Видео

Yes thanks

@@historytimechannel you're welcome, I do enjoy your channel, and for the most part you do a good job, on a wide verity of subjects, which is not easy., so thank you for presenting what is, for the most part, an informative and accurate account of things of historical interest to the average person. J. Sharpe BA/MA

@@jsharpe45 Thanks bro

Sorry if my video offends you

Yes, the sound is generated by AI, but I improve it every day with videos

Many voices of living people are terrible. it's a matter of perspective whether the story is interesting or you just hate every video

OK. I see that you know more than official history

@@historytimechannel no because the decks weren't underwater the RN dispute it was sunk by the RAF it's common knowledge

@@user-xh3lz9xt4l ok 👍

👍

I'm sorry

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yes of course. he was a great person

The entire content of the video discussion was created by AI. But I believe that you definitely know more

Thank you for the critical opinion. I respect him

Yes, I will make a video about him

Done. published

@@historytimechannel thank you

@@therealindorptr0853 ❤❤❤

I love the haters who haven't made a single video but are the smartest. but people must be like that too

😥

😰

I love such wise people who probably don't even understand the threats from the past

👍

Yes, I am working on the AI ​​voice and improving it

@@historytimechannel Don't publish with these kinds of errors. It does not bode well for your channel. Listen first! If you hear these AI errors, please reedit.

@@memirandawong 👍

All pictures in the video are real

@@historytimechannel Except for the one that's obviously an ad for a model kit.

@@pshalleck Yes, there is also one kit model. Many people love to build model ships

@@historytimechannel But that was not discussed in the video, and was especially unrelated to the section of the video during which it was displayed.

@@pshalleck ok

Sorry, but I'm not forcing you to watch. they are mainly watched by people who are interested in it, but obviously you are not one of them, which makes me very sad

Annoyed the hell out of me too. Ah-Ka-Ghee

👍

He said AHkah-jeee ROFL

@@jimm3093 The AI ​​voice is not perfect, but it is currently the only option. AI voices are getting better every day

I know,, right...at least pronounce it correctly

It's a matter of opinion, but these big ships certainly served to present the strength of the country

But of course it was one of the biggest ships in Japan

"Big" doesn't mean a goddamn thing; what?! ..yeah, they were heavy; fat; and, sported not the highest caliber; but, the largest diameter guns. They too, were restrictive; both physically; and, by human. I got a lot of respect for all navies; axis' & allied alike; incl. the IJN & JMSDF. But, the Yamato(s) were held in the rear almost the entire war; hence "Hotel Yamato". I'll bet, the crews aboard the wartime Kongo(s) despised the crews aboard the 'biggest..'. Even today; like the RMS Titanic; they two get high praise; and, for 'absolutely' nothing.

@@chrismulligan6987 I don't think it's absolutely worth it, but I respect your opinion

In the context of the war as a whole, I agree with you. The Yamato class did very little to justify the expense of manpower and resources in their construction. That, however, is largely true of all of the post- treaty battleships- only three of which (King George V, Duke of York, and Washington) can be positively said to have sunk another capital ship. One of the reasons for this was the unexpected impact of naval air power on capital ship deployment throughout the war. Another was the reluctance of the senior leadership of some navies (the Imperial Japanese Navy being one) to commit irreplaceable ships to combat. All this being said, the fact still remains that the Yamato class battleships were- by far- the most powerful battleships ever constructed. No other capital ship adequately compares to them. They simply went unused to an appreciable degree- and that's not the fault of the design. Cheers...

@@manilajohn0182 Yes, I agree that it was underutilized.

But you know it's right

I know that's fine, but the ship existed, so why not make a video about it

What ships did Yamato sink? Yamato obtained three 1st- salvo 18" hits on U.S.S. Johnston from just over 20,000 yards. Johnston was fatally damaged by the hits and eventually sunk. Yamato also obtained one 1st- salvo 18" hit on U.S.S. Gambier Bay from just under 22,000 yards from a six- gun salvo which was aimed entirely by the ship's Type 22 radar because of a lack of a visual to the target until about a minute after opening fire. Gambier Bay was crippled from the hit and was slowed, leading to her sinking later. Yamato also dropped two 18" shells right alongside U.S.S. White Plains from just over 34,000 yards. One of them exploded and the damage took White Plains out of front- line service for the rest of the war. This was gunnery unequalled by any other capital ship during the war. By comparison, none of the Iowa class BBs ever obtained a main battery hit on any vessel of destroyer size or larger during WW2. U.S.S. Massachusetts was firing at a stationary target off Casablanca, U.S.S. Washington bombarded Kirishima from short right down to point blank range at 2nd Guadalcanal, and the vast majority of rounds from the U.S. battleline at Surigao Strait were straddles- and not hits as originally believed (the wrecks of both Fuso and Yamashiro have been explored. From a gunnery standpoint, both ships are essentially intact and were sunk primarily by torpedo attack from U.S. destroyers). Having said that, I agree with you that the construction of Yamato represented a net loss to Japan. That's largely true of all the post- treaty battleships in WW2, but of Yamato far more than the others.

@@manilajohn0182 Thank you for the agreement and the perfect comment

Ahh The Yah..ma..doe.

@@manilajohn0182 Perfect comment and thank you for the favor

🤣🤣🤣

it is a pity. I'm sorry

yes 👍

that's just a turn of phrase

that's just a turn of phrase

that's just a turn of phrase

👍

At that time, everything was developed and produced very quickly

You know, no one is forcing you to watch the channel. it is voluntary after all

@@historytimechannel I know, but i like the content and it would be sooo much better if it only was a human voice..

@@ferrydenhaan4956 I understand chapema, but for now I will do it with the AI ​​voice. maybe later I will give my real human voice

@@historytimechannel lookin' forward to it!

@@ferrydenhaan4956 👍❤

Allright, I understand

Thanks

ok

👍

I believe that you make the best videos in the world

Yes, you explained it perfectly

Yes, it was quite a powerful tank

Thank you for your opinion. I believe that you make perfect videos

A picture of a malfunctioning tank must have wandered in there by mistake. Sorry

Yes I agree

Of course 👍

Warum schreiben sie dann „Panzerkampfwichen“ , Mr. Ofcourse ?​​⁠​⁠@@historytimechannel

@@TheLobohobo Subtitles error, friends

Super

I don't know what kind of comet you mean

@@historytimechannel Tank, Cruiser, Comet I (A34) as opposed to the Tank, Cruiser, Cromwell (A27M). The very first picture that appears is a Comet.

@@ronhall9039 OK sorry. my fault. I'm glad you watch my videos carefully. well thank you

History time channel is just a lazy excuse to put up poor videos.

@@cyclonetaylor7838 Well, I believe that you make the best videos. I love haters

Yes it's true

Actually not that many, pictures tend to show the same tanks. Also there were not that many in service, the British had only about 2,000 tanks over 4 years. The USSR were supplied with about 1,000.

@@billballbuster7186 The truth

I'm not aware of that mistake, but if so, I apologize