Oh, didn’t realize my “tiger cubs” patreon suggestion still got through for October, that great!
@alganhar1
2 күн бұрын
Lets be honest, another advantage of Alternate History is its fun! Its like my lot arguing about potential evolutionary outcomes on alien worlds. It helps keep us warm in winter, because our pay isn't! On a more serious note though, it is enjoyable so long as its not taken too far.
@99IronDuke
Күн бұрын
@DrAlexanderClarke. Would you please do a live, or a video, on no Washington Naval Treaty and the G3's and N3's get built?
@bolas1939
Күн бұрын
It’s great to see the first Kallax has arrived :) I just ordered your book and am waiting for delivery-super curious about the read!
@TrickiVicBB71
Күн бұрын
I ran that alternate scenario once in Axis & Allies War at Sea River Plate Admiral Graf Spee vs HMS Cumberland HMS Ajax HMS Achilles The dice Gods favored Graf Spee early. Sank Cumberland and damaged both light cruisers. But the then Ajax and Achilles closed in, shelled and torpedoed Graf Spee to death
@karlvongazenberg8398
2 күн бұрын
1:24:40 Chief, if you remove that safety feature, we lose shipyard warranty.
@davidbrennan660
Күн бұрын
If the Doctor Clarke used his mind for Evil, it would be terrifying and yet tremendously interesting ….. .Thanks for a fascinating video on how things can stack if you play with the bricks of reality. 👍
@michaelsnyder3871
Күн бұрын
Further on Singapore, the British made two false assumptions on the situation that would present itself in a war with Japan. First, that the French were friendly neutrals or active allies. Second, that Thailand was a neutral. In the first, the armistice in 1940 left French Indochina vulnerable to Japanese aggression, such that by December 1941, Japanese troops occupied the colony, the IJAAF was using French airfields and the IJN was using Cham Ran Bay, Da Nang and Haiphong. Second, the Thais moved to an active alliance with Japan after France falls. They actually attack French Indochina and while they achieve air supremacy, their Navy is heavily damaged and driven into port by the French and their ground offensive grinds to a halt against stiff French resistance. Thailand was bailed out by Japan, who got Germany and Italy to pressure Vichy France to not only return some lands occupied in 1904 but western Cambodia on top. Japanese aircraft were landing and operating from Thai air bases a month before the Japanese "invasion" which was resisted only by a few police units that didn't get word from Bangkok. Now Japanese troops were on the northern border of Malaya and the IJAAF was able to establish air supremacy over northern Malaya and assist the IJA in their "bltzkrieg" ground offensive that rolled up and defeated British Imperial forces in detail.
@danielwray2349
2 күн бұрын
Thanks!
@ibex485
2 күн бұрын
I was preparing to leave a comment about cat 7 not being the upgrade over cat 6a people assume (higher number better). But of course you gave your reasons for selecting it and know exactly why you want it. I would suggest reconsidering making your own patch cables though. As well as being a lot of work & frustration, unless you have a proper (expensive) cable tester it's easy to end up with cables which appear to work, but throw up random problems in the future (nightmare to troubleshoot). Also cat 6 or higher cables are much harder to work with & crimp plugs onto than cat 5. Also, I think heard you mention putting plugs on leftover cat 7 cable. (Apologies if I misheard.) Best not to use solid core cable for patch cables at all, the conductors are prone to breaking from fatigue (cue more random intermittent problems). Solid & stranded cable are also supposed to use different types of terminal/plug (insulation displacing vs insulation piercing).
