Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "War Stories"
channel.
-
158
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
@michaelwilson9849 The 'Battle' as the movie called it, the Battle of El Guettar, between 23 March & 3 April, 1943, was actually inconclusive.
At more or less the same time, 26 March, 8th Army broke the Axis defences at the Mareth Line, and slightly later, on 6 April, drove the Axis forces into wholesale retreat at the Battle of Wadi Akarit.
Odd that George C. Scott's comic masterpiece of a movie missed those details, wasn't it?
19
-
16
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Dennis-JDB Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
Moreover, why would anyone be foolish enough to manufacture a famine in India when 2.5 million Indians were serving with the allied forces. None of which, by the way, were conscripts.
Furthermore, you seem to think that the 1943 Famine was a one off event. Was Churchill responsible for the famines of 1670, 1770, 1873, 1951, 1971, & 1974 as well?
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your obvious agenda.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
A strange, distorted, opinion you have. Certainly, ther Commonwealth and Empire did aid Britain greatly in WW2, but not as early as 1940. There were, in September of that year, only one (Canadian) division and three (Australian & New Zealand) brigades in Britain.
The United States was neutral, selling supplies and equipment to Britain. Greece, Brazil, & Yugoslavia were also neutral, and what exactly was the Jewish League? The United States certainly did look after number one until attacked. How could Poland have done the same? Greece, of course, tried to until attacked by Italy and then Germany. As, of course, did Yugoslavia until invaded by Germany.
Australian troops were equipped entirely with British made weapons. Moreover, they did not need to beg. Australian troops, other than one division, were returned to Australia in early 1942. Oddly enough, in British liners and transports, escorted by British warships.
Perhaps history isn't your strong point. But there are books available.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Using your skill and judgement, would you be good enough to explain how invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, all without declaration of war, shows that 'they tried to maintain peace the entire time?'
I must lack your erudition, as it really doesn't seem that way to me.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@waynepatterson5843 Oh well. In 1940 the Royal Navy was the largest navy on the planet. However, I see you have now become a Sealion enthusiast.
Mine Blockades : The German navy had eight converted minelayers, possibly supported by a further seven destroyers capable of minelaying. By September, 1940, the Royal Navy had 698 fleet & auxiliary minesweepers in service, almost all in home waters. Additional, the Royal Navy carried out nightly patrols of the Channel throughout the invasion threat period. Perhaps you might consider the effect of a 4 inch or 4.7 inch HE shell exploding on a laden mine deck?
U-Boats:- In September, 1940, the Kriegsmarine had precisely 27 operational 'frontboote,' of which 13 were at sea on any one day. However, none were near the Channel, because in October 1939, the Germans had sent three there and all three were sunk. The Channel was a deathtrap for submarines. The next time the Germans sent any there was after D-Day, out of desperation. Air cover, and the various Naval Escort Groups, slaughtered them.
Coastal artillery :- By the end of August, 1940, the Germans had established over 150 medium, heavy, & super heavy gun batteries along the Channel coast, and these began firing at British CE & CW convoys, which consisted of small coasters and colliers, as they passed up and down the Channel, from 12 August. Between 1940 & the end of 1944, there were 531 such convoys involving a total of 9097 ships. Care to guess how many were sunk during this period? Thirty-one. Care to guess how many were sunk by your wonderful batteries? NONE! In fact, seven were damaged. IN THE WHOLE OF THE WAR. Would you care to explain how these wonder guns, which failed to sink small coasters moving at around six knots, would sink or deter destroyers and light cruisers moving at more than twenty five knots.
Luftwaffe :- The Luftwaffe in 1940 was a tactical air force, trained to support the army. It had had no training at all in anti-shipping operations, and didn't even acquire a torpedo bomber arm until mid 1942. At Dunkirk, it had spectacularly failed to prevent the evacuation of 323000 British & French troops. With everything in their favour (ships either stopped or moving slowly, and crowded with troops) the Luftwaffe bombers managed to sink, of 41 RN destroyers present, precisely four. Using your skill and judgement, please explain how that same Luftwaffe would manage to inflict significant damage on the anti-invasion forces that the Admiralty had assembled by September, 1940. As you certainly don't know, these forces consisted of around seventy destroyers and light cruisers within five hours steaming of Dover, with a further five hundred or so smaller warships in support, and, within twenty four hours, at most, there were a further 51 cruisers and destroyers available.
Barges :- Indeed, because of a lack of other alternatives, the Germans intended to use converted Rhine barges, towed by tugs and trawlers, to transport troops (without artillery, motor transport, or tanks, but with plenty of horses) across the Channel. The Kriegsmarine estimated that it would require eight days and nights to transport nine divisions across the Channel. Would you care to guess what might happen at night, for example, when aircraft could not operate, by the Royal Navy could?
If you actually knew anything about the Sandhurst War Game, or, indeed, about Sealion at all, you would have known that whichever scenario the gamers tried, it ended up with the RN entering the Channel almost unmolested and annihilating the barge trains.
You might wish to read:-
'Invasion of England, 1940' by Peter Schenk.
'Hitler's Armada' by Geoff. Hewitt.
'Coastal Convoys' by Nick Hewitt.
'The U Boat Offensive, 1914-1945' by V.E. Tarrant.
'History of the War at Sea, Volume 1' by Stephen Roskill.
For starters. Unless, of course, you wish to remain in your current state of remarkable ignorance.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@urielstavras4968 Unlike Germany, Britain had not been actively planning for war for several years, and nor had the British been frenzedly re-arming. In 1940, after the collapse of France & Belgium, aside from one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades, the defence of Britain from invasion was entirely in British hands.
On a more general note, if you now bleat about poor little Germany, you might consider whether invading, without declaration of war, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium was really such a good idea?
5
-
Actually, stood alone against a heavily militarised country which had successfully defeated Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France. Germany was, by the way, actively supported by Italy, and supplied with raw materials by the USSR.
A shame that there don't appear to be any schools in South Africa any more, sonny.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Oh, and I forgot to add.
Ironic, really. El Guettar was a spoiling action undertaken by von Arnim, over two weeks after Rommel had departed Tunisia. The Panzer Division used, 10th Panzer, only arrived in Tunisia in December, 1942, and, apart from a 4 day period, was never commanded by Rommel, but was part of von Arnim's 5th Panzer Army, as I wrote earlier.
Rommel no more 'planned' this action than John Paul Jones did the Battle of Midway, despite what the ludicrous movie, and many less well informed, people, might claim.
5
-
5
-
'The Germans had no where near enough transport for 20 divisions.' The assault wave was to consist of nine divisions and a seriously under strength parachute division.
Walter Ansel, who had access to Kriegsmarine records at the end of the war, determined that the Germans had requisitioned 180 transport ship (largely small coasting vessels), just over 2,100 converted barges, 400 tugs/trawlers, and 1,200 motor boats, The first wave was to consist of around 850 barges, towed in pairs by the tugs/trawlers and the transports, would carry the leading elements of each division.
The Germans had enough vessels to carry out their alloted tasks. What they did not have, of course, was any means of protecting this ramshackle flotilla from the 70 RN cruisers and destroyers which were based some five hours steaming from Dover, supported by around 500 or so smaller warships.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
'When exactly did they stand alone again?' For, at least, the whole of 1940. To give an example or two, of 34.5 operational divisions in Britain in September, 1940, 32.5 were British. The only Commonwealth forces in Britain at the time were one Canadian division and two Australian & Canadian brigades.
The Royal Navy, other than seven Royal Canadian destroyers, was entirely British.
Of 2927 pilots in the Battle of Britain, 2353 were British. The others, both Commonwealth & Foreign, flew British aircraft, under British orders.
The United States did not commence their Lend-Lease Programme until March, 1941. Prior to that, any supplies Britain acquired from the US were bought & paid for.
THe Commonwealth and Empire played an increasingly large role in WW2, but not as early as 1940. In the (unlikely) event of an attempted invasion, distant voices in support of Britain from the Dominions and the Empire would have had no practical help in repelling it.
There are many books dealing with the events of 1940. You might buy one, perhaps?
4
-
@dwight4626 Who protected the Convoy System? The Royal & Royal Canadian Navies. Who planned every assault landing in the war against Germany, except Dragoon of course? Yhe Royal Navy. Who provided the bulk of the forces for these operations, from Torch onwards? The British & Commonwealth armies.
As an example, D-Day. On June 6, two thirds of the troops who landed on the beaches were British & Canadian, 3261 of 4127 landing craft were British manned, 892 of 1213 warships were RN/RCN, two thirds of the allied aircraft were RAF. The mine clearance operations were almost entirely RN/RCN, the U-boats sent to attack shipping off Normandy were defeated and largely destroyed by British & Canadian Escort & Support Groups, and the operational commanders of the three forces, air, sea, & land, were all British.
In short, you shouldn't believe everything that you see in movies. Although your apparent belief that only the Americans fought the Japanese does rather reveal the depth of your actual knowledge, I suggest.
No, Britain could not have liberated Western Europe alone. Neither of course could the United States. However, this obvious fact has precisely no relevance to your comment, which, if you recall, was :-
'If it wasn't for the Yanks. we'd all be speaking German.'
4
-
@r0bbrn140 But didn't you read the title of the video?:
'When Britain Stood Alone: The Complete Story Of The Battle Of Britain'
The Battle of Britain took place in 1940. Had anyone claimed that Britain stood alone in, for example, 1942, I would have been among the first to correct them. However, in terms of 1940, the title is correct.
Indeed, there were foreign or Commonwealth pilots in the Battle of Britain. 2927 pilots flew with Fighter Command during the batle, of which 2353 were British, and 299 were foreign, by which I mean non-Commonwealth or Empire.
In terms of ground forces, of 34.5 divisions available to Britain on home soil in September, 1940, all except two were British.
Not that this matters, of course, because Britain's real defence against invasion in 1940, was the Royal Navy, which, apart from a tiny number of French, Polish, & Canadian destroyers, was entirely British.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@whispofwords2590 Actually, the Afrika Korps (15 & 21 Panzer Divisions, 90 Light Div., and 164 Inf. Div.) at the time of El Guettar were part of the Italian 1st Army, under General Messe, which was defeated at Mareth & routed at Wadi Akarit by 8th Army.
The German force at El Guettar was 10th Panzer, which only arrived in Tunisia in December, 1942, and was part of von Arnim's 5th Panzer Army. It was transferred to Rommel's command on 19 February, and took part in the Battle of Kasserine. By no stretch of the imagination, even the most fevered, could it be considered to have been 'trained by Rommel' and it was only commanded by him for four days.
Aren't facts a nuisance?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Good heavens! I never knew that, in 1939/40, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, & Belgium, all invaded without declaration of war, presumably for their own good, by your peaceloving Germans, were evil bastions of communism.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Gerry Hagen Here is a quote from one of my sources, by the way :-
'Certain modern historians, such as Larry T. Addington, Niall Barr and Robert Citino, are skeptical of Rommel as an operational, let alone strategic, level commander. They point to Rommel's lack of appreciation for Germany's strategic situation, his misunderstanding of the relative importance of his theatre to the German High Command, his poor grasp of logistical realities, and, according to the historian Ian Beckett, his "penchant for glory hunting".
Citino credits Rommel's limitations as an operational level commander as "materially contributing" to the eventual demise of the Axis forces in North Africa,. Meanwhile, Addington focuses on Rommel's disobedience and struggle over the North Africa strategy, whereby his initial brilliant success resulted in "catastrophic effects" for Germany in this theatre of war.'
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@raywhitehead730 Official records don't differ at all. The Queen Mary did indeed steam from Scotland to Suez in Mid 1942. Via Freetown, Cape Town, & Simonstown. In other words, round the Cape, NOT through the Mediterranean. You have even confirmed this yourself. If you believe that the British used the Suez Canal for anything other than sending warships to and from the Mediterranean fleet, then please provide details of the relevant convoy movements.
