Stalingrad class - Guide 061

The Stalingrad class battlecruisers of the Soviet Union are today's subject.
Next on the list:
-Stalingrad
-Yorktown class carriers
-USS Enterprise (CV-6)
-Courageous class
-HMS Glorious
-Erebus class
-Salamis (NB)
-B-65 class (NB)
-Deutschland class (pre-Dreadnought)
-G3 class (NB)
-USS North Carolina
-Tillman Battleship Special
-Deutschland class (1930)
-KMS Graf Spee
-Tone class
-HMS Warrior (1860)
-IRN Potemkin
-Hipper class
-KMS Prinz Eugen
-Yamato class
-Italia class
-Tsesarevich
-Βασίλισσα Ολγα (Basilissa Olga)
-Nagato class
-Monitor Parnaiba
-G-class destroyer
-HMS Glowworm
-Town class cruisers
-USS Wichita
-Lord Nelson class
-Essex class
-Slava (Pre-dreadnought)
-USS Massachusetts
-Pensacola class
-HIJMS Oyodo
-Riachuelo (NB)
-I-19
-HMS Ark Royal
-ORP Błyskawica
-USS West Virginia
-Amagi Class
-Tosa Class
-Alaska class
-Derfflinger class
-Yorktown class
-Tre Kronor class
-Nelson class
-Gato class
-Admiralen class
-H class (NB)
-Greek 'Monarch' class destroyers
-'Habbakuk' project
-USS Texas
-USS Olympia
-HIJMS Mikasa
-County class
-KMS Tirpitz
-Montana class
-Florida class
-USS Salt Lake City
-Storozhevoy
-Flower class
-USS San Juan
-HMS Sheffield
-USS Alaska
-Hipper class
-KMS Prinz Eugen
-USS Texas
-USS Johnston
-Dido class
-Hunt class
Specials:
-Fire Control Systems
-Protected Cruisers
-Scout Cruisers
-Naval Artillery
-Tirpitz (damage history)

[@dextercochran4916]

Wargaming: "Let's make ours a battleship because history is a bedtime story."

[@rimmipeepsicles1870]

Pretty much the same as including the Project 23 and Project 21 battleships into their Naval Legends series, which was reserved only for ship which were actually built. In-game names are "Lenin" for Proj. 23 and "Sovietsky Soyuz" for Proj. 21.

[@bkjeong4302]

IIRC the Sovetsky Soyuz actually received the name, even if she was never finished.

[@ivanmonahhov2314]

@@bkjeong4302 18% complete

[@bkjeong4302]

@@ivanmonahhov2314 better than some other ships in the game

[@Assassinus2]

Given the things that show up in World of Tanks, it's hardly surprising.

[@jerbear3915]

Ussr: beyond our destroyer *the size of a battleship* Everyone: that's a battleship not a destroyer Ussr: nope it's a destroyer

[@jermainerace4156]

It is the policy position of the Communist Party that this ship is a destroyer.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

Nope it's a Destroyer of Battleships😂

[@ther3ald0g38]

It’s Behold( don’t wanna be an arse but no one else said it )

[@Custerd1]

Soviet engineers: “ There’s no problem on earth that cannot be solved with judicious application of explosives.”

[@davideb.4290]

I think that's how they came up with the idea of the ERA armour for tanks

[@pinngg6907]

they closed an oil rig with nuke so why not

[@wstavis3135]

"If high explosives don't solve the problem, you didn't use enough"- Marine Corps motto, (unwritten)

[@jamesricker3997]

The 36 knot speed is questionable. The designers were probaly trying to impress Stalin, for reasons of their health

[@Epicmylikes]

Goes for everything the soviets ever did.

[@bigblue6917]

Only if they could catch a really, really really big wave.

[@marty2129]

@@РоманБекиров-с4м this is some serious heresy I have read here... By the grace of the God-Emperor of Mankind, I am now tainted! Thus I shall purge myself swiftly by His cleansing light in the form of holy two-stage cyclonic torpedo... Enjoy the exterminatus while it lasts... :D

[@hajoos.8360]

Sovietunion was an Empire with 123 tribes and nations. So it is very similar to the British Empire, where many nations and tribes got lost.

[@turbzjjc310]

ChinaChinaChina would have been even better if they’d nuked and invaded China. If Japan almost owned them, the USSR should easily have...