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
to be honest the patch cables idea is just me musing(as I hate to waste cable, but will probably end up storing it in case I need it for future), as for my cabling experience, I spent two summers as part of my university IT team relaying the cables and sockets for entire buildings on campus... the kit I have is the same kit I had then, it's reliable - but goes through batteries like a ***** with a ******** addiction, but it works well. I do have CAT 7 plugs(that protect the core as part of their design) in another of my bags though and have done that before now, CAT 7 cables make great cables for use outside when running Warhammer tournaments in the garden and various things like that. Thanks for the advice, it's always helpful to be able to check your decisions on something with a well informed discussion. I will admit neither the sockets shown in the video, or the ones I'm currently(www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0CZHTZT5D/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ACFIAEAPFKU24&psc=1) considering are technically CAT 7 sockets (although they are RJ45 fine and wiring fine, www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0CGQYZ6DN/ref=ox_sc_act_title_3?smid=A1WYE05QX00JPN&psc=1) - which is something I've pulled off before in a home a enviroment where you are not worried about electronic issues at the sockets really, but are concerned more about along the way issues. However, saying that the cables do require some care and reinforcing(usually a nice wrap in electrical tape... and seeing as I will have ten cables, wrapping them in the ten colour combos (Blue for Office one, Red for Office two, Green for Lounge and then Yellow, Orange, Black & Brown for numbers 1-4) actually will make it easier to organise as I distribute them. Hopefully that has put your mind to ease on it all, I may be a little rusty, but I seem to end up doing this almost every year for one family member or another, so I've had regular refreshers.
@ibex485
2 күн бұрын
I can see you really do know what you're doing, and are much better qualifed for the task than I am.
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
on the CCA cable covering, this particular brand I've used several times before and it's been fine... honestly I used it first for a garden application for a cousin, it worked well and was fine, so I've stuck with them as a brand for a few years now... decent cables, a little on the pricy side, but quality has proved to be consistent which has been my main problem with other brands previously...
@daveharrison61
2 күн бұрын
I can't help but think having a few cruiser carriers and a few dozen sloops would have made a massive difference in the crucial first couple of years of the war. The cruiser groups all have a light carrier with them to spot and scout. Plus the effect of a dozen swordfish carrying out a torpedo attack on fir example the graf spee before the cruisers windmill in. Same applies to the early asw activities if the escort and support groups have several 24 knot sloops and air cover from the start. Submarines get far less effective and many more get sunk. These two things combined eould mean the british and commonwealth economies were a lot healthier in 1942, possibly the building pause never occurs and power projection is a lot stronger in the med (with a greater impact on axis convoys and supplies).
@ibex485
2 күн бұрын
Absolutely right. People overlook how important the medium & light forces were. One thing which really helped turn the battle against the u-boats in the allies favour were the hunter groups of sloops/frigates & escort carriers. Something they could have done from the beginning, if they had enough ships. And some extra cruisers in the right place at the right time might have changed the course of the war. A squadon of County Class hanging around Singapore or the eastern Indian Ocean in 1941 (maybe having a rest from the front line in the Mediterranean), with some friends a week's sailing away in say the Red Sea, would have given the Japanese planners something to think about. They could have done an awful lot of damage to the invasion fleet, requiring a stronger escort of fast capital ships (which were also needed elsewhere).
@michaelsnyder3871
2 күн бұрын
To continue my remarks, the actual figures. The British National Debt had reached 7.4 billion pounds sterling in 1919. Interest on the debt was taking up 9% of the GDP. Government spending was cut 75% between 1918 and 1920. The National Debt was actually at 166% of the GDP in 1922. The Navy Estimates in 1918 were 165,000,000 pounds sterling. The Estimates fell to just over 50,000,000 pounds sterling in 1920, reached 61,000,000 pounds sterling in 1925 and fell back to 51,000,000 pounds sterling in 1932 with the government's cutbacks to address the Great Depression. The British Army spent 81,000,000 pounds sterling (includes forces in India maintained by the British budget) in 1922. By 1932, to was 39.2 billion pounds sterling. As a comparison, the US Navy's budget went from $1,971,645,000 in 1919 to $508,155,000 in 1922 to $330,607,000 in 1923 to $364,693,000 in 1930. In 1920, the National Defense Act established an authorized strength of 277,000 officers and men in the Regular Army and 400,000 in the National Guard as the bare minimum to defend the US and its territories. Congress promptly appropriated funds for half that. By 1939, the US Army had only two divisions anywhere near combat readiness. Of the ten divisions in CONUS, six had only one of the two authorized infantry brigades and most divisions couldn't reach the peacetime strength of 9,150 officers and men against an authorized TO&E of 24,500 wartime. The US national debt was almost $23B in 1922 against a GDP of $74.1B. No British government had heard of Keynesian economics between the wars and during times of financial stress, the standard response was to reduce government spending regardless of the unemployment rate. British government did exactly the opposite like returning to the Gold Standard in 1924, causing British exports to be 10-15% overpriced against similar exported US products. Consider that by 1925, the British government had spent 60M pounds on Singapore. There was no way such funds would be spent on Malta and Gibraltar, much less the Medway, Halifax, Brisbane, Alexandria or Calcutta and Colombo. The British Army's priority during the interwar period within what Parliament gave them was motorization and getting rid of the horse as a prime mover for artillery or the trains. Second was mechanizing the cavalry regiments and developing a family of tanks. Third was a new series of light, medium and heavy artillery to replace the current guns and howitzers, some of which were designs that dated back to the start of the century. The fourth was AA defense. Coastal artillery and fortifications were somewhere near the bottom. Not that it was totally neglected. The 15" gun wasn't the only weapon introduced in the late 1930s. There was the twin 6pdr which was used to cover harbor entrances and minefields from enemy light craft and a new 6" gun on both a static and a semi-mobile mount.