Certainly, Allied merchantmen were sunk by U-Boats in the Indian Ocean, but passing through the Suez Canal, and then through the Med., would have exposed them to German & Italian air attack, greater risk from German & Italian submarines, of which there were far more than ever operated in the Indian Ocean, and even a possible sortie by the Italian surface fleet. Which is why the Suez Canal & the Mediterranean were not used for convoy routeing.
4
-
4
-
@raywhitehead730 I haven't said that the Suez Canal was 'shut down,' only that it was not used by convoys between the East and the UK. It was used by military traffic, in particular warships moving to and from the Mediterranean Fleet. Supplies and reinforcements, like the eastern convoys, went round the Cape. In the case of military supplies and reinforcements, these unloaded in Suez, at the southern end of the canal, not at Port Said.
Seriously, would you send a slow moving convoy of merchantmen through the Mediterranean in the face of German & Italian aircraft and submarines? Neither would, or did, the British.
4
-
@kayhass2510 Actual history. In September 1940 the British had 34.5 operational divisions in the UK. 32.5 of these were British.
At sea, Britain was defended from invasion by the Royal Navy, which apart from a small number of RCN destroyers, was wholly British.
In Fighter Command, of around 2,900 pilots, around 500 were non-British. Mainly from the Commonwealth.
Certainly, the United States played a major role in WW2, after being reluctantly forced into it by the Japanese & Germans, but in 1940 the US was neutral, although happy to sell munitions to Britain at market prices.
Since then, contrary to what you think, the British fought in the Korean War as part of a United Nations Force, defeated a communist insurgency (unaided) in Malaya, and wisely kept out of the US debacle in Vietnam.
If anything, since then it has been the US begging Britain to get involved in a series of unwise American adventures, generally failed ones, in the Middle East. Unfortunately, a series of British Prime Ministers have let Britain become a part of these American antics.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'Fighting the nazis for 3 years, alone'. Hardly, until late June, 1941, The Soviets & the nazis were bosom chums. After their acrimonious divorce, the Soviets then received military aid fro Britain and, after December, 1941, from the United States.
The Western Allies then carried out a major air offensive which hamstrung German military production, and forced the Germans to retain large numbers of personnel, much of their modern artillery, and most of the Luftwaffe, in the west in a failed attempt to challenge western air power. This of course, is without mentioning the campaigns in North Africa & Italy.
They also devoted considerable resources to their U-boat campaign, building over 1100 boats, of which over 800 were destroyed, seven by the Soviets. In the midst of this the Western Allies were heavily engaged against the Japanese Empire, in the Pacific in the case of the US & in Burma in the case of the British.
To base your comments simply on the land fighting on the Eastern Front is, frankly, as asinine or blinkered than would a counter-suggestion, that the Soviets contributed nothing because their forces only sank seven U-boats would have been.
'Thank you Russia?' What for, defending herself?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@northwestprof60 Indeed, which just shows how inaccurate the movie was. The German spoiling action at El Guettar was carried out by 10th Panzer, which had arrived in Tunisia in November, 1942, and, apart from three or four days at Kasserine, had never been commanded by Rommel, but had been part of Von Arnim's 5th Panzer Army.
By the time of El Guettar, of course, Rommel was no longer in Tunisia, but his old Afrika Korps, now part of 1st Italian Army, was at Mareth, in the process of being defeated by 8th Army. Shortly afterwards, 1st Italian was routed at Wadi Akarit, by the same people. Oddly, none of this is mentioned in the movie.
Rommel no more planned El Guettar than John Paul Jones did Midway.
3
-
3
-
Unfair. Although the Commonwealth and Empire were later to play a major role in WW2, in 1940, just like Britain herself, they were not geared up for immediate action. There was a Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades in Britain at the time, but, although Britain was, in effect, alone, the British knew that support was coming.
Allied plans pre-blitzkreig had assumed a defensive strategy akin to that of WW1 until Britain organised conscription and troops from the Commonwealth/Empire began to arrive. The issue was that of survival until then.
Put simply, neither Britain nor the Commonwealth/Empire had vast numbers of military resources immediately available. Other than the Royal Navy, of course.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@abugina The whole of the Commonwealth and Empire eventually stood by Britain, but, in 1940, from a distance. If you can explain how Commonwealth forces being built up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or anywhere else, and thus far away from Britain, could have made any contribution to the prevention of a German invasion of Britain in 1940, please try.
In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were made up of British troops.
Oh, and in the Atlantic, the Convoy System was introduced from September, 1939. Convoys were escorted, both in the Atlantic and everywhere else, by Royal Navy warships, until the huge expansion of the Royal Canadian Navy, from around May, 1941. Until this happened Dominion navies were tiny.
France, by the way, had a large overseas Empire. What happened to France?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DidMyGrandfatherMakeThis Of course the longest range hit by one battleship on another was exceptional. That is why it was the longest.
On 27 May, 1941, Rodney opened fire on Bismarck at 25,000 yards, and scored her first hit at around 20,500 yards.
King George V, using her Type 284, opened fire at 25,500 yards and, similarly, achieved her first hit at 20,500 yards.
Bismarck's first hit on Hood was at 18,200 yards. Her superb optical rangefinders were unable to bring about any hits on either British battleship on 27 May.
At North Cape, Duke of York detected Scharnhorst at 45,000 yards, but held fire until 12,000 yards, as Scharnhorst remained entirely unaware of her presence. When DoY did open fire, she hit with her first salvo. Starshells from HMS Belfast revealed that Scharnhorst's main armament was still in fore and aft position when she was hit.
Certainly, the RN had the advantage of gunnery radar which actually worked, but Rodney's performance demonstrated that, even without it, British battleships were more than capable of engaging successfully at longer ranges.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You need to 'chase down the details' yourself. If you did, you would find that, at the time of the Battle of Britain, there were, of just under 3,000 allied pilots who flew at least one operation during the Battle, 112 Canadians, and 32 Australians.
Of ground troops ready to face any invasion attempt, of 34.5 divisions in September, 1940, 32.5 were British. There was one Canadian Division, and two Australian & New Zealand Brigades.
Those are the plain, unalloyed, facts. However much you may dislike them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What a pity Montgomery wasn't as modest and self-effacing as others, such as Patton or MacArthur. Indeed, his conduct remains the subject of debate. However, the overwhelming majority of it is favourable to him.
He was an unpleasant, self-obsessed, individual, but he was generally protective of the lives of his soldiers, and sought to avoid committing them to battle without superiority in numbers, equipment, and supplies. He was fortunate in that he was the first British commander in WW2, on land at least, to be in such a position.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Please don't be silly. Bismarck carried 12 x five point nine inch low angle guns, which were outdated by 1940 and never actually managed to hit anything. The British Nelson class , built ten years earlier, carried 12 x 6 inch LA guns, and the King George V class 16 x 5'25 DP. Modern US battleships carried 20 x 5 inch DPs. Perhaps if Bismarck had had a DP secondary armament, she might not have been quite so unprepared to cope with attacks by torpedo bombers?
The main guns in Bismarck were so powerful that they fired a broadside of 14,112 lbs., compared to the 15,900 of the KGVs, the 18,432 of a Nelson, or the 24,300 of a Washington, Iowa, or South Dakota.
Or, come to that, the 18,000 lbs of a Tennessee, or the 15,504 lbs of a Queen Elizabet or R class..
Do you consider that having radar which failed when the guns fired was really beneficial? The radars of US & British capital ships generally had no such limitations.
3
-
3
-
Perhaps you didn't know when the Battle of Britain took place? Try to understand this. In September, 1940, there were 34.5 divisions in the UK. Of these 32.5 were British. The only Commonwealth troops in the UK were one Canadian division and rwo Australian/New Zealand brigades. The nearest Indian division was in North Africa, and the Free French/Poles were not yet forned into (small) coherent fighting units as yet.
In the event of any German landing, however unlikely given the naval supremacy of the (British) Royal Navy, supported by a small number of Canadian destroyers, cries of 'Good luck, lads!' from distant Canada, Australian, South Africa, New Zealand, India or anywhere else would not have been of much help.
However important the Commonwealth & Empire became later in the war.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda with which you have been indoctrinated. However, for once try to think outside your programming and ask yourself this : There were 2.5 million Indians serving with the Allied forces at the time. Is it likely that Churchill would have considered, even for a moment and even had he been so inclined, to alienate them?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Yet, apart from one Canadian division & two Australian/New Zealand brigades, there were no Commonwealth troops in Britain in 1940. In the event of an assault landing, however unlikely it might have been, it would be the British who, almost entirely would be the ones who resisted it.
Encouragement from far away, whilst good for morale, would not have helped much. There were 574 Commonwealth & Foreign pilots in the Battle of Britain, and 2353 British ones, by the way.
Moreover, you greatly exaggerate the importance of the Battle of Britain. After all, if the Germans had achieved a temporary measure of air superiority, all that they then needed to do was find a way past the largest navy in the world for their towed barges.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, the German force at el Guettar was 10th Panzer, which had only arrived in Tunisia in December, 1942, and had been part of von Arnim's 5th Panzer Army. It had actually served under Rommel's command for around four days, at Kasserine. The el Guetter spoiling action was von Arnim's by the way, not Rommel's.
At the time, what was left of Rommel's army ( 15 & 21 Panzer, 90 Light, and 164 Infantry, were being defeated at Mareth, as part of Messe's 1st Italian army, before being finally routed at Wadi Akarit, On both occasions, by 8th Army.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@soulfella1 If you are writing about Sealion then in September 1940 German had no heavy ships at all, apart from one heavy cruiser, Hipper. Bismarck, Tirpitz, & Prinz Eugen were not yet in service, and Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were under repair following damage during the Norwegian campaign, These repairs were not completed until November.
Prince of Wales & Repulse were sunk by high performance torpedo bombers, flown by crews trained in anti-shipping techniques. In September, 1940, the Luftwaffe had no torpedo bombers, and had not been trained in these methods. German aircraft did indeed attack warships in the Channel, but in the whole of the war, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers. In September 1940, the RN had more than 100 in Home Waters.
There was intermittent RAF air cover at Dunkirk, but even the RAF's own website confirms long periods on each day of the operation when no cover was provided.
The 50 ex US destroyers did not appear until after the invasion threat had dissipated, late in 1940. The British feared that, had the French fleet been ordered to support an invasion, a landing might have been attempted, which was why it was attacked.
In 1940, the bulk of the RN was in home waters, apart from Cunningham's fleet in the Mediterranean. Finally, the escape of three German warships through the Channel in early 1942 was a strategic retreat by the Germans, and three fast warships speeding through the Channel in a matter of hours is hardly the same as attempting to land troops from hundreds of converted river barges on a hostile shore over eight days and nights without the protection of a surface fleet.
2
-
@waynepatterson5843 Very good. Add the total number of boats up, and it will give you twenty seven. As I said in my earlier post. Furthermore, 17 of these were Type IIs, which carried 5 torpedoes each, and were of the same type which were lost in the Channel without achieving anything in late 1939.
Clearly, you don't have access to the Royal Navy 'Pink List' for 16 September, 1940. If you even knew what this document was, you would know that it listed the location and operational state of every RN major warship, and was produced fortnightly. It was, in effect, the Order of Battle of the Royal Navy. A similar one, by the way was produced for minor vessels.
The List does indeed given the names of over 70 light cruisers within five hours of Dover, and the others further away to which I have already referred, and which I won't repeat. Would you like me to provide you with the name of every vessel?
