Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Oceanliner Designs" channel.

  1. Capt. King had been VERY lucky to not be thrown outboard. Those passengers were far too well mannered.
    53
  2.  @WheelsRCool  for how much shitty the company was, the captain was not the only one on the ship able to navigate.
    13
  3. On Axis side is a far stretch. Not only the Rex had never been used for military purposes, but had been moved from Genoa to Trieste (and was further moving to Pola when it was sunk) expressly to avoid the Germans to use it to block the arbors. Ironically, had it used to block the arbors (so scuttled in shallow water) it could have been likely refloated post-war (like the Conte di Savoia had been).
    3
  4. Attacking lifeboats is a war crime. It's simple as that. It's not like it's a war crime only if you have perfect information about everything or you are not in a hurry. This luxury had never been applied to Axis' men.
    3
  5. The Rex and the Conte di Savoia had been built at the same time (but in different shipyards, the Rex at Genoa, the Conte di Savoia at Trieste) for two competing companies, the Italia Flotte Riunite (Rex) and Lloyd Triestino (Conte di Savoia). While the Italia flotte Riunite wanted a classic style for the Rex, similar to a bigger version of the previous Roma and Augustus, Lloyd triestino wanted the Conte di Savoia to be very modern, outside and inside, and infact it's interiors, designed by the architect Melchiorre Bega, were very modern in their disposition, and pure art decò in style, with one exception, the "Colonna" saloon, that was furnished in baroque style, fearing an excessive modernism could displease some passenger.
    2
  6. Yeah, ignoring all the facts and depicting a scenario of pure fantasy this is "not controversial at all".
    2
  7. So they can kill whoever they want?
    2
  8. Not only the Rex had never been used for military purposes, but had been moved from Genoa to Trieste (and was further moving to Pola when it was sunk) expressly to avoid the Germans to use it to block the arbors. Ironically, had it used to block the arbors (so scuttled in shallow water) it could have been likely refloated post-war (like the Conte di Savoia had been). However, its powerplant of 4 sets of geared steam turbines producing 120,000 hp would have been considered highly inefficient by then.
    2
  9. If he was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found. IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal. For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships. Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance. Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
    2
  10. The Stockholm had never been beautiful. it's line had always been pretty utilitarian. The new superstructure greatly enhanced both the internal space and the passageways.
    2
  11. Please. For how much annoying it was that the Allies swept this dirt under the carpet, reality is that, for the Allies, those were the exception to a war generally fought by the rules. For the Germans, systematic war crimes were their policy.
    2
  12. Attacking lifeboats is a war crime. It's simple as that. In reality the video, annoyngly, did WAY too much to justify the bomber's crew. It's not like it's a war crime only if you have perfect information about everything or you are not in a hurry. This luxury had never bee applied to Axis' men actions. They saw the lifeboats and bombed them. That's all that's needed to call it a war crime.
    2
  13. Attacking lifeboats is a war crime. It's as simple as that. "what could become of this ocean if someone..." is not an argument. The "Laconia incident" happened after THREE YEARS of war, where what you feared didn't happen, and the submarine crews that helped survivors simply helped survivors.
    2
  14. No, the Germans sank an enemy escort cruiser, and the Americans sank two lifeboats. The Americans are the war criminals.
    2
  15.  @kichigaisensei  It was an armed escort cruiser, not a liner. Attacking armed enemy ships is not a war crime, whoever they transport. Attacking lifeboats instead is a war crime. It's not that difficult, really.
    1
  16. The Laconia was an armed escort cruiser, so a valid target by any mean. Most of the survivors were NOT POW from an allied nation. Most of the POW from the allied nation sunk with the ship due to the actions of the Allied survivors, and much of the ones that survived had been already taken by the Italian sub Comandante Cappellini when the U-156 had been attacked. It had been quite admirable, hearing how the POW from an allied nation had been treated on board of the Laconia, that Hartenstein had not turned the AA machine guns and made short work of the Allied ones.
    1
  17. Yeah. While Mitchell was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found. IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal. For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships. Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance. Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
    1
  18. Attacking lifeboats is a war crime. It's simple as that. It's not like it's a war crime only if you have perfect information about everything or you are not in a hurry.
    1
  19. If he was right in aircrafts being the trump card in future sea battles, the way to sink ships with them had yet to be found. IE high level bombing with heavy bombers, like the B17, proved to be highly ineffective. From high level, even a stationary ship was a relatively small target, and the probability to hit it with a bomb was marginal. For example, on Apr. 10 1943, 84 B17 bombers, the biggest concentration of heavy bombers used that far in the war, each one carrying 12 500lb "battleship buster" bombs (1008 bombs in total) , hit the port of La Maddalena, in Sardinia, where the cruisers Trieste and Gorizia were at anchor. All that they scored had been three bombs on the Trieste (that sunk) and two on the Gorizia (that remained afloat), a 0.5% score probability. Similar bombings performed on the three battleships at anchor at La Spezia (Vittorio Veneto, Littorio and Roma) only slightly damaged the ships. Also aerial torpedoing proved to be much more effective in ports (see Pearl Harbour, or Taranto) than in navigation, where even large warships could quite easily evade torpedoes when they had not been launched from "suicidal" distance. Not by chance, Germans enforced a strict rule to use aerial torpedoing only against merchants, and only dive bombing against warships.
    1
  20. So following orders is a justification, if are the Americans doing that? Because for the Germans, last time I checked, it didn't work like that. Attacking lifeboats is a war crime. It's simple as that. It's not like it's a war crime only if you have perfect information about everything or you are not in a hurry. This luxury had never been applied to Axis' men.
    1
  21. Then, you kill the survivors?
    1
  22. And so were all abroad of the Laconia and the life boats.
    1
  23. Not a difficult call at all. Bombing lifeboats is a war crime. You can justify anything with the "greater good", or fear of worst consequences if you didn't commit the crime.
    1
  24. As for the Washington treaty, it was easier to lie. See the Mogami class cruisers, nominally displacing 8500t and really 11000t.
    1
  25. Attacking lifeboats is a war crime. Attacking a perfectly seaworthy and armed enemy escort cruiser is not a war crime.
    1
  26. The Rex had a counter stern, and the Conte di Savoia hadn't. It was not by chance. The Italia flotte Riunite, owner of the Rex, wanted a classic style for it, similar to a bigger version of the previous Roma and Augustus, Lloyd triestino wanted the Conte di Savoia to be very modern instead. The Normandie stern was not that different though.
    1