@99IronDuke
Күн бұрын
Britain was not even close to broke in 1919, compared to 1946.
@michaelsnyder3871
Күн бұрын
@@99IronDuke I wasn't aware that having a National Debt of 166% of your GDP, that forced a reduction of spending by 75% between 1918 and 1920 and caused the Treasury to authorize the laying down of the four G3 in 1922 only as bargaining chips, accepting parity with the US in the Washington Treaty which London would have called had not the Americans got in first didn't constitute financial difficulties.
@alganhar1
19 сағат бұрын
@@michaelsnyder3871 You kind of miss the point with National Debt. It does not work the same way personal debt does. The British Governments in the Inter war years were not paying down the debt as rapidly as they could because they HAD to, but because they WANTED to. No one was going to be calling in those debts, least of all the US. Just as its unlikely the Chinese will call in current US debts as it would trash their own economy as well. Over 100% of your GDP as national Debt was not, and still is not uncommon. Indeed current US National Debt is around 120%, and that is peace time debt, not following a major world war were Debt would naturally be expected to be higher. So 166% in the years immediately after the war is not as serious as you are making out, ESPECIALLY if a countries credit is good, and the UK's was excellent.... In other words Britain COULD indeed have freed up significant extra funds because they were vastly over paying on the Debt in order to draw it down as rapidly as possible, something they did not HAVE to do. THATS the point you are refusing to either see or accept, the fact that the huge payments the British Government was lavishing on the National Debt while useful in the medium and long term were NOT NECESSARY. Its rather like the draw down in public spending under the last Conservative Government in the UK in order to increase payments on National Debt. Again it was something that while useful in the long term was not necessary. EDIT: Think of it more like a mortgage, a house generally costs a person significantly more than a years total gross pay. Its why mortgages EXIST after all.... The point is under many mortgage agreements you can opt to pay MORE than you are required to each month, but you do not HAVE to. That is essentially what the British Government were doing, they were opting in to pay more on their Mortgage in order to reduce the period spent in debt. But its entirely voluntary. Its when you cannot make the standard monthly minimum payments that you start to get into trouble, both as a government and a house owner....
@carlcarlton764
Күн бұрын
Well, here I am 21 minutes in and that's already one or two huge AH scenarios. The one with the building up of industry in the colonies makes a lot of sense if you are worried about global competition. But post 1918 the Empire was the sole global superpower. Lest Germany overran France, Italy joined Germany and so did Japan but that's crazy talk. Anyways, go on.
@20chocsaday
Күн бұрын
The divine right to be economical with the truth.
@Aubury
2 күн бұрын
The mutiny at Invergorden, as financial pressures compounded. This in 1931. WW1 had emptied the imperial bank. Wealth had crossed the Atlantic.