There was no need for escorts for the Home Fleet, because firstly the Home Fleet already had destroyers with it, as I haver previously stated, and secondly the Admiralty did not intend to send the Home Fleet further south than its base at Rosyth unless the Kriegsmarine sent heavy ships in support of Sealion, which wouldn't have happened because, as we now know, there was only one operational German heavy ship available at the time. If, of course, you consider a heavy cruiser to qualify for this description. Why, by the way, would the Admiralty seek to sink barges with 15 & 16 inch guns, when 4.7 inch, 4 inch, & 3 inch quick firing guns are far better suited to the task?
Perhaps you should read the books I recommended, as you don't seem able to give any sources of your own?
2
-
@waynepatterson5843 You are getting desperate, mon Brave! Firstly, the mine barrages were never possible. For every German minelayer, there were at least 20 British minesweepers, as I have already mentioned, I believe. Add to that the nightly British destroyer patrols from Plymouth & the Nore, and you really are in considerable difficulty.
As the coastal convoys were important to the British, as they delivered essential coal supplies for domestic & industrial use, pray explain why your wonderful batteries simply didn't do precisely as you romantically suggest, and place pre-registered concentrations in front of the route these little colliers would take, in order to stop them? Do you really, by the way, believe that a RN destroyer flotilla, hastening to attack an invasion convoy of towed barges, would be deterred by SPLASHES?
You have just made three posts of increasing irrelevance. Why not just give up and go elsewhere?
2
-
@waynepatterson5843 Do you deal entirely in irrelevancies, or is it that you simply cannot understand what is relevant and what isn't? You have referred to one freighter damaged, an unarmed liner bombed in mid-Atlantic, and a number of similar attacks on unarmed merchantmen by Condors. Don't you know that Condors were only ever effective when attacking lone merchantmen and that, once defensive armaments were fitted, they were ordered not to carry out such attacks, as they were too vulnerable to be risked, and too valuable as reconnaissance aircraft?
I have already answered your question concerning RN destroyer availability by referring to the RN Pink List. I have a copy, whereas you don't, and my copy deals with the critical period for any attempted invasion. If you would like a copy, contact the British Records Office at Kew. The Public Record Office reference is ADM187/9.
By the way, your source seems to think that all the cruisers in Home Waters were attached to the Home Fleet, which in a mistake the badly or inadequately informed often make, as, in addition to the Home Fleet, the RN also had a number of separate 'Commands' in Home Waters.
If you are interested, and you may wish to keep this as part of your education, cruisers in Home Waters on 16 September, 1940, were :-
Scapa Flow :- 2 heavy cruisers and 2 light/AA cruisers.
Rosyth :- 3 light/AA cruisers.
The Humber :- 3 light cruisers.
The Nore :- 2 light cruisers.
Portsmouth :- 1 light cruiser.
Plymouth :- 2 light cruisers.
Firth of Clyde :- 1 light cruiser.
In addition, there were also 6 heavy and 5 light cruisers repairing, refitting, or completing in various British ports. There was also a Dutch light cruiser, operating as part of the RN, under repair.
The names are all available if you ask nicely!
2
-
@waynepatterson5843 Odd how people tend to become abusive when they run out of credible arguments. Still, I have already posted details of the actual number of minesweepers elsewhere. Read the book I recommended for further information. As to minelaying, aircraft mines can only be laid in shallow waters or estuaries, and in September 1940, the Kriegsmarine had precisely seven destroyers capable of minelaying, and nine auxiliary minelayers. Perhaps you would explain precisely how these ships would avoid the nightly RN destroyer patrols. I have asked before, yet oddly you haven't responded. You still haven't, by the way, explained why your guns did not use these techniques against the convoys or even, years later, why they were not used against the D-Day flotillas.
You seem to have adopted the standard response of the Sealion 'would have' enthusiast, in that you confidently assert that 'this is what the Luftwaffe (or Kriegsmarine, or whatever) would have done' but are rather short of credible arguments when asked exactly why they didn't 'do it.'
Incidentally, in the whole of WW2, the Luftwaffe sank 31 destroyers, or less than half the number available to confront the Sealion barges and their tugs within five hours of them being observed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@soulfella1 I cannot really answer your post in detail as it is largely incoherent. You make a reference to June 1940, then start writing about Pedestal. What connection is there?
Just to correct the sections I can understand. Operation Pedestal ended on 15 August, 1942. Ohio was helped into port by the destroyers Penn, Bramham, & Ledbury. Brisbane Star, Melbourne Star, Port Chalmers, & Rochester Castle also reached Malta. Pedestal was attacked at various times by axis aircraft, submarines, and light surface units. The Italian surface fleet was not committed.
The Atlantic convoys were never halted, and the 40 (actually 50) US four stacker destroyers were not part of lend-lease, but pre-dated it, and were part of a 'ships for bases' agreement.
2
-
2
-
@kickassandchewbubblegum639 As Abe Lincoln said, 'Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt.' Good advice for you to consider.
In 1940 , the Germans had a small number of DFS 230 light assault gliders, capable of carrying nine lightly equipped men each. Commercial aircraft were already under military control. A Ju52 could accommodate, at most, 18 paratroopers. Once the first wave landed, the British know where they are, and are able to respond.
By September, 1940, the British had considerable forces in place capable of dealing with a small number of lightly armed paratroops, who would have lacked transport, artillery or armoured support, and had no hope of relief.
Please, please! buy a book about Operation Sealion and read about the reality, rather than simply indulging yourself in bizarre fantasies.
2
-
@kickassandchewbubblegum639 Tell me when Churchill said what you claim. You might also explain why, if Churchill really did think that, he sent a troop convoy, with three full armoured regiments, and supporting AA, AT & Field Regiments, to North Africa in mid August, 1940? If think you are about to be invaded, would you really send your best equipped troops, and half of the total number of your most battleworthy tanks (the Matilda II) to another Continent? Don't believe me? Then read about the 'Apology' convoy, which sailed on 22 August. I did refer to this earlier, but it appears you chose to ignore it.
I am not, by the way, interested in what 'everyone and his mother said.' I have read the archives from the time (both the British & German ones) and, like the vast majority of my colleagues writing on this subject today, I know that an invasion was never a real possibility as long as the Royal Navy held total naval supremacy in the Channel.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh, dear, a victim of the indoctrination which has replaced education in many places.
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis.
The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't want to believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
2
-
Nonsense. 'France, Holland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Czechosolvakia, Poland, and Norway' had been occupied. There were no Indian, South African, or Rhodesian, troops in Britain in 1940. The only Commonwealth troops were one Canadian Division, and two Australian & New Zealand Battalions.
2
-
Except that Operation Barbarossa changed the face of the war beyond recognition. Actually, the idea that Britain was 'hanging on' is rather overdone. In May 1941, the RAF had over 50 squadrons of fighters and fighter bombers carrying out regular sweeps over Northern France, and the level of monthly sinkings, which Doenitz believed needed to reach 600,000 tons per month, only once exceeded 200,000 tons between July & December, 1941 once, and in three of those months was below 100,000 tons.
2
-
Yet, apart from one Canadian division & two Australian/New Zealand brigades, there were no Commonwealth troops in Britain in 1940. In the event of an assault landing, however unlikely it might have been, it would be the British who, almost entirely would be the ones who resisted it.
Encouragement from far away, whilst good for morale, would not have helped much. There were 574 Commonwealth & Foreign pilots in the Battle of Britain, and 2353 British ones, by the way.
Moreover, you greatly exaggerate the importance of the Battle of Britain. After all, if the Germans had achieved a temporary measure of air superiority, all that they then needed to do was find a way past the largest navy in the world for their towed barges.
2
-
2
-
@peterbreis5407 Where 'one eyed jingoism' is concerned, I confess that I am not in your league. Just to correct one or two of your basic errors, Australia actually declared war on Germany on 3 September, 1939. There was no war in the Far East until the end of 1941. What would you have suggested that the Australian armed forces should have done other than that?
Yes, Australia paid for British equipment and ships. Shouldn't Australia, just like New Zealand and Canada, have contributed to the maintenance of their own military?
Were you to actually look up the war records of such well-known Australian warships as Canberra, Australia, Hobart, Perth, Sydney, & Stuart, you would find, probably to your surprise, that all, after some served in the Mediterranean prior to Pearl Harbor, had been returned to Australian waters, actually before December, 1941.
Indeed, after Pearl Harbor, all but one Australian division was returned. The 9th, by the way, was returned after 2nd Alamein following an agreement between FDR & Churchill that a US division would be sent to Australia in the interim. As the ships transporting the other Australian forces back to Australia were overwhelmingly British, as were their escorts, Churchill, supported by Roosevelt by the way, believed that the unfolding crisis in Burma was of greater immediate concern. Actually, he was probably correct, as only those with limited knowledge of the distances and logistics involved could ever have viewed Australia as threatened by any Japanese invasion. Certainly, Tojo's testimony after the war had ended confirmed that Japan had never held such ambitions.
Correct, the Yugoslavian merchant fleet was returned to Yugoslavia at the end of the war, just as those of Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Greece were also returned. Not to Tito personally, by the way. Josep Tito was, for good or ill, Prime Minister of Yugoslavia at the time. Again, what would you suggest should have happened to the fleet?
'Canada, New Zealand and South Africa' like Australia, made sacrifices in order to defeat Germany, Italy & Japan. In terms of military deaths as a % of national populations, however, somewhat less than the sacrifice that Britain made.
When Australia is deeply mired in a bizarre 'Voice' campaign, accusing others of being 'self obsessed' is, I assume, your attempt at humour, and how is Brexit possibly relevant to events which ended almost 80 years ago, and about which you seem to have little actual knowledge?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just as you fail to acknowledge that pilots from the Dominions, together with a small number of pilots from neutral countries and from conquered European states, flew in British aircraft, in British squadrons, and under a British command and control system.
The Commonwealth and Empire was to play an increasingly important role as the war progressed, but in 1940 the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, together with two Australian & New Zealand brigades. In the improbable event of an attempted invasion, it would have been faced in September, 1940 by some of 34.5 operational divisions. 32.5 of those divisions were British.
Certainly shouts of good wishes from distant Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and India would have been much appreciated, but equally they would have been of little practical use against German forces landing, for example, between Rye & Hastings.
Clearly, the very idea of British resistance must upset you. You have even broken your caps lock!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, your knowledge is quite lacking. In 1940, the Commonwealth and Empire, though it later played a major role, was still far distant, although supportive. In September, 1940, of 34.5 operational divisions in Britain, all except 2 were British. Immediately after the French surrender, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian dicision and two Australian & New Zealand brigades.
There were a number of non-British pilots in Fighter Command. Other than those from Commonwealth countries, and a handful of volunteers from neutral countries, these men had joined precisely because their own countries had been occupied, and joining the British armed forces was the only way they could continue to resist their conquerors. They did, of course, fly in RAF squadrons, using British aircraft.
What 'American industrial might?' In 1940, the United States was happy to sell supplies and equipment to Britain, at the full market rate. These items were then shipped across the Atlantic in British ships, escorted overwhelmingly by Royal Navy warships.
I appreciate that the idea seems to distress you, but at the time of the Battle of Britain, Britain was, to all intents and purposes, alone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'Germany kept trying to de-escalate.' Oh dear, the plaintive cry of that sad bird, the Lesser Spotted Neo. How did Germany try to do that? Unless you count hitler's 'Last Appeal to Reason' of 19 July, 1940, aka 'Surrender or we bomb you.' Made when, after Mers el Kebir, if finally dawned on him that the British were not going to sign a French style Armistice/Surrender, and he had no means of invading.
As to the Hess comic interlude. If the intention is to seek confidential talks, do you :-
1). Make discreet approaches to British Embassies in Spain, Sweden, or Switzerland. Or perhaps even approach the United States to act as a neutral arbiter?
or:-
2). Let an unbalanced member of your staff fly to Scotland, in order, hopefully, to bail out near the estate of a minor Scottish aristocrat who might, just possibly, have the ear of Winston Churchill?