[@IrishCarney]

Luckiest SOBs in the USSR: got to play with designing fun cool battlecruisers for a living throughout WW2 instead of being pushed into the meat grinder of the Eastern Front / Great Patriotic War.

[@jimmyseaver3647]

While lying about their capabilities because Uncle Joe won't take "This thing is incapable of effectively floating/fighting/etc!" for an answer.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

Eventually, the Stalingrads role became one of many that would later be fulfilled by the Kirov class Battlecruiser

[@85isaboat53]

Kriovs arent really as much as i think we would all want it to be

[@FallenPhoenix86]

Hold up, it was intended at one point to be a carrier escort? For the carrier(s) the USSR didn't have?

[@Drachinifel]

Don't tell Stalin that!

[@ivanorais9284]

To GULAG you go

[@RonJohn63]

I'm sure they had some on the drawing board...

[@carriertaiyo2694]

They had numerous carrier designs on the drawing board. Most had absurd features, like battleship caliber secondaries and the like. Some of the plans are hilarious to look at...

[@lordbrain8867]

I believe that after WWII showed the effectiveness of carriers, the Soviets created a plan to build a large carrier fleet. Something like 15 carriers. How they thought they were to do that no one knows

[@vividian6907]

Destroyer class the size of a battleship yamato: confused screaming

[@McRocket]

Handsome (albeit rather silly for post-WW2) ship.

[@joachimschmidt92]

Hi! Drachinifel, can you tell me your sources? I'm curious where you got especially the information about the older versions of Stalingrad and their (more detailed) stats and if there is more interesting stuff to find in them. And a question about the Churchill study/studies you mentioned: Do you mean the so called Super cruisers with 234mm / 9.2" armament or do you mean something similar to Stalingrad, Kronshtadt, Alaska, B-65, O-Class? Best Regards, Joachim Schmidt

[@Drachinifel]

A variety of places, there was an article in Warship 2006 about them, and Friedman's books on British and American cruisers of WW2 refers to them (and the 9.2 inch British cruiser concept). There are a couple of other general naval histories that have aspects of the class described as well. But to be honest outside of stuff in Russian the Warship 2006 article probably has the most detail.

[@joachimschmidt92]

@@Drachinifel thank you very much!

[@a.m.armstrong8354]

Stalin:One light cruiser please! USSR:Make that a battlecruiser..

[@stephenbond1990]

Can you do Churchill's design study mentioned here?

[@Drachinifel]

Stephen Bond it'll be fun trying to find enough information to fill a video but I can give it a go :)

[@stephenbond1990]

Thank you, I've always had an interest in late nineteenth and early twentieth century warfare and often find myself intrigued by the more unusual or exotic vehicles and weapons, you've posted videos with more information on some of those ships than i could find elsewhere and your commentary is very enjoyable, i look forward to seeing your work.

[@graham2631]

Using dynamite to get something moving actually works. A stuck dozzer can be unstuck by placing a charge underneath then as soon as it goes off drop clutch an floor it. I have seen this work. On a grounded ship no. I know of a incidence that explosives were used to scrap a ship off vancover island pieces were stored in louie bay NW nootka island some are still there. You can see them on Google earth.

[@soarinskies1105]

This ship was a case where the guns worked but the rest of the ship didn’t. The guns definitely worked and they were very powerful, however the ship suffered severe structure problems that would have severely hindered her performance in combat

[@davidvavra9113]

A good looking boat!

[@jacob9229]

Finnish coastal defence ships "Väinämöinen" and "Ilmarinen"

[@DaiReith]

...the one's that ended up killing themselves?

[@georgielinscott]

Don't waste your time googling them. pLaY RobLoX InSteAd!

[@dylanminett8552]

You mention that this mirrors a “certain pet project of Churchill”? Did he have a battleship idea that I’m not aware of?

[@MarcStjames-rq1dm]

As much as i am endeared to all things yachty and sea like..... I would rather the precious resources these grand vessels use up be purposed for schools and housing... for the social good. then perhaps ships of war would be less needed. Like Ike said.... beware the sucking sound of the 'defense industry". Then again, this is my favorite KZbin channel so... hmmm there you go....

[@czystywolny789]

It would be nice to see video about soviet aircraft carriers projects during ww2 like project 72.

