Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "KMS Deutschland/Lutzow - Guide 212" video.

There is a lot of information about Spearfish on a site named (ironically) uboat.net.
2
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 Hardly. The surface fleet took heavy losses during the Norwegian campaign, was more or less irrelevant in the summer & autumn of 1940, and rarely appeared again after May 1941.
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 Indeed? Why? Perhaps you could tell me of any significant operations by the German surface fleet after the sinking of Bismarck.
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 Simply to make it easier for you. If you wish to go back to June, 1940, feel free so to do. Of course, after May, 1941, there is little left for you to say, of course. You are the one who said that :- ' it was far outnumbered and punched well above its weight.' The first part is correct, the second part isn't.
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 When have I suggested that the two navies were comparable in size? Why don't you simply answer the question, and tell me when the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet punched above it's weight? Weserubung did not succeed because of the surface fleet, but because of air superiority on land, and the invasion of France & the Low Countries. The surface fleet managed to land troops in neutral ports, but by the end of the campaign had been seriously maimed. The Germans captured a base, but lost the fleet which might have operated from it in so doing.
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 I see. You haven't actually got a proper answer, so you seek merely to argue. 'People' don't consider that the Kriegsmarine served well in WW2' You do, which isn't quite the same thing. Saying that the Kriegsmarine weren't as bad as the Regia Marina is hardly a sensible response. Certainly, Weserubung probably couldn't have happened without the Kriegsmarine, but losing the best part of the surface fleet simply to land troops is hardly ' punching above your weight.'
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 'They only lost one large warship in the invasion?' So, you either don't consider, or haven't heard of Karlsruhe (sunk on 9 April) and Konigsberg (sunk on 10 April), or 50% of the German destroyer fleet at Narvik, to be large warships. Likewise, neither battleship was back in service until November, 1940, and Deutschland not until April, 1941, all as a result of the Norwegian campaign. I am glad you have read my earlier replies, even though they don't seem to have penetrated your pre-existing prejudices. Perhaps you might consider trying to present credible arguments demonstrating occasions when the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet performed well. Bismarck, when forced to engage an aging fast battleship, was certainly successful, although utterly failing in the mission she had been set, and Scharnhorst & Gneisenau sank a carrier, but in so doing missing the evacuation convoys they were supposed to intercept, thus resulting in the dismissal of their admiral. They had previously failed to challenge Renown on 9 April, 1940, and subsequently avoided action with elderly, unsupported, British capital ships during Operation Berlin. After that, of course, neither achieved anything at all. Incidentally, one of the people who believed that the surface fleet performed badly was one Adolf Hitler, who effectively disbanded it after the humiliating defeat in the Barents Sea in December, 1942. Actually, he could just as easily have taken the same action after the Channel Dash, as it really achieved nothing of relevance thereafter. There is an easy way to demonstrate my ignorance. Simply provide a list of occasions when the German fleet did achieve something of note, after acting as, effectively, ferry boats for troops during the invasion of Norway. By the way :- 'Allied naval losses were similarly heavy, in fact a bit higher.' Really? One carrier, nine destroyers, and two light cruisers, compared to one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, and ten destroyers. A bit higher? Exactly how rose-tinted are your spectacles? For all your bluster, you have presented precisely no arguments to contradict Mr. Browne's original contention that 'Apart from it's U-boat arm the German navy seems to have been more of a burden than a weapon during WWII, tying up more resources instead of effectively attacking Allied targets.' Instead of simply posting insults, why don't you present some credible, reasoned, arguments?
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 I left out the Norwegian coastal ships because pre-WW1 vessels of any sort were of limited relevance. When the German losses equated to 50% of their heavy cruisers, 33% of their light cruisers, and 50% of their destroyers, perhaps you might re-assess the significance of the respective losses. The British, by the way, were 14% of their carriers, 3% of their light cruisers, and 3.5% of their destroyers.
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 When did you give me the list of actions? Please remind me by repeating it. I did, by the way, refer to Bismarck in the Denmark Strait as 'successful' although Bismarck & Prinz Eugen's actual task was to sink merchant shipping and disrupt the convoy network. Remind me again how many merchantmen they sank, and how many convoys they disrupted. As to the Glorious episode, the convoys to which I referred were actually troop convoys, and it wasn't me who judged Admiral Marschall, but Raeder, who dismissed him for his failure. The fact that Renown inflicted sufficient damage to force Lutjens to withdraw at high speed, and abandon the destroyer force in Narvik, resulted in the loss of all ten German destroyers, by the way. Lutjens had two alternatives available to him, which were to achieve a significant victory over a modernised battlecruiser, or to screen the withdrawal of the Narvik destroyers. He managed neither. Hipper, by the way, sank a tanker, a small transport, and an armed trawler. Finally :- 'Your standards of success change without rhyme or reason.' Where & when?
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 When have you been specific? Instead of pussyfooting around, simply refer me to your list. 'Your statements about Narvik are false btw, S&G were supposed to head back to Germany immediately after not stay.' Oh well, if you choose to believe that the Kriegsmarine were happy to sacrifice ten destroyers at Narvik, then feel free to think so. I suppose asking for a source for this would be futile?
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 'You repeat the same thing like a broken record.' Indeed I do. It is a policy of mine when I don't get a reasonable answer. You seem to have a perverse belief that you should include allied losses to the Luftwaffe as part of the Kriegsmarine's successes. You aren't actually fooling anyone with this dishonest behaviour, by the way. I don't blame you for wasting no further time on me. It will give you an excuse not to produce your imaginary list of actions which you never actually posted. Goodbye, old chap.
1
@muhammadalabi3245 No. I left University with a First and became an historian, specialising in 20th Century naval history. I respect the opinions of my professional peers, but if there is anything you wish to know on the subject, please don't hesitate to ask. I would be pleased to educate you. I suppose I should have added that I rarely give any credibility to any who begins posts with 'lol' Rather immature, in my opinion.
1
@simonpitt8145 The auxiliary cruisers were probably the most effective of the German surface ships, at least in terms of their nuisance value. They were cheap to produce, generally armed with old guns (in some cases, the secondary armaments of the ancient Schliesens) and difficult to identify. I agree with you on that point, and on the value of Tirpitz as a fleet in being. Where I would question some of the earlier posts is the in the claim that the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet 'punched above its weight.'
1
@simonpitt8145 Pound did have a reputation for 'back seat driving.' I wouldn't doubt for a moment that Andrew Cunningham would have left the decisions to the men on the spot. Indeed, Pound's own staff were convinced that Tirpitz was not at sea. Furthermore, whilst scattering a convoy was effective in the Atlantic against a single enemy warship, HX84 being a case in point, it was precisely the wrong thing to do when the enemy consisted of a number of enemy submarines and aircraft. The irony was, as the convoy began to scatter, and Broome sent those of his destroyers with torpedoes to join Hamilton's cruiser squadron, they were cheered by many of the crews of the merchant ships who, like Broome's own crews, believed that they were heading for a desperate battle against odds. At the time, Dudley Pound was suffering from the early stages of a brain tumour which was eventually to kill him, which may perhaps explain his unwise decisions.
1
@jonathanlong6987 They were hardly armored cruisers. Their belts and decks were feeble. 3 inch belts and 1.8 inch decks.
1
Apparently Hitler was concerned of the effect on morale if a warship named 'Deutschland' was sunk in action.
1