As the exam papers used to say 'Give reasons for your answer.'
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdanger3802 I always understood that was the reason for the Lee/Grant as well. The Ram itself was not particularly innovative, and many countries, Britain included, had been building turreted tanks for some time, the Vickers Medium being a typical British example, but I understood (from a conversation at Bovington years ago) that the it influenced the eventual M4 shape.
Movement of the Churchill by rail in the UK did pose me a bigger problem, which took some searching. All previous British tanks had been within the British loading gauge restriction of 9' 6" (A10 - 8'4", Matilda II - 8' 6", Crusader 9'1"). Looking at the few wartime photos. of Churchills on flat cars, they do seem to have one thing in common, in that projecting rectangular 'boxes' on the side of the vehicle near the rear, clearly visible on most photos. of the tank, appear to have been removed. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that this brought the overall width down to below 9'6".
Later in the war, as the British built Scammell tank transporters and acquired around 1,000 Diamond Ts from the United States, other alternatives to rail transport became available and the width restriction was not such a problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jebbroham1776 Aside from minor differences, the WW1 Lee Enfield and the one used in WW2 were essentially the same rifle. Moreover, the divisions had effective artillery, mechanised transport, and armoured support.
In terms of tanks, even immediately after Dunkirk, the British had 331 light tanks, 184 cruisers, and 100 Infantry tanks. By the end of August, these numbers had increased to 659 lights, 322 cruisers, and 274 'I tanks.
By September, the idea that the British were short of equipment is a false one.
'COULD Germans have landed in Southern England? Absolutely.' Sorry, but you missed a word after 'absolutely.' The word was 'not.'
The RN Pink List for September, 1940 shows some 70 light cruisers and destroyers within five hours steaming of the Straits of Dover, with around five hundred small warships in immediate support.
The Germans were going to get past this force how, precisely? With canal barges towed by tugs and trawlers, defended bt the seven destroyers and seven large torpedo boats which were all the Kreigsmarine could provide in September, 1940?
Do you really think so?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SchwarzerWolf1000 Hood was 20 years old. Prince of Wales was not worked up, more or less sreaight from the builders. Compare Bismarck to HMS Rodney, which was 15 years old in 1941.
Bismarck had weaker armour of an outmoded design. She also had a weaker weight of briadside. Specifically :-
Bismarck belt armour 12.6 inches. Deck armour 4.7 inches. Broadside 14112 lbs.
Rodney belt armour 14 inches. Deck armour 6.25 inches. Broadside 18432 lbs.
King George V belt armour 14 inches. Deck armour 6 inches. Broadside 15900 lbs.
This was (under)achieved on a displacement 15,000 tons greater that that of Rodney, and 10,000 tons greater than that of King George V.
Bismarck had around 7 knots advantage in speed over Rodney, and, arguably, 0.5 - 1 knot above that of a KGV. Her only advantage was the ability to avoid battle.
Bismarck was fortunate that PoW was little more than semi-operational, although PoW's hits did force Bismarck's mission to be abandoned, of course.
You asked for comparisons. Now you have them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The 'Battle' as the movie calls it, the Battle of El Guettar, between 23 March & 3 April, 1943, was actually inconclusive. Look it up for yourself.
At more or less the same time, 26 March, 8th Army broke the Axis defences at the Mareth Line, and slightly later, on 6 April, drove the Axis forces into wholesale retreat at the Battle of Wadi Akarit.
Odd that George C. Scott's comic masterpiece of a movie missed those details, wasn't it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xenaguy01 Whether she was a battleship or a battlecruiser (and actually her armour was on a par with that of the Queen Elizabeth Class battleships) how is that relevant?
You should view Drachinifel's examination of her sinking, in which he makes a good case for the fatal shell passing through her side, above her belt, and triggering off her four inch magazine, which in turn detonated her aft fifteen inch magazine.
Moreover, the fact of her sinking does not prove that there were any shortcomings in cordite handling. Her last Captain, Ralph Kerr, had served at Jutland, and knew what such shortcuts, within the battlecruiser fleet, could cause.
USS Arizona blew up in Pearl Harbor. Does that 'prove' that her codite handling was deficient? Of course not. So why do you think this applies to HMS Hood?
2
-
@xenaguy01 Changes to cordite handling practices were instituted in the Battlecruiser Fleet within days of the Battle of Jutland. That is a simple fact,. There is nothing to prove. Simply read the RN's archives in Kew Gardens, where the National Archives' are kept.
It is relevant, because you falsely claimed that the practice remained in use in battlecruisers. As no RN capital ship acted in such a manner after Jutland, how the ship was defined was totally irrelevant.
Indeed, I did say that only battlecruisers followed the practice. AT JUTLAND, and not later. Didn't you read my comment in full?
'Therefore, I BELIEVE that Hood followed this procedure.' Isn't that the nub of the issue?' You simply want to believe it, even though you have no evidence to support that belief. It isn't up to me to prove something that didn't happen didn't happen. It is up to you to provide evidence that it did.
But, of course, you can't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No. One Canadian division was in Britain, and, indeed, briefly in France until General Weygand told Alan Brooke that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance, and the Reconstituted BEF was withdrawn.
By September, there were also two Australian & New Zealand Brigades in Britain. All but two of the 34.5 operational divisions at that time were British.
Of course there was a Commonwealth, and it played an increasingly significant role, but not as early as 1940, when, by & large, it provided staunch, but rather distant, support.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dwight4626 'Do you think we would have won without the Yanks ?' Actually, it depends what you mean by 'won.'
Moreover, we would certainly not have been invaded, and therefore we wouldn't now be speaking German. We had the largest navy on earth, and from June 1940 onwards the British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, and especially in fighter aircraft. This video is about 1940, by the way, when the US were selling supplies and equipment at market rates.
You probably don't know this, but FDR viewed Land-Lease, when it was finally pushed through in early 1941, as a means of buying time until the US had begun to re-arm. It was never altruistic in the slightest.
2
-
@dwight4626 Do you think that the British & Commonwealth weren't? The largest single military defeat inflicted upon the Japanese army was the defeat of their Operation U-Go, with 30,500 Japanese killed and a further 23,000 hospitalised. The victors, by the way, were the Anglo-Indian XIV army.
The US navy, of course, was able to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific because the Royal Navy fought, and won, the allied campaigns in the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdanger3802 Still replying with odd irrelevancies, I observe.
However, you might wish to refer to V. E. Tarrant's's 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1918-1945' for a detailed analysis.
Coastal Command are credited with 196 sinkings, US Naval & Army Aircraft with 86, other allied navies with 17, other causes (mines, scuttling, accidents, internment, collisions, and unknown losses) 119, and bombing in ports or shipyards, also 84.
Oh, and US Navy 48.5. Royal & Royal Canadian Navy 257.5.
Total 808.
Do explain the relevance to the Battle of Britain?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bizarre how confused people like you can be. Churchill (and Herbert Kitchener) saw Gallipoli as a means of using sea power to avert the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Had you actually read a book on the subject, rather than simply a 'Churchill was a bad man' manual, you would have found that Kitchener had been asked by the Russian General Staff if the Allies had some means of reducing Ottoman pressure on Russia's southern flank.
Thus, Gallipoli was suggested as a means of :- 1). Responding to the Russian appeal. 2). Encouraging neutral Eastern European states to join the alliance against Germany, Austria-Hungary, & Turkey. 3). Perhaps even knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war.
Churchill put the idea to Herbert Asquith, who (not Churchill) actually authorised the Operation, after which Churchill, nor any other politician, had any part in the planning or execution of it. When the campaign failed, Asquith needed a scapegoat, which was Churchill'
Narvik was rather different. It was an Allied attempt to support Norway after the German invasion, intended to enable at least part of Norway to remain unoccupied, but perhaps more importantly, to prevent German freighters using Narvik as a means of transporting iron ore to Germany when the Swedish ports were iced up in winter. In fact, it might well have worked, at least in denying Narvik to the Germans, had not the expedition been withdrawn following the Blitzkreig on the Low Countries and France.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The subject under discussion is the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WW2. Don't you understand that? I would have thought that there was something of a clue in the title.
Whilst the Commonwealth and Empire later played a significant role, as early as 1940 most of it was providing moral rather than actual physical support. In September 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Earlier, in June, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. Had the Germans attempted Sealion, after securing control of the air from Fighter Command, which consisted overwhelmingly of British pilots, then the ground troops facing the landings would have been almost entirely British.
Not to worry, though, because the British Royal Navy was more than capable of dealing with the ramshackle collection of barges which the Germans intended to use.
It seems you don't like the actual facts of 1940, so you have invented new ones.
2
-
The subject under discussion is the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WW2. Don't you understand that? I would have thought that there was something of a clue in the title.
Whilst the Commonwealth and Empire later played a significant role, as early as 1940 most of it was providing moral rather than actual physical support. In September 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Earlier, in June, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. Had the Germans attempted Sealion, after securing control of the air from Fighter Command, which consisted overwhelmingly of British pilots, then the ground troops facing the landings would have been almost entirely British.
Not to worry, though, because the British Royal Navy was more than capable of dealing with the ramshackle collection of barges which the Germans intended to use.
It seems you don't like the actual facts of 1940, so you have invented new ones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brianjones5379 '25 countries were helping in some way.' Hardly.There were a small number of individuals from other countries, and from the Commonwealth. They flew in British aircraft.under British command, and following a British air defence system. There was not one European country 'helping in some way' and whilst the Commonwealth and Empire did play a major role later, in 1940 it was still building up for that effort.
In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain deemed operational, 32.5 were British. There were Commonwealth troops in Britain, but only one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. The only Indian troops were a single division in North Africa, with the Western Desert Force facing the Italians.
In the event of an attempted Sealion, good wishes from far away would not help to defeat it. However, the possibility of such an invasion was small, given the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy in Home Waters.
That too, by the was almost entirely British, apart from a small number of Canadian and Free French destroyers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@waynepatterson5843 The American defeat at Sidi Bou Zid, between 14 & 17 February, was inflicted by 5th Panzer Army, commanded by Von Arnim. Kasserine, between 19 & 24 February, including Thala, by the way, was the only time, apart from 6 March at Medenine, when defeated by 8th Army, that 10 Panzer was directly commanded by Rommel. By Mareth, 10 Panzer had returned to 5th Panzer Army, Rommel had departed for pastures new, and von Arnim was owner of the poisoned chalice.
If you seriously wish to believe that Rommel established the 'new Panzer Doctrine' by the way, then feel free. Presumably, you haven't heard of Heinz Guderian? It is self-evident that you don't actually know what most German generals actually thought of Rommel's abilities, an example being Von Rundstedt, whose nickname for him was 'Marshal Laddie.' Incidentally, Rommel's book on Panzer Tactics was never completed, and only exists in scattered, manuscript, form. Someone should have told George C. Scott.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Please try to understand. Apart from a small number of aircrew, one Canadian division, two understrength Australian brigades, and around 5,000 New Zealanders, the defence of Britain in 1940 was left almost entirely to the British people,
The Royal Navy was entirely British, apart from a small number of Canadian destroyers, and in September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@anthonynicholich9654 If there was no Channel then the whole history of the British Isles, and Europe, would have been entirely different. Precisely because of the Channel, England/Britain evolved as a sea power, with a large navy and a tiny army, which in effect was little more than an Imperial police force or fire brigade, ferried around to trouble spots as and when they occurred, by that navy.
Had there been no Channel, England/Britain, would, perforce, have needed to create and maintain a large army, if only because of the perpetual threat from France. In other words, she would have been far more of a continental power, and far less of a naval power. Much like France, in fact.
I hope that is clear, although your immediate resort to insults rather suggests that it will not be?
