Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Countering Plan Z - What would the Royal Navy have done?" video.
-
5
-
@josephkugel5099 The problem with your alleged 'what if' scenario is that you allow Germany to adopt a totally different policy, but insist that Britain must stick rigidly to the policy she, historically, followed. I have pointed this out to you ad nauseam, but you still refuse to grasp the obvious.
You also seem to assume that Germany had unlimited resources, being able to build a vastly improbable huge fleet, and large numbers of U-Boats, whilst at the same time still greatly expanding the air force and the army. This is simply a fantasy, I doubt that you have read, from your Fantasy Island, a report written by the Kriegsmarine's Ordnance Department, dated 31 December, 1938, called 'The Feasibility of the Z Plan.' This pointed out in sobering terms that the organisational difficulties were largely insurmountable, and that the demands in materials and manpower were such that it would leave the other German armed forces starved of resources for years to come. A problem you probably consider minor, the lack of suitable shipyards, also loomed large in the assessment of difficulties. You even seem to think that your fuhrer saw Britain as his main enemy, when that was clearly the Soviet Union. I doubt that old adolf would have regarded vast numbers of fantasy battleships as much use against Uncle Joe, if it meant his army and air force was not fit for purpose.
I'm sorry that you don't seem to know enough about the RN of 1939 to make it worth discussing the true state of the British battlefleet with you, particularly since the modernisation of much of it seems totally to have passed you by.
'You can take this answer or leave it at this point but im done with this discussion.' Congratulations! That is probably the first sensible thing you have written, even if you did forget the apostrophe.
4
-
4
-
@josephkugel5099 Again, you don't seem able to accept that the British are just as entitled to change policy of the Germans do.
Incidentally, Doenitz adhered to Admiral Holtzendorff's WW1 calculation that, in order to strangle Britain's supply lines, it would be necessary to sink 600,000 tons of British shipping per month. Between September, 1939 and December, 1941, the figure of 300,000 was exceeded three times only, and four times the figure was below 100,000. During this period, apart from a short spell when the RN withdrew most Atlantic escorts to beef up the (already, in most opinions, the more than adequate) naval anti-invasion forces, the RN was handling the U-Boat threat, sinking 69 U-Boats in the process. German actual successes were desperately short of their target.
By the way, the British didn't come 'running to America to trade for fifty old WW1 four stackers.' They were actually offered to the British by the American Ambassador to France, after a similar offer, for a smaller number, had been made to the French Navy. The Admiralty were hardly going to say no, as they saw them as a useful stop-gap until their own new construction arrived in larger quantities.
You seem to base your opinions on myth rather than known facts.
3
-
@josephkugel5099 Please don't rant. Most unedifying! As the world's largest naval power, of course the British monitored the activities of the others. In reality, warship construction was constrained by the Naval Treaties between the various naval powers, which restricted the numbers of capital ships, such as battleships & carriers. Perhaps you haven't heard of the Washington Naval Treaty?
As the Germans in my reality as opposed to your fantasy didn't place any emphasis on U-Boat construction, there was no particular reason for the British to rush through escort construction. The apparent shortage of escorts which actually occurred was due to entirely unforeseen circumstances, the collapse of France and the consequent need for the British to maintain a much larger presence in the Mediterranean than had been part of pre-war planning. Even so, by the way, between 1936 & December, 1939, the British had launched 50 destroyers and 33sloops, and had 106 corvettes ordered. I won't trouble you with the number of destroyers and sloops also on order.
You seem to accuse me of things I haven't said, and don't even think. British naval strategy from the early 1930s onwards made a number of assumptions, among which were that a future naval war would be against, in the worst case, Germany, Italy, & Japan, but that the French navy would play a major role in the Mediterranean. There was absolutely no suggestion that British would attempt to match the rest of the world's navies, because the Washington Naval Treaty had already determined fleet sizes as :-
UK & USA Capital ships 525,000 tons each, Carriers 135,000 tons each.
Japan Capital Ships 315,000 tons, Carriers 81,000 tons.
Italy & France Capital Ships 175,000 tons each, Carriers 60,000 tons each.
You don't seem to know any of this. The RN, by the way, had already built up to the maximum in terms of carrier tonnage, so your comment about 'Big Gun' admirals doesn't really have any relevance either.
Finally, I know how many boats Doenitz had in commission in September, 1939. Again however, you ramble on about what if Germany had ten times the number of boats, without allowing the British the right to respond, and without even considering which parts of the German war machine would suffer if German industry was diverted to U-Boat production.
2
-
@josephkugel5099 The Washington Naval Treaty was agreed in 1922, and effectively stayed in force until September, 1939. The last US battleships, other than the Iowas, were still designed and built within the parameters contained within it, although the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were able to benefit from the escalator clause in the 2nd London Naval Treaty.
Why do you think that the 'big gun' admirals would respond to Germany building large numbers of U-Boats by stepping up battleship construction? 'What if' scenario or not, it simply makes no sense. Moreover, didn't you even read my previous post? The RN had responded to the actual German U-Boat construction programme by ordering and commissioning large numbers of Atlantic escorts. Explain why, in your world, they would not react in a similar manner to increased U-Boat construction. You clearly assume a remarkable degree of stupidity on the part of the British government and admiralty, if you believe that they would have been unable to determine whose sea trade these boats were intended to threaten.
'I feel that when it came down to building hundreds of new destroyers and corvettes OR building lets say twenty shiny new Battleships that the BB lobby would carry the day in Parliament.'
What you feel is irrelevant, and clearly part of a wish-fulfilment fantasy in order to bring about your dream of a German Battle of the Atlantic victory. Even in the real world, the British rapidly extended construction of escort ships, and suspended construction of capital ships. Do you even know how many escorts the British ordered, laid down, and launched between 1939 & 1944? Actually, 932, excluding fleet destroyers and US built Lend-Lease ships. How many battleships? One, HMS Vanguard.
2
-
1
-
1
-
German building up to and including the Bismarcks was part of the Franco-German naval race, based on the assumption that Germany's next war would be against France, or France & Poland.
The fantasy that was Plan Z was, however, intended directly as a challenge to the Royal Navy. As early as December, 1938, the Kriegsmarine's own Naval Ordnance Department had produced a report 'The Feasibility of the Z Plan,' which doubted that, given the resources already being devoted to the army & air force, the plan had any credibility.
Of course, it didn't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1