Youtube Recommendations

[Syt]

I'm sure many are familiar with the "steamed hams" bit from The Simpsons, in which Skinner invites Superintendent Chalmers for dinner and things don't go as planned. For some reason it has been edited, re-edited, parodied and transformed countless times by the interwebs, but I feel this might be the pinnacle, a re-enactment as German Expressionist silent film:

[Josephus]

How to sell to the new negro market
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8PBrhFN35c

[Josephus]

Could bit on the Bismark, and the sinking of the Hood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaFFzY8OXZc

[celedhring]

I'm sure many are familiar with the "steamed hams" bit from The Simpsons, in which Skinner invites Superintendent Chalmers for dinner and things don't go as planned. For some reason it has been edited, re-edited, parodied and transformed countless times by the interwebs, but I feel this might be the pinnacle, a re-enactment as German Expressionist silent film:

The lightning is wrong for a German Expressionist film   

Nitpicking aside, I loved it. 

[grumbler]

Could bit on the Bismark, and the sinking of the Hood

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaFFzY8OXZc

Alas, as click-baity and overly melodramatic as YouTube gets.  Bismarck was not "the most feared ship of World War 2" and, in fact, was sunk on her maiden war voyage.  The RN felt, quite rightly, that their latest battleships were as good or better.  One could make the argument that Tirpitz was the "most feared" ship because the RN had to always account for her when deploying their forces, keeping two fast battleships and a carrier in the Home Fleet to ensure they'd sink her if she got out.

I am rather surprised that they found some naval historians in 2021 that are still promoting the false claim that Hood was somehow faulty because she was a battlecruiser, and she "sacrificed protection for speed."  She did not.  Hood was the best-armored British battleship coming out of WW1, and was, in fact, the first fast battleship.  The RN called the design a "fully armored battlecruiser."  That's what they called the King George V class, as well.  Hood's problems were not due to being a battlecruiser, but due to being old and not modernized.

Lots of problems with the tactical description of Denmark Strait, as well.  They have one guy claiming (falsely) that the Bismarck was able to fire without being distracted by British fire, then a claim that PoW hit Bismarck before Bismarck opened fire.  One mistake after another.  Breathless descriptions of very ordinary things like correcting gunnery solutions.

I did like the use of first-person accounts, though.

I didn't understand why the presenter was bobbing around in a small boat, though.

[Josephus]

Nit-picking.

Being the best armoured ship coming out of WW1, doesn't make you a good ship in WW2. as you point out, it was old, not modernized, and as the doc points out, not refitted for WW2.
You also say that
They have one guy claiming (falsely) that the Bismarck was able to fire without being distracted by British fire, then a claim that PoW hit Bismarck before Bismarck opened fire
He didn't say it wasn't distracted for the whole battle. Just the first few minutes when Hood and POW were erroneously firing on Eugen.

I'm not an expert on the Atlantic sea battles, so I found the doc pretty interesting.

[grumbler]

Nit-picking.

Being the best armoured ship coming out of WW1, doesn't make you a good ship in WW2. as you point out, it was old, not modernized, and as the doc points out, not refitted for WW2.

But the repeated claim is that, since she was a battlecruiser, Hood sacrificed armor for speed (false) and that she was not designed to stand up in battle against battleships (also false).

Hood's armor had nothing to do with her loss (though everything to do with Holland's tactics).  Bismarck couldn't penetrate either her deck nor her belt at that range and inclination.  The fatal hit almost certainly went in under the belt.

You also say that
They have one guy claiming (falsely) that the Bismarck was able to fire without being distracted by British fire, then a claim that PoW hit Bismarck before Bismarck opened fire
He didn't say it wasn't distracted for the whole battle. Just the first few minutes when Hood and POW were erroneously firing on Eugen.

PoW never fired on Prinz Eugen. She fired before Bismarck and always targeted Bismarck.

I'm not an expert on the Atlantic sea battles, so I found the doc pretty interesting.

It's designed to be "interesting" what with the breathless description of the Admiralty's new technology:  the room! (dun dun duuun).  It's just not very historically accurate in some key areas and repeats old folklore that has long since been discarded by any serious historian of the battle.

[Josephus]

Fair enough; like I said, not my area of expertise.

[crazy canuck]

I suspect Grumbler didn't actually watch the full program.  None of the Móvil historians said what he claimed they said about the Bismarck rather, they all said something along the lines that the Bismarck was comparable to what the British had.

I suspect grumbler was triggered by the title, and decided to come here and rant.

In any event, the British naval historians who were interviewed probably have a better idea of what happened.

For people who want to actually watch it, it's  well done.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysKhJ1U-vM&ab_channel=RealTimewithBillMaher

his rules are served up by the algorithm ever so often.

[grumbler]

I suspect Grumbler didn't actually watch the full program.  None of the Móvil historians said what he claimed they said about the Bismarck rather, they all said something along the lines that the Bismarck was comparable to what the British had.

I suspect grumbler was triggered by the title, and decided to come here and rant.

In any event, the British naval historians who were interviewed probably have a better idea of what happened.

For people who want to actually watch it, it's  well done.

I suspect that you didn't listen carefully to the whole program and just wrote this post to be contrarian without regard to what is true.

Everything that I claimed they said, they said. The idea that somehow these British naval popular history authors have some special source of knowledge that is unavailable to other British naval historians is laughable.  Being a talking head on a YouTube channel does not grant anyone magical powers.

[Josephus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysKhJ1U-vM&ab_channel=RealTimewithBillMaher

his rules are served up by the algorithm ever so often.

His editorials can be hit and miss, but this one is one of his better ones. I've been saying for a while to friends and colleagues that the Woke people remind me a lot of the Cultural Revolution in China.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Watching the Nostalgia Critic's review of Old.

[crazy canuck]

I suspect Grumbler didn't actually watch the full program.  None of the Móvil historians said what he claimed they said about the Bismarck rather, they all said something along the lines that the Bismarck was comparable to what the British had.

I suspect grumbler was triggered by the title, and decided to come here and rant.

In any event, the British naval historians who were interviewed probably have a better idea of what happened.

For people who want to actually watch it, it's  well done.

I suspect that you didn't listen carefully to the whole program and just wrote this post to be contrarian without regard to what is true.

Everything that I claimed they said, they said. The idea that somehow these British naval popular history authors have some special source of knowledge that is unavailable to other British naval historians is laughable.  Being a talking head on a YouTube channel does not grant anyone magical powers.

"Hood was pretty much equivalent in size to Bismark"  The dimensions are then discussed after which the historian concludes, "She as designed to be fast and very powerful, best described as an ocean greyhound.  She was designed to be fast and she was designed to be very powerful."


The historians also comment on the fact that the Hood's armour was inadequate to the demands of modern naval warfare because she had not been refitted, like some other ships, after the effects of long range fire were better understood.

The also make the point that her armour disadvantage was compensated by her "very high speed".

So Grumbles, the historians you maligned said exactly the opposite of what you claimed.

You could learn a thing or two by listening to actual historians rather than making snide comments about them.  If anything is laughable, it is that you seem to think you know more than an actual naval historian.


 

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRyzUZMLthk

Discussion by Warren Buffet and Charlie Munger on inequality.