'They did not establish air supremacy so what makes you think they would have without the channel being there?' Where did I write that? As your magical removal of the Channel is merely a fantasy, you should expect a rational response, even if you cannot cope with one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Of course Britain (and France) wanted the industrial might of the US as allies. Who wouldn't?
If Germany wanted Britain & France to remain neutral, wasn't invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, not the most obvious way of demonstrating her peaceful intentions?
'By mid-1940, The Wehrmacht was redeploying troops to Poland for Operation Barbarossa.' Hardly, until September, plans for Sealion were still being progressed.
I don't think any part of the British Empire regarded themselves as 'Slave States.'
Britain & France didn't go to war in 'defence' of Poland. The Treaty with Poland simply said that, if Germany invaded Poland, they would declare war on Germany.
Oh, and an 'iron oar' would sink.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hpw many Commonwealth troops were in Britain is September,1940, when an invasion might have been attempted? Actually, one Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. Of 36.5 Divisions in Britain at the time, 34.5 were British. You could look this up if you wanted.
'Countless thousands of Europeans?' Really? French troops lifted out of Dunkirk had mostly returned, and those Polish troops who arrived did so without equipment, and were re-armed by the British.
The Commonwealth did indeed play a significant role in the war effort, but in 1940, when this video is set, apart from the troops I have already mentioned,and a small number of aircrew, that role was largely vocal support from a distance, as they developed their war effort.
In short, would cries of 'Good luck, Britain, our thoughts are with you' from Ottawa, Canberra, and Auckland, have been of little use against several German Divisions landing on the South Coast of England. Not, of course, that the (British) Royal Navy would have allowed that to happen.
The fact that, to all intents and purposes, the British did stand alone seems to upset you. I wonder why?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@whispofwords2590 The 'Battle' as you call it, the Battle of El Guettar, between 23 March & 3 April, 1943, was actually inconclusive. Look it up for yourself.
At more or less the same time, 26 March, 8th Army broke the Axis defences at the Mareth Line, and slightly later, on 6 April, drove the Axis forces into wholesale retreat at the Battle of Wadi Akarit.
Odd that George C. Scott's comic masterpiece of a movie missed those details, wasn't it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Doodle1266 Well, certainly your facts are confused. In the engagement in the Denmark Strait, Prinz Eugen was not damaged, but Bismarck was hit three times by Prince of Wales. On hit, forward, resulted in Bismarck losing access to her forward fuel tanks, and being down by the bows, reducing her speed. Although the trim of the ship was rectified, the loss of fuel was not, and Lutjens abandoned his operation at once, heading for St. Nazaire at reduced speed. He then detached Prinz Eugen to operate independently, but PE more or less immediately developed engine problems and made instead for Brest.
On her way to St. Nazaire, torpedo damage to Bismarck's stern compartments crippled her steering and the rest is history.
Prince of Wales didn't carry torpedoes, but Hood did, although they were not used. Certainly, an undamaged Bismarck did have the speed to avoid action in the case of the QEs and the Nelsons, but probably not the KGVs. By the way, the new Italian battleships of the Littorio class were actually faster, at 30 knots, than Bismarck's 29. That did not, of course, prevent the 'relics' of the QE class from engaging them on several occasions, and generally having the upper hand. I have already explained what 'modernisation' involved where those ships were concerned. If you cannot understand, the problem is yours not mine. In point of fact, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau actually fled from the unmodified and obsolete British R class battleships deployed on convoy escort duty on more than one occasion.
By the way, the 'crappy' carrier aircraft actually sank a greater tonnage of axis shipping than any other allied type.
'She died because the commander was foolish went alone with no escort after the first engagement.' Nonsense, Had Prinz Eugen remained with Bismarck, she would almost certainly have met the same fate.
Ever thought of buying a book about the Bismarck action, and reading it?
2
-
@Doodle1266 You don't have a theory. You have a series of fantasies based on incorrect information, and your imagination.
Bismarck was well equipped with AA batteries, which were rather badly directed. Hence her inability to hit any of the attacking aircraft from either Victorious or Ark Royal. German destroyers simply lacked the range for extended Atlantic operations. Unlike the Royal Navy they had no means of refuelling. Moreover, their AA weaponry was seriously inferior to that of Bismarck.
The aircraft specially attacked Bismarck. Which is why they hit her, actually three times. Do you seriously suggest a destroyer or two could have driven off two heavy cruisers? Or heroically sacrificed herself to save the flagship?
'Assuming they could get to German waters where German air power could nullify the British aircraft carrier advantage.' A rather large assumption, given that the Royal Navy was determined to ensure that Bismarck never reached German (I assume you really mean 'Occupied French') waters.
'Bismarck would make it to Brest and be pounded by the British air force until France was liberated.' Aside from the fact that Bismarck was making for the Dry Dock at St. Nazaire, not for Brest, don't you know what happened to the German surface fleet at Brest? In early 1942, it fled back to German waters. Gneisenau never sailed again, whilst Scharnhorst's appeared in the Arctic once, to be sunk by Duke of York, and Prinz Eugen pottered around the Baltic, well away from the RN.
The hits were not minor. They obliged Bismarck to abandon her mission. Simply as that.
I wonder if your reading is restricted to comic books, as you seem remarkably ignorant of the events of Rheinubung.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@raywhitehead730 When you read of alleged historians 'reassessing' Nelson, and condemning someone born in 1874 for not having trendy 'woke' opinions (Churchill) it does indeed generate a degree of despair.
Unfortunately, the left began to take over education in Britain from the 1980s onwards, working on the old Jesuit principle that 'Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man,' and it is working.
My father slogged his way through the Second World War via Alamein, Mareth, & Salerno, before ending it guarding a prison camp for captured SS troops. He would have been horrified at the manner in which the UK has degenerated. I was fortunate, in that I completed my degree in the late 1970s, when the lecturers and tutors hadn't been brainwashed. Indeed, my own tutor, Professor MRD Foot, was the historian of MI5.
Sadly, we now see semi-educated individuals posing as intellectuals, and finding flaws in major figures of the past for not adhering to their standards. Even worse, those historians who do argue for a more reasoned examination of history are immediately 'no-platformed,' whilst the government of the day does nothing to challenge those who impose their own prejudices.
George Orwell, hardly a right wing extremist, wrote that ' “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” Sadly, this is precisely what is happening in the UK today.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jobson586 'Anything else you got to say??' Actually yes. Apart from your evident inability to understand the difference between siege guns and naval weapons, Schwerer Gustav was not available for use until 1941. Furthermore, as it needed a crew of 250 or so to assemble it, and it took three days to do this, a further 2,500 men to lay the tracks for it, and two entire flak battalions to protect it, perhaps you might explain how it might possibly have the slightest relevance to naval warfare?
You might wish to look up the following :-
40.6 cm/52 (16") SK C/34
As these were the 16 inch guns proposed for the projected 'H' class battleships, and a small number only appeared, as coast defence guns, in 1942. Such weapons were complex creations. Put in simple language, you cannot decide to build one on Monday and install it on Thursday. Evolution, in the case of SK C/34, took some eight years.
As Bismarck was laid down in July, 1936, launched in February, 1939, and commissioned for working-up from late August, 1940, I hope that you can now grasp the problem?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
People who undulge in festooning their comments with capital letters usually do so to conceal the paucity of their argument, as of course you have done.
Please try to break your indoctrination, and think, instead. You might even try to read a book or two?
The video is about the Battle of Britain, and the possible threat of German invasion. At the time, the only ground forces from the Commonwealth and Empire were one Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. In September, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British.
The Commonwealth and Empire eventually played an important role in the war effort, but not as early as October 1940.
Indian troops did serve in North Africa and Italy, but the bulk of Indian forces served in Burma. By the way, there was no conscription in India, yet 2.5 million Indians served in the allied forces. Your ill-informed comment dishonours the memory of those men.
You should take the issue up with those who indoctrinated you, perhaps?
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waynepatterson5843 Exactly which 'RN Records' does your 'order of battle' come from? You seem remarkably reticent about it, to date.
You haven't by the way, named any RN warships as yet, let alone stated where you believe that they were. I really do not propose to list the 698 minesweepers in service by September, 1940. According to Lenton & Colledge, in 'British & Commonwealth warships of World War 2' by the end of 1940, the British had the following minesweepers in service:-
Fleet minesweepers 40, Auxiliary minesweepers 57, Paddle minesweepers 39, Naval Trawlers and Drifters 49, Requisitioned trawlers and drifters, 821.
I presume you do understand precisely how large the British fishing fleet was at the time, and consequently how easy it was to mass produce auxiliary minesweepers almost literally within a few weeks? Perhaps you could obtain your own copy of the RN list for the operational status of minor war vessels for yourself from the National Archives?
If you wish to know the facts about Condor operations, I recommend 'The Rise and Fall of the German Air Force, 1933-1945.' It explains how Condors attacks reduced almost to none once merchantmen received more than light machine guns as AA weapons. However, I fail to see the relevance, unless you seriously propose trying to use Condors against the RN anti-invasion forces. Perhaps, in that case, you could tell me how many warships your Condors actually sank?
1
-
@erichvonmanstein6876 Presumably, you didn't read these earlier comments I posted?
'Hardly worth talking about. In 1940, the operational ships of the German navy consisted on one heavy cruiser, three light cruisers, and seven destroyers. The Royal Navy had some seventy cruisers and destroyers within five hours' steaming of Dover, at the same time.'
'Actually, in September, 1940, they had 63 U- boats, of which 27 only were operational front line boats, and on average 13 were at sea on any one day during the month.'
1
-
1
-
@dutchhoke6555 The Germans only had around 5,000 paratroops in September, 1940, and only just over 220 operational transport aircraft. Moreover, how long are such lightly armed units likely to survive unless quickly relieved by ground troops.
The German navy in September, 1940 was almost non-existent. All it could muster was one heavy cruiser, three light cruisers, and about a dozen destroyers and large torpedo boats. The Luftwaffe had not been trained in anti-shipping operations, and had just failed badly at Dunkirk. In fact, in the whole of WW2, it sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. The RN, by the way, had around 70 light cruisers and destroyers within 5 hours of the Dover Straits, supported by some 500 smaller warships.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lordvadar6104 'Your assessment of the Kriegsmarine's capabilities is faulty'. Actually, it is quite correct. When the Royal Navy had some 70 destroyers and light cruisers within 5 hours steaming of Dover, backed up by around 500 other smaller warships, without even calling upon the destroyers of the Home Fleet, mainly at Rosyth, the Germans were never going to defend an invasion force of barges being towed in pairs by tugs & trawlers with the seven operational destroyers, a similar number of Wolf/Mowe class torpedo boats, and a handful of minesweepers.
The FW200 might have been a useful reconnaissance aircraft, but was never capable of conversion to a heavy bomber, and the FW190 was only introduced in August, 1941.
'Had Goering stayed with the original plan of gaining air superiority over England then operation Sea lion would have taken place.' Indeed, it might have been attempted. You now need to explain how it would seek to avoid the RN, available in the strength referred to above.
'The German submarine fleet held the allied merchant marine fleet in check, the supply line from North America was severely restricted by their activities.' Aside from your exaggerated assessment of the capabilities of the U-boat fleet later in the war, you now need to explain how a fleet of 63 boats, of which 27 were operational, and, on any one day, only 13 at sea, during September, 1940, would achieve much at all of benefit to any invasion attempt.
1
-
Thank you for posting the link. It shows how indoctrinated the teaching of many schools has become in pursuit of biased political beliefs.
Just to educate you about the WW2 Bengal Famine, during WW2 around 2.5 million Indians joined the allied cause. Do you really believe that the 'white supremacist drukard pyschopath Churchill' would have allowed the famine and risked mass insurrection in India in 1943? Ask your teacher to answer that.
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't want to believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda, and clearly the indoctrination is strong in you.