[@raulpujante7693]

Alguien sabe el astillero donde empezó a construirse el Kronstadt?? Me sería de gran ayuda. Un saludo

[@PenzancePete]

Fine looking ship. Like a baby Bismark.

[@tbird5730]

That is one good looking ship! Pity she was never built.

[@feanorn8409]

Well, it was already outdated when the construction started. It was the age of carriers and the age of guided missile cruisers was on the horizon. The Soviet Naval Staff was glad to be able to abandon this Project with Stalins death.

[@neniAAinen]

@@feanorn8409 Great irony is, her class probably would've been very useful for Soviet navy. But this is afterknowledge.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

Speaking off little known Soviet ships. What about the Baltic and Atlantic Sea Battleships that were planned before WW2?

[@jurisprudens]

Kronstadt class cruisers. He mentions them.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

@@jurisprudens I do know they were about as realistic as the H-Class and similar super battleships. Plus the Soviets SIMPLY did not have the ship building experience or Infrastructure to create such massive monsters.

[@jurisprudens]

Jean-Luc Martel I have looked it up - there was another pre-war class, Soviet Union class battleship, 60000 tons. The flagship was 20% ready at the start of the wwii. Yes, the experience of ship 🚢 building was largely interrupted after the revolution. The USSR had a very limited navy inter war. On the other hand, the USSR was not limited by the treaties. American and Italian engineers were hired to work on the project. Moreover, Germany was even supplying cannons after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The infrastructure was there, it is just that the planned numbers and speed of construction 🏗 were unrealistic. And it all was mostly a matter of prestige. Being a land power, there was no real need for the USSR to have a huge navy.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

@@jurisprudens ok cool! I've always wanted to know about the ww2 Soviet River Navy. Like the Armored gunboats with T-34 turrets.

[@sophiepaterson7444]

That poor ship. It just never caught a break.

[@bobtaylor6585]

How about the Italian Zara class of heavy cruiser, which unlike other Italian designs went for heavier armour and less speed. However three of the class were anialliated at cape Matapan!

[@bkjeong4302]

Bob Taylor The Zaras weren’t really slow. In fact, aside from their lack of night-fighting capability, they were sound designs, arguably second only to post-treaty American cruisers.

[@kenoliver8913]

There was nothing at all wrong with the Zara class that a decent radar wouldn't have fixed. They were (rightly) designed to only fight in the Med rather than be a means of global power projection.

[@SoulaymaneT]

What’s that pet project of Churchill you speak of ?

[@marseldagistani1989]

These super heavy cruisers are just re-classifiet heavy cruisers

[@davidburton2229]

awh man, the volume of these older video's lol

[@667crash]

Evaluating a paper project allows for a lot of fantasy!

[@atvar69]

Only for me it seems very close to italian Vittorio Veneto Class?

[@neniAAinen]

Only for you. Somewhat ironically, their closest foreign relative is... well, Lutzow(Hipper class).

[@feanorn8409]

Many things brought to paper about this ship was just wishful thinking. From speed to gun performance so many utopic stuff. But Wargaming is like: "Da, glorious ship from mother Russia, it will go to the game with these abilities because they are historical facts."

[@paranoidrodent]

All the pie in the sky paper designs tend to get treated as if the theoretical specs would actually pan out (which is partly why then often end up being higher tier than if they probably would have been if actually built). I think new American super-dreadnought line was the first time they seriously nerfed incomplete/paper designs, slowing down both Tillman I and IV-2 (Minnesota and Vermont, respectively) along with removing a full turret off the Tillman IV-2 (Vermont) because those monstrosities were too much even for WG.

[@feanorn8409]

@@paranoidrodent True. Most Tillman Designs would only make sense in a T12 April event :D

[@donjones4719]

Yet another ship the designers could claim was never defeated in battle. wtf was Russia doing designing a carrier escort in 1942 when they had no carriers and no industrial capacity to build carriers or battle cruisers? Didn't think Stalin was that delusional at that point...

[@Assassinus2]

Though most of those ships ended up losing their struggles with practicality and/or budgets.

[@neniAAinen]

Building ww2 carrier [hull] is easier than building those cruisers and battleships. The problem with the carrier isn't so much build one as to make it actually work.