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
The mutiny was because some admiral had the bright idea to save a little money by putting the pre-wwi & wwi ratings onto the lower post wwi pay scale without warning them... add in fumbling of complaints and like almost every other navy at the time the RN had a mutiny. The Imperial coffers were definitely not empty and it was Admirals that were forced to resign over their mishandling off it - basically it was a 1930s repeat of the factors that led to Nore Mutiny which really annoyed the RN.
@michaelsnyder3871
Күн бұрын
Given the funds expended from 1922 to 1937, the Royal Navy received better than the British Army and even the RAF. In this period, the RN converted two large cruisers to fleet aircraft carriers, built two battleships, rebuilt/modernized two battleships and two battlecruisers, built thirteen 8"/10,000 ton Class A cruisers, two 8" medium cruisers, ten 6"/7,000 ton light cruisers, four 6"/5,500 light cruisers, fifty-four destroyers and numerous other vessels. This was not exactly "nothing". Given that until 1935, Japan was seen as the only possible opponent, the RN must have felt good about its chances in a war with Japan. They certainly didn't have the distances that the USN had to cross and they had Singapore to base out of. If Singapore cost more than 60M pounds, I can't see what part of this building program the British should give up to spend 120M pounds on Malta and Gibraltar. Malta and Gibraltar existed to support the Fleet. Reduce the Fleet to reinforce the guns, forts and manpower to man them, and Malta and Gibraltar lose their reason for existing. Besides until 1935, there was no threat in the Atlantic or the Med that the RN and the French couldn't handle. Then by 1939-1941, such fortresses become the "ball on the chain" as they lack the AA and fighters and the Fleet to keep them from being isolated like Singapore and made irrelevant.
@lindsaybaker9480
2 күн бұрын
One thing that always stumped me is why they chose 8 inch gun caliber for the heavy cruiser format when the RN used 9.2 inch guns for its traditional armoured cruisers of pre WW1 era?
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
Because of treaty limits, which were based on the Hawkins class with their 7.5in guns
@nikolaideianov5092
2 күн бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke iirc this is also the reason for the split between cruisers into heavy and light cruisers
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
oh you can say that again... it was the most artificial discussion known to man kind...
@lindsaybaker9480
2 күн бұрын
What if Britain pulled out of the second London treaty? And decided to build ships the Royal Navy truly wanted.
@indplt1595
Күн бұрын
Talking about economics, but no mention of currency...this is bound to create some misperceptions. Okay, quick history in three events and a period: the UK, Germany and France exited the gold standard on 4 August 1914 because of, in addition to the commencement of the Schlieffen Plan, a massive financial crisis also concurred with the culmination of the July Crisis. This effectively switched the world's reserve currency from the pound Sterling to the U.S. dollar, both because the financial crisis turned the U.S. from a debtor nation to a creditor for the first time in American history, just in time to begin making large loans to the European belligerents; and the fact that Britain crashed into deflation starting in 1921 and remaining in a deflationary spiral for the next 12 years despite the British not returning to the gold standard until 1925. The next event was in September 1931, where the UK wisely exited the gold standard for the final time due to a little problem known as the Great Depression. Unfortunately, the U.S. dollar remained stubbornly unmoved, and Britain's deflationary woes continued. Finally, on 5 June 1933, the U.S. revalued gold from $20.67 a troy ounce to $35 a troy ounce and reverted it's domestic economy to the silver standard. By New Year's Day 1934 the deflation had ended on both sides of the Atlantic (except for in France, which stubbornly held onto the gold standard until 1936), and English-speaking governments could finally function again. If this sounds profoundly stupid...it was. The U.S. $20.67 valuation of gold dated from the Coinage Act of 1834, while Britain's valuation of £4.25 per troy ounce was set by Isaac Newton when the great scientist as Master of the Royal Mint had set such a valuation on 22 December 1717. If the UK and US could have coordinated the changes to their currency conversion practices in 1921 or 1922 (the worst of the deflation hit Britain that year), perhaps the devastation of these intervening years could have been avoided, but countries do not change currency practices because they want to--they only change when FORCED to. Deflation is so destructive Herbert Hoover claimed in his memoirs that Andrew Mellon advised the U.S. president to 'liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. Purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. ... enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.' This naturally, suspiciously sounds SS-like, which is what Hoover probably was going for when he published his memoirs in 1951, but disturbingly describes the policies of both Washington and Whitehall until June 1933. Even a politician as gifted as FDR couldn't change the gold standard until push came to shove...calling into question whether the destructiveness of the gold standard could have been alleviated any sooner.