In reality, colonialism in the British was almost entirely driven by trade, rather than any ambition to conquer. In 1801, the Population of Britain and Ireland was 10.5 million, and that of India was 159 million. Britain was also in the middle of a major war with the greatest military power in Europe. Do you, or the fool who wrote the nonsense you recommended, really wish to maintain the fantasy that Britain embarked, or was remotely capable of embarking, on the kind of imperial conquests that are suggested?
Cetainly, there was a belief in cultural superiority at the time. Perhaps not surprising when western explorers found in the New World, and in much of Africa societies at a neolithic level of development, and, in Australia and New Zealand a mesolithic, hunter-gatherer level of society. Such a view was not restricted to Europeans. Gandhi, when a young lawyer in South Africa, believed that Africans were an inferior form of Humanity, and should not be accorded voting rights.
Oh, and the bombing of German cities. Put simply, in words you might possibly understand, please explain why it is perfectly acceptable to kill the man who fires a shell which kills one of your soldiers, but somehow unacceptable to kill the 'civilian' who makes the shell in the first place?
In short. There are no civilians in an industrial war. Do try to understand.
1
-
1
-
@TTTT-oc4eb You are quite correct about the difference in armour between the KGVs and Bismarck. To comfirm this :-
Belt Armour : KGV 14 inches. Bismarck 12.6 inches. Nelson 14 inches.
Deck Armour: KGV 6 inches. Bismarck 4.7 inches. Nelson 6.25 inches.
( The KGVs had AoN armour, by the way. Bismarck still had the outmoded incremental system ).
Weights of broadside : KGV 15,900 lbs. Nelson 18,432 lbs. Bismarck 14,112 lbs.
Radar assisted fire control. The British system worked. The German one collapsed when the guns fired, as it did when Bismarck fired at a British cruiser.
Optical Fire Control. German fire controls were accepted as being quicker to obtain targets, whereas British ones were better at maintaining a hold on the target. As Rodney was to demonstrate. Bismarck's optical controls failed totally on 27 May, 1941.
Bismarck did have an edge of about 1 to 1.5 knots over a KGV, which would have enabled her to flee from an engagement, had her AA armament not been so inept at dealing with torpedo aircraft.
When did the alleged inferior seakeeping qualities of the KGVs ever hinder their operations, by the way?
1
-
@TTTT-oc4eb Oh dear. The thing about you Wehraboos is that you are impervious to facts. If any of the figures concerning weights of broadside or armour thicknesses are inaccurate, you are going to write to a whole host of writers and publishers, I fear.
Ok then. Bismarck's belt armour was wonderful. Totally impervious to anything. No wonder many other navys did not switch to AoN instead. Oh, wait a minute. They did.
Her deck armour was equally impenetrable. The hit from PoW which left her down by the bows and unable to utilise her forward fuel tanks, forcing her to make for St. Nazaire at reduced speed, didn't really happen, did it?
Her guns were wonderful. Even though we can never be sure as on 27 May she never, unlike Rodney, managed to hit anything. Despite her fantastic optical targeting equipment. Obviously, Rodney couldn't possible have knocked out most of her armament and her bridge in the first 20 minutes of the action. It was all propaganda spread by those British cads and bounders. Even today, many people are unaware that Rodney & KGV were both actually sunk.
'Multiple battleships got their radar knocked out by their own guns.' But surely not the invincible Bismarck and her wonder radar, after firing one or two salvoes at a cruiser? Indeed, KGV's 284 did fail as a result of parted solder. Guess what? She used her 279 instead.
You have convinced me. Bismarck did not sink, but escaped to France, to live a long and happy life as a cruise liner.
Happy now?
1
-
@TTTT-oc4eb 'Why are you even spending so much time on this?' Because I can. After a First in Modern History, I enjoyed a long career in Logistics Management, and had a number of books and articles published about my specialist field, and main interest, that of 20th Century Naval History. The royalties from those, and a nice pension, enabled me to retire early.
Since then, I have indulged myself in responding to you Wheraboos and Sealion 'Would haves' about the wonders of the German armed forces in WW2. I am sure you know what a 'would have' is? Those who pontificate about how the mighty Luftwaffe 'would have' destroyed the Royal Navy had Sealion been attempted, yet are unable to explain how less than capable the Luftwaffe actually was in hitting ships at all in 1940.
You might believe that Bismarck's armour was made of Mithril, and totally impervious to enemy shells, but survivors, such as Mullenheim-Rechberg knew differently. I wonder if you are aware of his accounts of Bismarck losing internal communications early in her last battle, or of the accounts of her being a mass of internal fires by the time she sank? Or are they just British propaganda as well?
Finally, you might account for Bismarck's total failure on her one and only mission. Sent to disrupt supply convoys, she lasted less than three weeks, and didn't even see one. Not what one would have expected of a wonder weapon, was it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
John Cornell I hadn't read that, but I have never believed that, subsequently, there was ever a 'Race to Messina' as depicted in the ludicrous movie. Certainly, there was no Montgomery-led pipe band, arriving to be humiliated by Patton (or was it George C. Scott?).
I suspect that there was some, albeit unintentional, accuracy, in the movie, however, in that it depicted events as Patton imagined them to have been, rather than as history shows that they were. Ladislas Farago's book (Patton - Ordeal & Triumph) on which the movie was based, is adored by Pattonites, but I recall reading it long ago and concluding that it was nearer to a hagiography than an academic study.
Montgomery, however, had one shameful condition which has always rendered him unacceptable to many people. He was not American.
1
-
1
-
No, it seems you have missed the point.
One Canadian division was in Britain, and, indeed, briefly in France until General Weygand told Alan Brooke that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance, and the Reconstituted BEF was withdrawn.
By September, there were also two Australian & New Zealand Brigades in Britain. All but two of the 34.5 operational divisions at that time were British.
Of course there was a Commonwealth, and it played an increasingly significant role, but not as early as 1940, when, by & large, it provided staunch, but rather distant, support.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anishachowhan9630 'Indians fought with distinction throughout the world, including in the European theatre against Germany.'
Thank you for your wikipedia cut and paste. Of course Indian troops fought with distinction in North Africa, Italy, & Burma later in the war.
But not at the time of the Battle of Britain, which this video is about.
Oh, and the Bengal Famine. Just to correct the last sentence by means of actual facts, as opposed to indoctrinator myths & falsehoods. :-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that indoctrinators won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit their agenda, but the documents and archives from the period rather contradict their allegations.
1
-
1
-
@nickdanger3802 K6, the mule handlers who operated in France, were part of the Royal Indian Army Service Corps. Professional soldiers, in other words. The Quit India movement began in August, 1942. The two events were entirely unrelated. The movement lasted for less than two months. The movement was opposed by the Viceroy's Council, the All India Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the princely states, the Indian Imperial Police, the British Indian Army, the Indian Civil Service, and many leading Indian businessmen.
2.5 million Indians fought on the Allied side in WW2, none of whom were conscripted.
At the time of the Battle of Britain, which it seems constantly necessary to remind people this video was about, Gandhi had stated his support for the fight against racism and for the British war effort, stating he did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain.
Yey again, the issue of relevance arises.
1
-
1
-
@OutnBacker Submarines could be spotted if surfaced, or at a shallow depth, when sea conditions were calm, which was quite rare in the Atlantic. The role of aircraft was to force U-boats to submerge, where they were reduced from 17 knots to 4 knots, with limited duration, and then to guide surface escorts to the position. Later in the war, when the allies were able to set up specialist Support, rather than Escort, Groups, the arrival of such a group was extremely bad news for the average U-boat commander.
Proof of this is in U-boat losses. Of 638 boats destroyed at sea ( i.e., 808 less those lost by mining, scuttling, accident, or bombing in port or in shipyards), 257.5 were sunk by RN or RCN warships, 48.5 by US warships, and 17 by allied warships.
Indeed, the question referred to the whole of WW2. Wasn't the battle of the Atlantic equally a part of WW2? Arguably, a more important campaign, given that had the allies lost it, then D-Day would have been impossible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevetwede9901 Sorry, little half wit, but wasn't your first claim 'Tirpitz was more dangerous than Bismark as it had torpedo tubes' if I remember correctly? What have your subsequent ramblings about how Bismarck was sunk to do with the issue?
Perhaps you might ask a grown up to read my posts. He or she will tell you that, unlike you, I have kept strictly to the issue, which was the relevance or irrelevance of torpedoes on battleships.
However, I will divert briefly on the subject, and refer you to two experts on the wreck :-
Bob Ballard. When asked what sank the Bismarck, he replied 'The British.'
David Mearns. Who said that any attempt to scuttle would have hastened the sinking by 'a matter of minutes, only.'
Perhaps you can then explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of the use of torpedoes on battleships in WW2? Although I seriously doubt it.
There you are. Three identical replies. Perhaps the combined effect might even sink into your limited understanding. Although again, I seriously doubt it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stevetwede9901 As I wrote. To enable them to sink merchantmen more efficiently during the course of commerce raiding cruises. Cruises which, of course, never happened.
By the way, when that happened, Lutjens was dead. Your astonishing level of ignorance is quite impressive, little chap.
If I am stupid, then the battleship designers of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, & Italy must have been equally stupid. As, initially, must those of Germany, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@norshstephens2395 Oh well, perhaps your reading failed to inform you of the poor quality of AA armament, sensors, and anti-submarine weaponry which severely limited the effectiveness of Japanese destroyers.
Would you care to tell me of any occasion when a Japanese destroyer flotilla actually did sink any allied capital ship? Fantasising about what one 'would have' done to Bismarck in a wholly imaginary and incredible scenario is hardly any argument.
'The Japanese navy was the best navy in the world in 1941. Better than the British navy.' In terms of what? Certainly, the IJN had well-developed nightfighting skills. Only the Royal Navy came close, but in terms of anti-submarine warfare, the IJN was totally outmatched. Your splendid Japanese destroyers failed utterly in their attempts to protect merchantmen from the US navy's submarine offensive, unlike the success achieved by the RN & RCN's destroyers, sloops, and corvettes in the Battle of the Atlantic. In other words, the RN did all that was demanded of it in WW2. Can the same be said of the IJN?
1
-
@norshstephens2395 Apart, of course, from how a Japanese destroyer flotilla gets to the Atlantic and how, without radar, it actually finds Bismarck. Simply fantasy on your part.
Granted, the Long Lance was the outstanding torpedo of WW2, although you seem determined to gloss over or ignore its flaws, and it was only as good as the weapons systems deploying it.
23 Allied warships were sunk as a result of hits involving Type 93s and other weapons. 13 allied warships were sunk by Type 93s alone. Destroyer launched 93s sank one cruiser in the Java Sea, one already damaged cruiser in the Sunda Strait, 8 US destroyers in 1942 -1944, 3 US cruisers in 1942-1943, and one (crippled and abandoned) aircraft carrier in 1942.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
G.F. Howe, the official US Historian, estimated that 275,000 Axis troops surrendered in Tunisia. 18th Army Group estimated 244,500 (157,000 German). Rommel later suggested 130,000 Germans, and von Arnim 100,000 Germans & 200,000 Italians. The British official history estimated 238,243 (unwounded) prisoners, of which 101,784 were German.
1
-
1
-
@robertbennett9949 Why not give the full quotation, which sheds rather a different light on Montgomery? :- 'Personally, my whole attention was given to defeating the rebels but it never bothered me a bit how many houses were burnt. I think I regarded all civilians as 'Shinners' and I never had any dealings with any of them. My own view is that to win a war of this sort, you must be ruthless. Oliver Cromwell, or the Germans, would have settled it in a very short time. Nowadays public opinion precludes such methods, the nation would never allow it, and the politicians would lose their jobs if they sanctioned it. That being so, I consider that Lloyd George was right in what he did, if we had gone on we could probably have squashed the rebellion as a temporary measure, but it would have broken out again like an ulcer the moment we removed the troops. I think the rebels would probably [have] refused battles, and hidden their arms etc. until we had gone.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EQOAnostalgia Using your skill and judgement, would you be good enough to explain how invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium, all without declaration of war, shows that 'they tried to maintain peace the entire time?'
