Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "HMS Rodney - Guide 146" video.
-
7
-
5
-
'Rodney would have had less chances than Hood.' Oh, please!
Rodney :- Belt Armour 14 inches, deck armour 6.25 inches, broadside 18432 lbs.
Bismarck:- Belt Armour 12.6 inches, deck armour 4.7 inches, broadside 14112 lbs
An undamaged Bismarck could be expected to do what German capital ships habitually did when encountering British capital ships (even obsolete R class ones) which was to use superior speed to avoid action. In terms of heavy artillery shots, Rodney fired 340 16 inch shells, & KGV 339 14 inch shells. As Bismarck's armour was proof against anything smaller (such as 8 inch, 6 inch, or 5.25 inch) only these are relevant. All the smaller calibre weapons would do was cause superficial damage. The actual number of hits, despite fanciful comments about British gunnery, is impossible to determine as, for obvious reasons, no one aboard Bismarck was wandering around taking detailed notes.
Rodney, incidentally, hit Bismarck with her third salvo, and had put most of her main armament, her bridge (including command staff), and her internal communications out of action within twenty minutes of the start of the action.
5
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hajoos.8360 Sorry, but you are misinformed. Hood was armoured in a similar manner to a Queen Elizabeth, with a 12 inch belt and 3 inch deck. She even had integrated armour (in common with the Bismarck, although at least, unlike Bismarck, this wasn't considered obsolete when installed), compared to the more advanced, all or nothing, lay out of the Nelsons and the KGVs.
The American North Carolinas, certainly superior to the 15 year old Nelsons, were not in commission yet, neither were the Richelieus, the Strasbourgs were weakly armoured, and the best Japanese capital ships around at the time were the Nagatos, with 11.8 inch belts, and 2.5 inch decks. Please don't talk ill-informed nonsense about 'outmanoeuvring' the Nelsons. Surely you know that in WW2, capital ships would generally commence an engagement at some 12 - 13 miles distance. Hood, in the Denmark Strait, opened fire at 26500 yards, for example, and on 27 May, Rodney began the engagement at 23400 yards. Individuals who talk apparently sagely in such a manner only expose their lack of knowledge about the subject. I have heard of this WoW to which you refer, but prefer to deal in reality.
As to Rodney's 'miserable' shooting, perhaps you haven't read any studies on naval gunnery techniques by gunnery officers of the time. I have.
The 'Hood Society' is actually called the 'HMS Hood Association' by the way. I use their website on a regular basis. There are no such comments as you suggest on it. There is a lot of affection, obviously, for Hood, but also a knowledge of her weaknesses as well.
All in all, you have made a number of vague, generalised, comments, interspersed with the occasional insult, whilst managing to demonstrate an entertaining lack of knowledge at the same time.
3
-
@hajoos.8360 When have I even mentioned Baden or Bayern? Incidentally, Baden was actually sunk as a target off Portsmouth, not scuttled at Scapa Flow. I did actually describe Hood as 'much more an improved WW1 fast battleship.' Your comments about Mers-el-Kebir are both gibberish & irrelevant to any assessment of Rodney.
Hood at the Denmark Strait had a well-trained, long service, crew. The reason she and Prince of Wales were sent there is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the period. They were two of only four capital ships available to the Home Fleet with the speed to catch Bismarck. The other two, King George V & Repulse, were sent to the Iceland-Faroes gap, the other exit point into the wider Atlantic, as it was essential that Bismarck be challenged before she reached the main Atlantic, where she would be harder to track down & challenge. Surely you knew that?
Tirpitz was nowhere near ready. she was only declared fit for operations in January, 1942. Lutjens' orders, by the way, were to carry out commerce raiding in the Atlantic, against British supply convoys, not to risk an engagement against heavy British ships. In the event, he found himself with no alternative and, having abandoned his mission, he detached Prinz Eugen in the (forlorn) hope that she might at least achieve something. After the action, by the way, Bismarck was forced to reduce to a more economical speed because of shortage of fuel. Almost immediately after being detached, however, Prinz Eugen developed engine faults and ran successfully for Brest. I agree, however, that it was a pity that Prinz Eugen did not remain with Bismarck. That would have made it possible for Tovey to have disposed of both German ships on 27 May, not just the bigger one.
As to Renown & Scharnhorst/Gneisenau. Renown was hit twice. Once on the stern and once on the foremast, both by shells which failed to explode. Presumably, the irony of two well-armoured modern German battleships running from one lightly armoured, modernised, battle cruiser, has totally passed you by? I have, by the way, read copies of the Reports submitted by Vice-Admiral Whitworth & Captain Simeon. It seems abundantly clear that you haven't. Neither, in point of fact, refer to galley damage.
Finally, 'So Frenchies and Italians were left in Europe with bbs, beside Britain, there was no competition.' Why then, did you say, in one of your earlier posts, that ' An intact Bismarck, Hood, KGV-class (if the turrets work), French BB, Italian BB, faster Japanese BBs (, not to talk about fast US BBs) would have all out-maneuvered Nelson-class-ships?' Admittedly, I know, as does anyone else with knowledge of the period, that this is nonsense, but it is unusual to come across someone such as you, who seems determined to contradict his original errors with further ones.
3
-
2
-
2
-
@hajoos.8360 Of course the Nelsons were the result of the Washington Naval Treaty. The British were given dispensation to build two 16 inch gunned battleships, to counterbalance the American Colorados and the Japanese Nagatos. Consequently, the British simply scaled down their G3 battlecruiser design, keeping armour and weight of broadside, but accepting a loss of speed. Even so, at 23 knots, the Nelsons were faster than any other battleship in western waters for over ten years. The G3 turret lay out, by the way, was more or less the same as the one used on the Nelsons. Didn't you know any of this, by the way? So all your 'even Drachifinel' remark demonstrates is that he knows more about the subject than you do.
'Stormy seas did more damage to German ships in common than British artillerie. British artillery was never able to sink German ships.' Really? tell that to the ghosts of the crew of the Scharnhorst, a ship which, incidentally, had a thicker belt than the Bismarcks. Where did Bismarck end up on 27 May, 1941, by the way?
Indeed, Hood had been a fast & fine ship for many years, but by 1941 was showing her age, and desperately in need of her intended reconstruction. In any case, she was much more an improved WW1 fast battleship, with the outdated armour layout of the period. The Nelsons & the KGVs were a class above, in armour and in firepower, though not in speed.
As to the hits achieved by Prince of Wales, of course her gunnery was not first rate. She was far from worked-up, and the problems with her turrets, although resolved quite quickly in fact, were well-known at the time. Even so, her hits on Bismarck forced Lutjens to abandon his mission and run for St. Nazaire, whereas Bismarck's hits on Prince of Wales caused little damage, largely because the shells failed to explode.
As to 'Speed is one significant way to avoid hits.' Only if by avoiding hits you really mean 'avoiding action,' and there are very few actions in WW2 where avoiding action led to success. Furthermore, using speed to avoid action didn't really work with Scharnhorst, did it?
You don't need, by the way, to tell me that I am right about the North Carolinas. I know I am.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1