@DrAlexClarke
Күн бұрын
honestly because this was 2hrs long, from 6hrs of recording time... my lungs were mildly knackered by the end - adding in currency and that is at least another hour, so probably 2-3 more hours of recording time to get to me being happy with it... I just didn't have that in me that day, sorry.
@indplt1595
Күн бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke Hey, kudos to you--I've been run over by a bout with COVID this last week--can't imagine recording anything when one is that under the weather. Nor was this an oversight on your part--economics as a field is painfully unaware of its own history. I'm only well-versed because economic history has a tendency to intersect with military history. I didn't realize until last night that explaining how destructive the gold standard had become is perfectly encapsulated in the shared UK-US difficulties with the Treaty System of the '20s and '30s--thank you for that. But the fundamental problem is it doesn't make sense. We've been living under the floating exchange rate system since 19 March 1973--understanding an anachronism like the system of fixed exchange is almost too foreign in this day and age, less understand that central bankers and finance ministries really did target up until the 1930s a gold to gbp ratio Sir Isaac Newton created in 1717 on the fly (he failed by the way--his instruction from the monarch was to get silver back into circulation in the wake of the 1688-97 war--he instead created the gold standard, quite by accident).
@1960alftupper
2 күн бұрын
The problem with a railway from India to Singapore apart from the terrible terrain... Is that it would need to go through neutral Thailand (Siam) who in 1941 were not unfriendly to Japan. Prior to the late 1930s good look in getting the treasury spending money on defence...There world view was you cut expenditure in a depression. Not invest. Fortifing the land side of Malaya/Singapore alot more could have been done after the outbreak War, maybe not on the level suggested, but field fortifications. But again the colonial officials objected.
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
by 1941 they were not unfriendly to Japan, but if the British had spent the previous 20yrs building a railway through them, connecting them into the world, bringing them favourable trade and economic growth... that situation might have been very different- especially as such a railway linking them to global economic hub and huge market would have not exactly been lacking in opportunities. Agreed about the field fortifications, Sir Shenton Whitelegge Thomas manages to neatly blame the army for everything, but honestly he was a problem when it came to the war preparations.
@tommyboy87ify
2 күн бұрын
Destroyer aircraft carrier?
@bobthebomb1596
11 сағат бұрын
Investing in infrastructure - There's a concept lost on modern Britain.
@Knight6831
3 күн бұрын
This is what i think the RN if they actually did what they should have Cruisers 7 RN York class with 3 Canadian 40 RN County class with 3 Australian, 4 South African and 2 New Zealand 10 RN Town class with 6 Australian 10 RN La Argentina class 6 RN Arethusa class with 2 Canadian 15 RN Leander class with 2 Indian, 2 New Zealand, 4 Australian Amended due to an error in the numbers
@michaelsnyder3871
2 күн бұрын
There is no possible way the British warship industry could churn out that number of cruisers no matter how much money you threw at them between 1925 and 1939. Nor would Parliament have funded them, nor could they have funded them under peacetime conditions. In fact, by 1930, the Admiralty felt that the "10,000 ton, 8" gun" cruiser had been a mistake. They tried to get similar force capability with "York" and "Exeter", which didn't work. They considered the "Leander" and modified "Leander" class cruisers as nearly perfect for trade protection, fleet scouting and covering the Battle Line against the big Japanese and Italian destroyers. The Admiralty believed they had sufficient 8" cruisers with French allied having seven to cover the Japanese and Italians. The "Phoebe" class were considered something as a failure, a return to the Fleet cruisers, similar to the "C" and "D" classes of WWI. Likewise, the large 6" cruisers of the "Town" class built as a reaction to the IJN Mogami class and the American "Brooklyn" class. The "Dido" class was a combined Fleet scout and AA cruiser, while the "Colonies" were too much on too little displacement. The Canadians never manned or funded more than two cruisers (two "Colony" class IIRC) during the war. The New Zealanders did two "Leander" class CLs during the war. The Admiralty believed they needed 70 cruisers to cover their Fleet and trade protection missions. They got 50 under the London Treaty of 1930, but when they got the money from 1937 on, they found they couldn't produce and sustain a 70 cruiser forces with a 15 capital ship battleline, nine fleet carriers and fighting a major ASW/AA/surface raider campaign across the North Atlantic.