I must lack your erudition, as it really doesn't seem that way to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waelomar7065 I think it was a political, not a military, decision. In terms of Generalship, I believe Auchinleck to have been superior to Alexander. However, Montgomery, for whatever reason, detested Auchinleck, and once the first choice, Gott, had been killed, it was inevitable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do you people get so upset about the idea? The video is about the Battle of Britain period. At the time, the Commonwealth & Empire were indeed supportive, but largely at a distance. The Commonwealth had provided aircrew, but the only Commonwealth troops in Britain available to help combat a potential German invasion were one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand brigades.
In fact, in September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Perhaps you struggle to grasp the obvious, but in the event of a successful German landing on the south coast, enthusiastic vocal support from Toronto, Cape Town, Delhi, Auckland, or Sydney would have been of little practical help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh dear, another indoctrinated one! Aside from the fact that this video was about 1940 (there were no Indian troops in Britain in 1940, and only two brigades in North Africa), how exactly did 'British Colonialism' take 250 million Indian lives when the population of India in 1801 was 169 million, rising to 340 million in 1947? At the height of the Raj, there were 30,000 British Civil Servants, administrating India through the Indian Princely States, and the rapid rise in population suggests that someone was doing something right.
Oh, and the Berngal Famine. Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda with which you have been indoctrinated.
Don't you realise that you are making yourself look remarkably foolish?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@colonelchuck5590 In the case of Gallipoli, Kitchener had received a request from the Tsar' General Staff for Britain to take action to reduce the threat to Russia's southern flank. The hope was that this could be achieved by knocking Turkey out of the war, which might have also had the additonal benefit of bringing the hitherto neutral Eastern European states into the war on the allied side.
In fact, the idea was no more 'insane' than were the Normandy landings. It was, however, badly planned by the military. Ironically, after the war, Kemal Ataturk said that, had the allied navies maintained their pressure on the Dardanelles for a little longer, the Turkisn government would have crumbled.
In terms of insanity, by the way, didn't George Marshall argue for Operation Sledgehammer, a landing in France in 1942?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On land the Germans would certainly have defeated the British, just as at sea the British would have defeated the Germans. In the air, the British had been outbuilding the Germans since June, 1940, and, unlike the Germans, were building a strategic bomber force, a resource which the Germans never thought of.
Oh, and at Dunkirk, after around 100 French & Belgian divisions had collapsed or capitulated, around 210,000 British & 110 French troops were withdrawn by the Royal & Merchant Navies. Not, as you seem, rather oddly, to think, in rowing boats.
The reality of 1940 was that the two adversaries were unable to defeat each other, even when your gallant Soviets sat on the sidelines, supplying Germany with raw materials and with oil.
A year later, your Soviet heroes were to learn how that cynical deal would end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, you believe that the Germans expended over 1,800 aircraft, and around 2,500 aircrew, on nothing more than a ruse?
Just as they requisitioned and converted over 2,000 barges, over 400 tugs, 1,100 motor boats, and 200 freighters, just for the sake of something to do?
Really?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ClannCholmain Perhaps you weren't aware, but after Italy declared war in June 1940, the Mediterranean was effectively closed to Allied merchant shipping, and convoys went round the Cape.
Not that this matters, however, as, apart from a tiny number, less than 8,000, there were no Australian, New Zealand, South African, or Indian troops in Britain in WW2. The Australians were in North Africa, Malaya, and then the Far East, the New Zealanders and South Africans in North Africa, & Italy, and the Indians in North Africa, Italy, and Burma/Malaya.
The Canadians, of course, played a major role in the European campaign, and were the only substantial Commonwealth force in Britain in 1940.
Ever thought of reading a book or two?
1
-
@ClannCholmain Perhaps you haven't bothered to read the title of the Thread? It relates to the Battle of Britain. Or rather, German attempt to gain control of the air over the Channel & South Eastern England in order to establish conditions which might make a seaborne invasion possible. They were wrong of course, but not because of the size of the British Empire, but because of the overwhelming strength of ther Royal Navy in home waters. By the way, where did you get the number 164 for destroyers from? The correct number is 193.
Indeed, the Royal Navy was the largest in the world in 1939-40. I didn't actually mention the Italian navy, as that wasn't what concerned the British in 1940. They simply concluded, sensibly, that to send troopships or merchantmen through a Mediterranean which at the time was dominated by the Italian Air Force was not wise. Hence, troop and supply convoys from Britain went round the Cape, rather than through the Med., and troop or supply convoys from India and the Far East docked at the southern end of this Canal.
Here is an easy question for you. Please tell me, from your evident encyclopaedic knowledge, the convoy number of any Brirtish convoy which passed through the Suez Canal during WW2? Should be a simple task for someone of your intellect.
1
-
1
-
@ClannCholmain So, it appears you now admit that I didn't refer to the Italian Navy after all. I will take your apology as read. In point of fact, I wasn't thinking of the Italian Navy, as Cunningham's fleet in 1940 was quite capable of escorting convoys through the Med. in the face of it. My concern, which was also that of the British at the time, was the Regia Aeronautica, at a time when the British had few aircraft resources in the theatre. That was why convoys went round the Cape.
I observe that you haven't supplied the convoy details. Of course you can't, as there weren't any, but you have chosen instead to ramble on about brexit to cover your obvious ignorance. You do not have any idea what my views might or might not be on that particular subject, and nor is it relevant to the question at issue.
I am not seeking to do myself any favours. I have simply presented you with a series of indisputed facts, which you have neither the knowledge nor the intelligence to challenge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benthekeeshond545 The German navy had four battleships, and the Italian navy seven. The German havy had six heavy cruisers, and the Italian navy seven. The Japanese navy had 12 battleships, and 18 heavy cruisers. The combined German & Italian navies were, in size, almost the same as the Japanese one. How many German & Italian large ships, by which I mean heavy cruisers and upwards, were sunk by carrier-based aircraft? Actually, one. In harbour at Taranto.
Presumably, you don't accept the Battle of the Atlantic (won largely by the escorts of the British & Canadian navies) the naval war in the Mediterranean (won largely by the British Mediterranean fleet) or the naval war in the Arctic (won by the Royal Navy) as part of the 'naval war of WW2' which you apparently view as won entirely by carriers from the US.
As I wrote, you have a Pacific-focussed view of WW2 naval warfare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@waynepatterson5843 Oh, well, Guderian then :-
'Rommel's sad experiences in Africa had so convinced him of the overwhelming nature of Allied air supremacy that he believed there could be no question of ever moving large formations of troops again. He did not even think that it would be possible to transfer panzer or panzergrenadier divisions by night.'
'It is nevertheless a matter of considerable regret that Rommel failed to understand the need for possessing mobile reserves. A large-scale land operation, which in view of our hopeless inferiority on the sea and in the air offered us the only chance of success, he held to be impossible and he therefore neither wanted nor tried to organize one. Furthermore, at least at the time of my visit, Rommel had made up his mind where the Allies would land. He assured me several times that the English and American landings would take place in the coastal area north of the mouth of the Somme; he ruled out all alternative landing-places with the argument that for such a difficult and large-scale sea crossing the enemy, for supply reasons alone, must seize a beachhead as close as possible to his principal ports of embarkation. A further reason was the greater air-support that the enemy could give to a landing north of the Somme. On this subject, too, he was at that time quite impervious to argument.'
I did try to find out Manstein's views, but Manstein didn't seem to think Rommel important enough even to mention in his memoirs.
The rest of your post doesn't justify your apparent insistence that Rommel was in any way relevant to el Guettar. He had direct command of 10 Panzer, as I have said, for a few days at most, and his book on infantry tactics was hardly relevant to the development of any sort of Panzer Doctrine. Do you really think that 10 Panzer was in any way influenced by him, or that von Arnim slavishly tried to follow some sort of imaginary plan dreamed up by Rommel for el Guettar. Perhaps you do, or at least feel the need to convince yourself. If so, simply parroting a whole list of dates and formations really isn't either effective or credible.
As to 10 Panzer, do you not perhaps consider that, as part of Army Group Centre in Russia between June 1941 & April, 1942, it might possibly have developed some combat skills which were not those imbued in it by Rommel during the short period during which he indirectly commanded it, although as part of a larger force?
Still, if you have an odd need to cling to a belief that, in some mysterious manner, Patton defeated the ghostly spirit of the Desert Fox, fair enough.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What influence did Churchill have? He was not in government between 1929 & September, 1939. If Germany didn't want war, wasn't invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, & Belgium, all without any declarations of war, an odd way of demonstrating peaceful intentions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ClannCholmain Actually, in WW2, France suffered 217,000 military deaths, from a population of 42,000,000. Or 5.1%. I haven't, by the way, included the 38,000 French troops killed whilst serving in the German army.
If you seriously think that 3.25 million French military personnel were killed or wounded in WW2, then you are really not in a position to accuse anyone else of 'making stuff up'.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tirpitz was not in commission, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau were both damaged & in Brest, Hipper was undergoing an extended refit in Kiel (until November), Lutzow/Deutschland had been badly damaged by HMS Spearfish in April, 1940, and major repairs were not completed until June 1941, after which trials were necessary, and Scheer had just completed a raiding voyage which had begun in October, 1940, and was refitting until July/August, 1941.
U-Boats were likely, with surface speeds not much more than half those of Bismarck & Prinz Eugen, to have been little more than a hindrance to Lutjens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jimmydb I won't waste my time arguing with you. Tirpitz was not declared operational until January, 1942. You do know the difference between a ship being commisioned and one becoming operational I hope.
USS Washington , for example. Commissioned on 15 May, 1941. Began builder's sea trials in August 1941, but was still working up in February, 1942, and did not join TF 39 until 26 March, 1942.
Or Bismarck herself.. Commissioned 24 August, 1940. Began sea trials on 15 September, 1940, Returned to Hamburg to complete fitting out on 9 December, 1940. She then completed final addition work in January, 1941, before exercising with Prinz Eugen until early May, 1941.
Every book ever written on the subject will confirm the above. If you lack the ability to understand these facts, then that is your problem, not mine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dusfitz Bismarck was launched in February, 1939, commissioned in August, 1940, and completed her Baltic sea trials in May, 1941. She was sunk on 27 May, 1941. Why not simply look it up?
I agree that there was a training cruiser sunk in Truk in 1944. She was crippled by aiecraft from YORKTOWN, INTREPID, BUNKER HILL, & COWPENS. Then apparently finished off by USS Iowa.
Sinking a crippled training ship is hardly an engagement to rank with Surigao Strait, I suggest. Any destroyer or light cruiser would have been more than adequate.
Now, if you can find any major sea battle involving any Iowa, thewn tell me about it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnlenin830 It appears that many of your earlier posts are no longer on the thread. Either they have vanished, as does sometimes happen, or they have been deleted, which I am not alleging.
As I recall from my deleted posts:
1). 'The United States declared war on Germany on december 11, 1941, but the second front in Europe was opened only in the summer of 1944.' Define 'Second Front.' A quarter of a million axis troops surrendered to the Western Allies in Tunisia, where the US had being fighting since November, 1942. Subsequently, the Western Allies fought a long campaign in Italy from early July, 1943. The US Army Air Force had been in action against German forces from July, 1942, and the Navy before that.
2). 'The USSR did not "supply" Germany, but received from it what was necessary for the future war.' Untrue. You obviously hadn't heard of the 1940 German-Soviet Commercial Agreement.
