kg) and British (871kg) ones. Among the shells of the same caliber only the French ones were marginally heavier (890kg). Because they were intended for penetration, not distance. Deck penetration had not been taken into account, because (as WWII demonstrated) the possibility to effectively hit something at a range so long to penetrate an armoured deck was lower than marginal. The US 16"/45 MK6 and 16"/50 MK7 hit something different than land masses only at less than 10.000m, the MK5 hit the deck of the old BB Yamashiro at 20.000m without causing significative damages. The battle of Denmark strait was fought between 20.000 and 15.000m, that coresponded to the "optimal fighting distance" for BBs on Italian manuals. Littorio's guns were made to citadel any treaty battleship at that distance. Tested in real scale by the Soviets, the Pugliese system proved to be more effective than the standard spaced protection, that's why they chosen to use it in the Sovetsky Soyuz class. In Italian serveice it performed well (when the torpedo hit the area protected by the Pugliese) with damages contained and very fast repairing times. In general Italian ships withstood torpedo hits better than German ones. The often repeated defect of the "inverted dam" is 100% bullshit. Standard anti-torpedo protections have a 90° inward angle. Is that the way you build a dam? A curved surface was obviously better. Actually for the torpedoes to explode under the hull of a ship was the best location possible and the reason magnetic fuses had been invented.
1
DOUG HEINS Not in tests or in actual real life results. The Sovetsky Soyuz class would have had 20 feet of extra beam to work with ANY design, and the Pugliese worked better than ANY other. It's not like those 20 feet affected the Pugliese more than the other designs. Please. That was a live fire exercise on a ship already burning and listing.
1
DOUG HEINS Ok, be satisfied than the Iowa class managed to sink the Katori (when it was already kicking the bucket) then.
1
DOUG HEINS Sorry, I meant in actual fights. Probably in training it hit something other than islands and continents. As I said, quote: "the MK5 hit the deck of the old BB Yamashiro at 20.000m without causing significative damages". That's at least sure, and none of the shells of 5 battelships appear to have pierced the deck of a WWI battleship at 20 km, Actually, after 18 minutes of shelling, It was still able to steam at 15 knots, so it's improbable that the armoured belt had been pierced too (it was already listing 15°, and then counterflooded, before the start of the shelling, so it couldn't steam at its max speed of 24.5 knots anyway), and no more than a turret was inoperable due to the shelling. The ship had been sunk by torpedoes (at least 5 heavy torpedoes, one from the Killen at 3:20, one from the Mossen at 3:22, one from the Bennion or Grant at 4:07, two from the Newcomb at 4:11. The ship capsized exactly 8 minutes later. No ship in WWII survived after having been hit by 4 heavy trops), not by the shells of five battleships (and several heavy cruisers).
1