[@RG-fc7ht]

neniAAinen sort of as the size can get to around the high end for a battleship as what the Yorktowns were some 800ft~. I mean they displace less but that’s mainly because they are relatively lightly armored, even cost wise the difference isn’t all it’s cracked up to be on same size hulls. Cruisers were about a 1/3 less in cost and Battleships about a 1/3-1/4 more though that depends on which ships your comparing.

[@KaiserFranzJosefI]

Stalin was preparing for a world ending war and most certainly did have the industry to build capital ships. It makes perfect sense to design ships to test those developing construction capabilities

[@keenanmcbreen7073]

Battlecruiser design developments are funny, they always end up with these freekin monsters, an Iowa would eat any of the Battlecruiser designs as a snack!

[@themadhammer3305]

Keenan McBreen an Iowa is essentially what the originators of the Battlecruiser concept wanted, speed, amour and firepower. But due to technological and shipbuilding limitations were limited to only getting 2 of the 3, Iowas are a perfect blend of all 3 which is why they are likely the best class of battleship ever built

[@westcoaststacker569]

Watching the whole Battlecruiser Series and yes it seems they are all trying to be an Iowa Class before or in this and Alaska case after they had been built.

[@TheNinjaDC]

The idea for Battlecruisers is not actually bad. Make a ship that can help attack battleships as part of a fleet(and completely f^%^k up smaller ships), but have it fast enough to escape 1 on 1 fights with other capital ships. The problem, is they *always* keep upscaling them until they're basically battleships without armor. You should be able to produce 2-3 Battlecruisers for the cost of a Battleship, but it ends up becoming like 1.2 -1.5. Meaning, your really not getting more capital ships, just worse ones.

[@hajoos.8360]

This might be not the truth. With turbines producing more than 200.000 horsepowers, Iowa-class battleships were slow, means the hull is not well designed. And the armor (belt) did not match Scharnhorst-class lvl. So it is no wonder, that the US navy never exposed Iowa-class battle-ships in sea-battles. They served as a AA-platform in WWII.

[@wallacegrommet9343]

Having to fit through the Panama Canal forced the ship hull design to be less than optimal. A wider beam would have greatly improved seakeeping ability and overall combat capability.

[@bigblue6917]

Q&A I do wonder why the pre WW2 Russians and Germans did not have an agreement about building warships like the did with tanks. Both would have benefited and the Germans could have started building their ships sooner. I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

[@hajoos.8360]

Hipper-class KGM Lützow was sold to the Sovietunion in 1939. Interesting, isn't it? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_L%C3%BCtzow_(1939) The Germans donated very careless a lot of airplane know-how to the Sovietunion during the 20s. Maybe the German navy was more careful.

[@AdamMGTF]

@@hajoos.8360 the navy didn't have a say. It was a political decision. Ribbentrop spent a large portion of the pre war years in negotiations with the USSR for vital resources that Germany needed. The problem was that Germany had no money and no reasources to trade. The only thing they could offer for russian wheat/oil etc was finished goods and expertise. And the Soviets wanted military goods and expertise so that's what they got

[@hajoos.8360]

@@AdamMGTF Yes, of course. Germany paid all Reichsbank-Gold for reparations during the Weimar Republic. So the currency had no real value, which invited foreigners to buy cheap properties over forex-relations. This was not a smart action by the Entente powers. A political escalation between extreme german parties might have been wanted by the Entente, mainly the US, to get the opportunity to eliminate the Germans once and forever.

[@OtterTreySSArmy]

@@hajoos.8360 that sounds much more like French or certain other groups that won't be mentioned groups thinking there. Remember the US has the largest German population in the world. The US public would not have allowed that at all. The US population didn't even want war with Nazi Germany to begin with, nor did Nazi Germany want a war with the USA. All you have to do is watch old film reels from the 1930s from both the USA and Germany to see how they felt about eachother.

[@hajoos.8360]

@@OtterTreySSArmy For a part of the former German US-population your statement might be true. But Germanic people are federal focussed, a diametrical opposite to Romanic people who lived centralised. For the Germanics nationbuilding is less important, as you can see, how the I. Reich consisted for more than 1.000 years. The US population is in place by the elite of Africa and the scum of Europe. Former US-Europeans were the weak, underdogs, poor, religious minorities, who left Europe, because they had nothing to lose. Since George Washington the US are led by the freemasons, anyway to which party they belong. And the bourgeois freemasons hated their noble drinking buddies and fought successfully for the destruction of the noble rule, which lasted many thousends of years. Already the era before Wilson planned the disturbance between Germans and Russians till today. A close relation between Russia and Germany would have achieved the development of the world leading power. This is the major political US-target in the foreign policy of the US. Any war in Europe against Germany was supported by the US and will be supported by the US.