@Knight6831
2 күн бұрын
@@michaelsnyder3871 Michael your logic is flawed as Parliament would fund it as it is a means to employ people and it also allows the older Hawkins, C and D class cruisers to stay as long as needed and then retire them and these cruisers would be built over several years as the original plan for County class cruisers was 40 at a rate of 8 per year over a 5-year timeframe so to do an 8 per year building cycle of 49 County class, 10 York class, 23 Leanders, 8 Arethusa, 10 La Argentina and 16 Town-class at a rate of 8 cruisers per year over 13.5 years is not impossible as the British Empire had continuous cruiser construction and they would be upgrading their industries and infrastructure as they built all the cruisers
@MartinMcAvoy
2 күн бұрын
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! The truth is that in the 1920's there was no significant threat for to plan against and in the 1930's, the UK was utterly broke. Over all, the UK went into WW2 with a very effective navy and it was the nature of the terrible conflict, that the peer opponents also had very good hardware, tactics & leaders. Had more cruisers been available with poor anti-aircraft defence, they might have provided better targets for Stukas, or Japanese Long Lance torps. No nation ever has enough destroyers, although the Americans certainly tried hard to be sufficient. You make a good point about infrastructure but I am surprised by how many big RN ships ended up in US dockyards, being provided with top notch Yank technology. The extra (expensive) shipyards for the empire were not needed. Technical question Dr Clarke, if you would not mind answering. During big gun actions, what did the anti-aircraft crews do? It seems a bit unfair to expose them up top, when their mates in the turrets were fairly well protected. Did the pom pom and other light gunners have a secondary role?
@alganhar1
2 күн бұрын
About those big RN ships ending up in US Yards. Have you really thought about possible reasons for that? I can think of one major one right off the top of my head. The UK did have the yards to repair or refit those ships, problem for much of the war was not the existence of suitable yards in the UK, but the existence of German Bombers. The US yards were not in the range of German Bombers, many of the yards suitable for large ships in the UK WERE. In that respect if the major Yards in Scotland and Northern Ireland are all busy, it makes sense to send a damaged British Carrier to the US Yards for repair and refit than to a free capital ship capable yard in the South of England because it removed the possibility of that ship receiving further damage because the Luftwaffe decided to, oh I don't know, bomb her while under repair in Portsmouth!!! While its not the only reason I can think of, its certainly a major one, especially in the early and middle period of the war when the Luftwaffe were very much still a credible threat. EDIT: And in most cases they were not getting Yank technology.... The British sent not only the blueprints, but also the major equipment being replaced. So if a British ships Radar was being replaced for example they would not use a US Radar, they would use a British Radar. Same with fire control. Same with turrets. Same with machinery. What the US offered was SAFE dockyard space where damaged British ships could be repaired by highly qualified workers to British specifications... The only ship I can think of that had US equipment put on her during a refit was HMS Victorious when she served for a while in the Pacific with the USN, and with the exception of the extra AA guns that was all removed when she was transferred back over to the Royal Navy once she was no longer required. EDIT OF AN EDIT: This is excluding the superb late war MK 48 dual purpose fire control system. When they saw that excellent piece of kit the British bought as many as the US could make for them and fit them to any British ship they could that carried 4 inch and 4.5 inch guns, especially Capital ships with those guns as their secondary armament, and Destroyers. That fire control system was an exception rather than the rule however, it was just that damned good.
