History Of Everything: The Russian Navy Sucks Part 1 Reaction

Рет қаралды 1,405

dulmater

2 ай бұрын

Original Video - • The Russian Navy Sucks...
Socials - linktr.ee/dulmater

Пікірлер: 26

@dulmater 2 ай бұрын

Big ooof

@greggwilliamson 2 ай бұрын

At the turn of the last Century, the British Royal Navy was where the US Navy is now. As far as Sea Dominance.

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

16:55 Can we all press F for Admiral Rozhestvenskys sanity here, like no Admiral before or since has ever had to yell down a megaphone, while hurling vective and insults to a ships captian and crew because of how bad a job they are doing.

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

This is the same fleet which was mentioned in Drachinefels video on Kamchatka, which now makes her actions even worse when you consider the rest of the fleet bar the Admiral and Araua were utter rank fools.

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

14:00 So part of the reason the Admiral dropped these officers off was because part of the deal to not be sunk by the British was he had to leave the officers responcible behind, the Admiral did and a lot more besides and yet the average IQ of the fleet still was in the negative

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

21:43 "Please let me quit, i'm mad as hell and i can't take it anymore!"

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

You really need to watch the rest of this series seriously its a great series and funny as all hell

@lindenbyrne7725 Ай бұрын

The reason for getting conscripts from the interiors was due to the fact that they where less wealthy then the fishermen, they are doing the same thing now for man power. Use the lower class and less educated.

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

32:14 Oh not its worse, it was a damaged torpedo which had volitile fuel in it and the crew had no idea what they were doing with it, its all covered in History of Everythings part 2 of this series

@dasneko7218 5 күн бұрын

The biggest geographic problem for Russias navy is that they are too split up and that most of the good coastlines freeze over in winter. In essence they have had to split their focus 4 ways. One on the east coast, one in the polar region with completely different requirements, one in the Baltic Sea and one in the Black Sea. Even if Russia had focused on its navy this would still have kept it weak as a result, and when Russia ultimately does not focus primarily on the Navy the problem gets even worse. This is on top of all the other problems.

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

Just wait till we get to Episodes 3 and 5

@melkor3496 2 ай бұрын

Please continue the unbiased history of Rome series I’ll seriously pay for it or do anything.

@thesarcasticliberal 2 ай бұрын

Basically, interior and eastern Russia were (and largely still are) dirt poor and had no political power, so the conscripts from those areas often got shunted to the worst duties and stations possible. Needless to say, given the history described here, the Russian navy was one of the worst duties, and so that is why people from those areas were put there. The installments in this series just get crazier. Russian soldiers think that they are UNSC Spartans; the reality is that they are somewhere between Grunts and Jackals in terms of training, organization, and life expectancy in war.

@joshthomasmoorenew 2 ай бұрын

13:04 Oh no you want to know how bad it was, this was a few months before HMS Dreadnought arrived, oh god that ship against this lot would have been a massacre.

@ianjardine7324 Ай бұрын

If you look closely a countries navy is only as powerful as the amount of coastline the control. France and spain have massive coastlines and therefore could build and maintain massive fleets this is especially true if the country has terrain features which allow it to economise on non naval military spending such great Britain (an island) or Spain ( one relatively narow land border.) Russia on the other hand has very little coast line and most of what they do have is locked in almost perpetual ice. The black sea is their only all season access to the open ocean and that is a pond controled by a dozen different governments. A large part of their territorial theft from Ukraine and the current war is driven by their need for more power in the black sea and access to more and better ports for international trade.

@benjamies4136 2 ай бұрын

I can't believe I haven't seen this guy. He's pretty hilarious especially with the accent. I read since the rus won the cultural battle, the consistent self greed is still felt now. It explains why states that were teutonic are much less corrupt by nature

@ianjardine7324 Ай бұрын

Many navies carried WWII torpedoes or at least the same design for far longer than you'd think while their sensors were primative and their range limited they carried far larger explosive payloads than modern designs and they were cheap so many navies kept them in inventory to use on heavily armoured targets usually WWII era British and American cruisers still in service with Navy's which couldn't replace them for financial or political reasons. In 1982 the British nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror sank the General Belgrano a former alliaed cruser sold to Argentina post war with one pf its heavy WWII designed torpedoes because it's more modern torpedoes woud have been unlikely to breach the ships torpedo defences and armour. Features eliminated from modern ships in favour of active and advanced electronic defences.

@Rammstein0963. Ай бұрын

The Belgrano was, iirc, a Cleveland class LIGHT cruiser, basically a class of ship specifically designed to counter increasingly large destroyers (mainly via gunfire) She did NOT have the armor to withstand any torpedo, of any Era. Hope that helps. 🙏 😊

@ianjardine7324 Ай бұрын

@@Rammstein0963. She was a WWII cruiser her hull alone and her heavy internal bulkhead's were designed and built to survive heavy combat damage unlike eighties era warships or even modern construction which rely much more on active defences. Just like every other ship in the era of naval gunnery she was designed to take hours of fighting against her own calibre guns to fight off aircraft and to possibly survive at least one hit from a heavy torpedo. A lighter modern torpedo would have been a guaranteed hit and would probably have caused a hull breach. What it couldn't have done is cause catastrophic damage to multiple compartments or serious structural damage which would take the ship out of action indefinitely. WWII torpedoes were slower less accurate less reliable and far less sophisticated but they carried extremely heavy warheads designed to cause enough damage to even a dreadnought to take it out of the battle quickly something no weapon designer has had to consider for a long time.

@Rammstein0963. 28 күн бұрын

@@ianjardine7324 I'm sorry to tell you this,but no Light cruisers (USN designation CL) were essentially built as an answer to increasingly powerful destroyers, they were not meant to stand up to like ships in battle, that would be HEAVY cruisers (USN designation CA) LIGHTS were basically destroyers in steroids and could not generally sustain torpedo damage, hence the Belgrano going down so easily. As far as torpedoes go? Even if the warhead size did not increase, explosive damage did, due to more powerful explosive compounds being developed, plus modern ships forgoing massive armor schemes because they would only slow it down and wouldn't help as much as harm.