[@rimmipeepsicles1870]

Could you do the proposed Project 21 and Project 23 battleships? Had heard of them and I would like to get info about them.

[@cadengrace5466]

Everything Russia has tried to do in naval areas between 1880 and 1950 was a joke outside of a few subs. Most of the ships can't float, can't shoot and can't survive a rowdy crew.

[@kenoliver8913]

Which ultimately just shows that Russia was always a land power with a land power's mindset - "we don' need no stinking global trade". So sea power was always very much an afterthought.

[@finnsvensson9790]

Wargaming says otherwise...

[@isaiahcampbell488]

Russia is so large and difficult to travel through (for unwelcomed guests) that even if they were blockaded and the entirety of their navy sunk they could just retreat inland while practicing one of their age old traditions of scorched earth with "enough" "essential materials" to survive for some time. It's happened before. But no two wars are ever truly alike and the battle lines generally differ some between conflicts. I'm sure that western powers took this into account during cold war planning (and is one of the reasons why military planners expected to be outnumbered ten to one if tank fighting took place in Germany). Western planners wanted to overmatch individual units but knew the USSR dumped so many resources into fighting on land that it was expected to be a major problem.

[@cadengrace5466]

@@isaiahcampbell488 I can agree in principle to most of what you said, but you needed to go further. Russian can survive a lack of a navy and retreat inland because they already live on the edge of survival as a normal way of life. Dealing with Russia in WW II would have meant pulling their teeth and the US having nuclear armed B-29's were just the tools for the job. Russia in this era had as they have had for many centuries cities that were islands in a sea of grass. Only a couple of rail lines and rarely something we would call a road connected one to its neighbors. Many times, anything that was moved around, did so on the many navigable rivers. This dynamic is easy to interdict. Each city would be isolated and die on the vine once its local supplies were exhausted, The other Achilles heel of the Russian military is their uber tight command and control. Their units are never allowed to show initiative so that they can take advantage of a development in real time on the battle front. Everything has been communicated back to a local base, to a regional base to frontal base to the military command and possibly to the central command for all forces and then back to the unit once a decision is made. This might need to happen a few times before the details are fully know and by then the moment has passed and the opportunity is missed. A force like a navy must use autonomy to work effective, which is why Russian naval forces are just hardware manned by poorly trained crews that would rather be elsewhere. All ships come with a political officer to keep the captain and crew in line with sleeper agents - muscle - among the crew. Not the best way to run a ship. Their other forces run much the same way. Transforming from the Soviet Union to the CIS to the Russian Federation changed nothing in this operational doctrine. Russia is big and crude and that is about it. It has a smallish population of only 140 million and Italy with only a third of that population has the same GDP in modern times. It was even worse in WW II.

[@OtterTreySSArmy]

After 1950 it doesn't get much better. The aircraft carriers deciding they wanted to be fire ships, a truly terrifying number of submarine based nuclear reactors deciding that they wanted to produce their entire years worth of fission in one minute, the list can go on and on. That's the true irony of the Russian/Soviet Navy: the men and officers display every good quality of the other navies, yet are time and time again let down by their superiors or the machines they're meant to be operating.

[@bodasactra]

Alaska was far more balanced large cruiser with the same main problem, no job.

[@neniAAinen]

In the Soviet navy, those would have been by far the strongest artillery vessels. And knowing how the CW went - they'd probably be fairly useful, giving Soviet Union true "representative" ships a whole decade earlier. So, from the Soviet perspective, their cancellation probably was a mistake in the end.

[@rogerhoward7104]

To the person making the video: "Please turn up the volume in your videos," can't hear them.

[@jurisprudens]

The real reasons why Stalin insisted on building such expensive and old-fashioned ships in the post-war era are still controversial. There is a hypothesis that their main use would have been shooting nuclear shells at the Nato aircraft carrier groups.

[@clashman7564]

Then it would have been blasted to pieces by bombs long before it got within 40-30 km range of them.