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
I'll leave the rest for scuttlebutt 5, but on the threats in the 1920s, Imperial Japan & Italy were both big enough to be the subject of many Imperial Conferences and discussions, plus there was the soviet union and it's threats to India... when you're an empire, the size of the British it’s not a case of who's the enemy, it's who is the enemy today....
@Knight6831
2 күн бұрын
The British Empire was not broke in the 1930s but was not in the best of places but the war started earlier than everyone expected it would The other problem with hindsight is that I have been finding is when you try to apply hindsight you find the events do not make much sense when you factor in hindsight
@Jacob-W-5570
2 күн бұрын
so how was the theme park? :P
@ewok40k
2 күн бұрын
Hey, how does this calculate into Singapore being actually properly fortified from land side?
@Aubury
2 күн бұрын
No need to worry about that old man, impenetrable jungle. Fortress Singapore is impregnable.
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
Yeah the Generals & Admirals who visited it and wrote the recommendations for the report didn't feel that, but politicians and some newspapers certainly did... especially those who'd never seen a jungle
@alganhar1
Күн бұрын
@@DrAlexClarke Also their assumptions were based upon the rather foolish belief that the Japanese Infantry Divisions were similarly organised to the British Infantry Division, which they were not! The Japanese Infantry Divisions were simply more suited organisation wise for the Jungle terrain. They were lighter, with less motor transport, which ironically enough made them more mobile in Jungle terrain rather than less. In a European war the Japanese Infantry Division would have been at a major disadvantage, but in the Jungles of SE Asia their lighter organisation was a serious advantage which is all too often ignored. Everyone seemed to forget that the Japanese Army had been fighting in China since what, 1933 on and off, and 1936 if you are only counting a full scale war. China, a country I might add with often very poor infrastructure making supply often difficult.... There was a REASON the Japanese Infantry Divisions were relatively light compared to British, American, German or even Soviet. They were used to fighting in regions with often poor logistics infrastructure.... The press and politicians were basing their estimations on the viability of the Jungle terrain on what they thought BRITISH Divisions could pass, not Japanese... and even THERE they were wrong. British Divisions could pass through that kind of terrain, its just in that period of the war they could not fight very well in it at a Divisional level.
@Jacob-W-5570
2 күн бұрын
OH idea: 20 minutes in. if the Common Wealth had happened as desired, would the European Union have formed?
@DrAlexClarke
2 күн бұрын
potentially, but the question is would Britain have been a member... if they could without violating the agreements with the Commonwealth, well then they probably would have joined European Common Market - putting Britian in an exceptional economic position, but the European Union as it's current form would definitely have caused friction if not outright violation of any commonwealth in that form
@Knight6831
Күн бұрын
In any scenario the British would not join the EU at all
@juicysushi
Күн бұрын
The trouble with your videos, Alex, is I always want to launch random comments in response to interesting points you raise during the videos, but if I do that, it’d make your comment sections a mess. This is probably the most back-handed compliment ever, but heck, please keep doing what you do. It’s really fun.
@DrAlexClarke
Күн бұрын
do it, there many who don't hold back, if that brings you more enjoyment and interest, then do it... I'll survive - I might mute phone from notifications from youtube, but I'll survive ;-)
@juicysushi
Күн бұрын
44:17 While I was watching your Economic Focus section and you mentioned going “maximum cruiser” my first thought was that you could use the County-class hull for an early Light Fleet Carrier (“cruiser carrier”) as a fifth hull ordered each year. 4 years of that and you sort of get 4 ready-to-go squandrons of 4 cruisers and a carrier with very easy interoperability and a lot of experience in proto-task force style operation. My evil Treasury employee brain also thinks it’s an easy budget suggestion as I could see “5 ships for the price of a battle cruiser” arguments going over very well if you point out the economic multipliers. Also, that map of the Empire has me thinking about the effects of building a robust rail link right down the Nile and beyond from Cairo to Cape Town. As an economic backbone of the continent it could have a massive long term benefit beyond just the Empire if you’d tried it. Yes, the costs would be nuts and the geography is a nightmare, but doing it would have been a massive stimulus to kickstart the African economy and by the 1940s it’d be a massive edge for trade route resilience.
Пікірлер: 59