[@jurisprudens]

Clashma n Probably. Stalin just loved big ships 🛳 anyway

[@西風太]

仮に竣工しても「書記長閣下のヨット」で生涯で終わりそう。

[@ganymede242]

Very quiet audio.

[@thesarge1969]

large targets

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

Soviet Navy, always good for a few laughs!

[@RayyMusik]

2:10 “Carrier escort“ - which carrier?

[@Deevo037]

That's almost as funny as the blonde and the speedboat joke.

[@toomanyhobbies2011]

volume?

[@d.olivergutierrez8690]

But finally the name Moskva have the opportunity to be given to a cruise- and is gone

[@jpp9876]

I worked with a man, American who boarded a Soviet ship during wwII. He said they had no refrigeration and would keep live cattle on board.

[@fredrickmillstead6397]

So, farmer seamen? Seems likely for the soviets.

[@b.griffin317]

what in lenin's name where the sovs doing contemplating the construction of battle crusiers and battleships in 1941, 43, 44? hello? anything happening then? maybe resources should go elsewhere? maybe? and where prey marxs were the ports these would be operating out of? into what oceans not controlled by the anglo-americans? ummm....

[@bkjeong4302]

To be fair to the Soviets, everyone else (Britain, US, Japan, Germany, Italy and France) not only thought about building big-gun capital ships after they became obsolete, but unlike the Soviets they actually went ahead with it! Though the stupidity of building ships during Operation Barbarossa is indeed dumb.

[@ausintune9014]

@@bkjeong4302 hello? the war is why the project 24 was cancelled.

[@neniAAinen]

@@bkjeong4302 ship designers doing paper job to not lose skills completely is a normal process. In this case, paper job got a second chance, though.

[@kenoliver8913]

Perhaps the plan was to use the same strategy they had in 1905, as that worked so well for them.

[@merrybolton2135]

Just like us in the UK A waste of human effort and money

[@bigstyx]

What the Soviet Union did best build targets.

[@wstavis3135]

The Soviets were quite adept at designing paper projects to keep Moscow off their backs.

[@Bellthorian]

So let me get this straight, it took the Russians over twenty years to design an inferior Scharnhorst......ROFLMAO.

[@roborovskihamster5425]

Designed in 1941 and cancelled in 1953. Good math. Also it probably would have taken much less time if there wasn't that whole world war thing going on.

[@neniAAinen]

Well, for starters, it wasn't inferior, quite the other way around. Much faster, with outright superior armament, and incomparable sensor suite(1950s!). At least on paper, but there are no special reasons late 1950s warship could've ended up being worse unless something was terribly wrong. There are more than enough examples of postwar heavy Soviet warships. They actually worked. Not something to be proud of, but still.

[@icehelion9788]

Russian .....

[@skyportalmusic7178]

Jesus Loves You

[@joachimguderian4048]

Soviet ship building is like soviet drivers........TERRIBLE !!!

[@kenoliver8913]

In Soviet Union, ship sinks you ...

[@knutdergroe9757]

The next time someone tries to tell Communism is better than Capitalism. They should watch video and think about the waste.....

[@onewhosaysgoose4831]

Stalin should've been ashamed! Lenin would've used the resources to build a crowded gulag for each of the naval designers involved, and found enough happy soviet volunteers to fill them, with just enough budget left over for a beautiful statue of himself.

[@Joesolo13]

Oh, Yea, no capitalist country every had military procurement issues!

[@kenoliver8913]

And yet that same communist economy massively outproduced the Germans, despite having large bits of their industrial regions overrun. It aint quite as simple as "communism=inefficient, capitalism=efficient". After all it's not as though the US didn't have vanity projects that wasted resources at the same time (eg Spruce Goose) - it's what militaries do.

[@kenoliver8913]

@@kms_scharnhorst Nope, not at all. Else they wouldn't have still been using WW2 vintage T34 tanks and their almost as famous 120mm field guns very effectively in Korea. And their planes were beasts to fly but famously tough.

[@TheOtherSteel]

The electronic voice in this video is horrible. Please stop using it.

[@orbitaldeathraysattelite9257]

I hope this is a joke because this video came out nearly 3 years ago, and you’re complaining about how his voice is “electronic”

[@scotthill2230]

Congrats on having biden political ads before and after your videos.