3). 'The United States declared war on Germany on December 11, 1941.' Misleading, in that you failed to point out that this was a response, not a choice. The US neither expected the German declaration, nor was prepared for it. Your incomplete statement, at the very least, implies that the US had been preparing such an act for some time, when this was manifestly not the case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ghsense2626 Actually, in 1939 the RN had as more carriers than the US Navy. Other than that, the nearest carrier which might potentially have been hostile was 13,000 miles away.
How did the British struggle with a few German ships? Graf Spee was sunk on its first voyage, Bismarck was sunk on its first voyage, Deutschland & Admiral Scheer made one raiding voyage each, Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were both damaged off Norway, made one raiding mission together, then fled through the Channel. Gneisenau never appeared again, Scharnhorst was sunk the next time she appeared, and Tirpitz remained a Fleet in Being for the whole of her career. Half of the total German destroyer force was destroyed in two battles in Norway, and the Germans also lost three of their eight cruisers there, and had a fourth permanently crippled.
Oh, and the Royal & Royal Canadian Navies won the Battle against the U Boats.
You seem to see naval warfare in WW2 solely in terms of the Pacific. Have you not noticed how, in the West, carriers were an element within a fleet, not the heart of it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps Germany should not have invaded, without declaration of war, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium & the Soviet Union, then?
Having tanks drive over your property, bombers bombing your towns, and soldiers shooting your people, might tend to annoy the mildest of countries.
1
-
In 1940, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian Division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. In the unlikely event of German troops actually landing, their landing would be opposed by forces overwhelmingly British in composition. Of 34.5 divisions in Britain in September, 1940, 32.5 were British.
The Commonwealth & Empire played an important part in WW2, but not in the defence of Britain in 1940. Good wishes from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, & India at the time might have been appreciated, but wouldn't have helped much materially.
'And Britain has since reneged on it's promises to all that people of Empire.' You mean the promises of self-government & independence? I thought both had been granted. Did I miss something?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikhailv67tv Well, to give one example, after the breakout from Anzio, Truscott, the American commander, expected his units to drive east, in order to cut off the retreating German 10th army. Truscott was appalled to receive orders from Clark to head north, in order to take Rome, but reluctantly obeyed. As a result, the open city of Rome fell to Clark, who was able to enter it in triumph, but the 10th army escaped. The Date? 4 June, 1944. Clark knew what was about to happen in Normandy, but wanted his day in the sun before Italy was removed from the front pages. He got it, but in so doing extended the campaign in Italy by nine months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iansneddon2956 Earl St. Vincent's statement to the House of Lords in 1801, 'I do not say, my Lords, that they will not come. I only say, they will not come by sea,' still held good in 1940.
Or, as the remarkably named C-in-C at the Nore, Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Earle-Drax, remarked, rather less elegantly 'To defeat the invasion force, we need gunfire and plenty of it.'
The fact that the Royal Navy Pink List from 16 September, 1940, shows some seventy destroyers and light cruisers within five hours steaming of the Straits of Dover suggests that his wish might well have been granted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tjhodge201 I really don't care whether you disagree or not, as your actual knowledge and understanding seems rather limited.
Two aircraft carriers built to the early 1930s design that was the Graf Zeppelin, equipped with unsuitable aircraft converted from land based designs? The Bf 109, even the version intended for carrier use, for example, had an undercarriage so frail that it made the FAA's Seafires look like robust carrier aircraft. How many deck landings in Atlantic conditions could a Bf 109 have survived?
Italian ships? Have you actually read anything about the record of the Italian navy in the Mediterranean? Moreover, have you heard of Gibraltar? How would your Italian ships get past that?
Submarines as escorts? Give me strength. The best surface speed a WW2 U-boat could make was 17 knots. A Bismarck, or a theoretical Graf Zeppelin, could manage 32. Basically, you would simply hamstring the operations of the surface ships. Trying to operate submarines in conjuction with surface fleets was attempted, unsuccessfully, by the RN with their 'K' boats in WW1, and as parts of a trap, by the High Seas Fleet, equally unsuccessfully.
You have a very Pacific centred view of naval warfare in WW2, even though you don't apparently know the name of the Yamato. In the west, RN carriers operated as part of a balanced fleet. Moreover, almost all the German warships sunk in WW2 were sunk by surface ships or submarines. Certainly, that applies to Graf Spee, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, and half of the German destroyer force.
1
-
1
-
@tjhodge201 'Imagine if Graf Zeppelin and Italy had completed both their carriers in 1939 or 1940.' You don't seem aware of the faults in Graf Zeppelin's design & conception, or you simply feel the need to ignore them. Actually, the building of Graf Zeppelin was halted in April, 1940, and only briefly resumed in mid 1942, before quickly being abandoned again. The ship ended the war as a floating timber store./
Aquila. Don't be silly, and read a book or two. Work on converting Roma into Aquila only even began in November, 1941, after the disastrous (for the Italian navy) battle of Matapan.
Explain how Midway has any relevance at all to the war against Germany & Italy? Especially since the US, Britain, & Japan all had experience of naval aviation, whilst Italy and Germany had precisely none.
1
-
@tjhodge201 'One last thing the fact both nations were taking valuable scarece resources trying to build Aircraft carriers and not more Bismarcks proves my point.' Are you a totally fact free zone, little chap? As I wrote earlier, Graf Zeppelin was cancelled in 1940, before work was recommenced, then almost immediately cancelled, in 1942. The German laid down the keels of two 'superbattleship,' the H class, immediately before the war, before cancelling them in September, 1939.
Aquila was only even commenced in late 1941.
Your ignorance is, frankly, pheonomenal. The last Deutschland was laid down in 1933, after which the Germans actually moved on to battleships, the Scharnhorsts and then the Bismarcks. How exactly would Deutschlands, with cruiser level armour and speeds of 28.5 knots, have acted as 'protection' for anything?
Bismarck was damaged by a battleship, further damaged by an aircraft carrier, then sunk by two more battleships. Tirpitz was sunk by long range land based heavy bombers using a weapon which was inconceivable in 1939. Yamato was sunk by aircraft from several carriers, whilst on a suicide mission, and the bulk of damage was done by torpedoes, a weapon not even available to the German airforce until mid 1942.
Ask yourself this. How many British battleships were sunk by axis aircraft, even when operating in the enclosed waters of the Mediterranean with minimal air support?
Perhaps you are unaware that the naval war of WW2 was not confined simply to carrier engagements in the Pacific?
Or perhaps you are simply unaware of history.
Whichever it is, why not go away & buy a book on naval actions in WW2?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanstevens2722 The axis historically struggled to maintain the forces that they had in North Africa, and these were far smaller than those required, even theoretically, to attack the Middle East. Italian supply convoys were regularly intercepted by the RAF & the Royal Navy, and particularly by submarines and the Fleet Air Arm.
Moreover, where would the supply ships actually come from? Most of the Italian merchant marine was trapped outside the Med. when Mussolini suddenly declared war, and the Germans could hardly help with their own small merchant fleet, which could not get through the Straits of Gibraltar.
A limited amount of supply could be transported by air, but no heavy equipment such as trucks or tanks, and maintaining an army entirely by air is highly improbable, as rhe Luftwaffe was to demonstrate at Stalingrad.
1
-
@LosPeregrinos51 'Can you explain their contribution to the Battle of Britain please?' They had nothing at all to do with the Battle of Britain, of course. But they would have had everything to do with the defence of Britain had German forces been able to land. That, mon vieux, is their relevace to the price of eggs.
Moreover, of 2937 aircrew listed with taking part in the Battle of Britain, 302 were from the Commonwealth, and 293 from other countries. 595 of 2937 is not actually a quarter.
'Was that Britain "standing alone"?' Actually, yes it was, as these men were supplied with British aircraft, and flew under British command. Moreover, why do you place such emphasis on the Battle of Britain in any case? Don't you really know what actually mad invasion impossible? The total naval sopremacy held by the Royal Navy throught the period, of course.
Perhaps you might explain why the opinions of your American friend of the merits or otherwise of British commanders are even vaguely relevant? You do know, I assume, that the Steve McQueen character in 'The Great Escape' was entirely fictional, and was added to help market the movie in the United States? You didn't? Oh well, never mind.
Simply posting insults rather than responding to my facts hardly supportd your case.
As my old Professor, M. R. D. Foot, was wont to say, 'When people resort to insults, it is generally because they lack any arguments.' You might bear that in mind?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnlenin830 Actually, the Germans declared war on the US, not vice versa. The United States had been supporting and supplying the enemies of fascism at a time when the USSR was actively supplying the fascists. Furthermore, the first US ground troops saw action in Tunisia from November, 1942, alongside British & Commonwealth troops. Immediately thereafter, they saw action again in Europe, from July, 1943. At the same time, the Western allies were producing and delivering large quantities of military aid to the Soviet Union.
Over to you. Please provide details of the support the Soviets gave to US & Australian forces in the Pacific, or to British and Commonwealth forces in Burma. It shouldn't take you long!
1
-
@johnlenin830 Indeed, the US responded to the German declaration of war, which doesn't alter the fact that Germany declared war first.
The United States Army Air Force began offensive operations against Germany in July, 1942, and their involvement in the Battle of the Atlantic actually predated the German declaration of war. There was, realistically, nowhere in Europe where their ground troops could be committed, because, as you are probably aware, Germany, with the benefit of raw materials and food supplies provided by their Soviet comrades, had already conquered France.
Indeed, the USSR was not at war with Japan, but the US & Britain were. You still seem to view WW2 in terms of ground fighting on the eastern front. Don't you perhaps grasp that there was rather more involved than that, or will you seemingly ingrained prejudice not permit the broader view?
'The very existence of the USSR was threatened.' Just as that of Britain had been in 1940, when the Germans were receiving large quantities of supplies from their new Soviet best friends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Old? like Nelson & Rodney, the two most powerful battleships in western waters at the time, or Kigh George V & Prince of Wales, brand new capital ships much better armoured than the Bismarcks, or even Warspite, Valiant, & Queen Elizabeth, all of which had been extensively modernised from the late 1930s.
Certainly, Prince of Wales withdrew, but after inflicting sufficient damage on Bismarck to force her commander to abandon his mission and run for France.
The British saw the Bismarck sortie as a rare opportunity to destroy a potential threat to the convoy system, which was what they did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iansneddon2956 They could, but the German intention was that the cruisers would form part of Operation Herbstriese, a diversionary operation involving the three cruisers, a gunnery training ship, four liners, and eleven freighters, which would steam up and down the British East Coast between Newcastle & Aberdeen to suggest that a landing was intended there.
This was intended to distract the Home Fleet, and prevent it intervening in the Channel. The irony, of course, was that Admiralty anti-invasion planning did not include the heavies of the Home Fleet in any case, unless German heavy ships seemed about to intervene. The British at the time of course did not know that only one heavy cruiser was operational.
Moreover, the bulk of the Home Fleet had been moved to Rosyth (two battleships, one battlecruiser, three light cruisers, and seventeen destroyers). All were faster than the freighters that the Kriegsmarine intended to use, if not the liners, so if Herbstreise appeared, Sir Charles Forbes might well have been more than a little interested.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rosesandsongs21 Thank you for telling me what Douhet's theory was. It isn't as if I didn't already know all about it, is it?
It doesn't actually matter whether he was right or not. The fact is that in the 1930s people like Le May, Goering, Trenchard, and, later, Harris, believed that he was, and that air superiority was the way to win any future war. You may have the advantage of hindsight and moral outrage. They didn't.
You cannot, by the way, claim that the air campaign pursued by the Allies did not shorten the war. This is simply something you wish to believe in support of your rather comfortable moral outrage. Do you even know precisely how many resources the Germans wasted from 1942 onwards relocating arms factories to underground locations or out of the way rural sites? How many aircraft were withheld from the front lines in an attempt to counter the Anglo-American bomber forces, how many heavy guns were similarly held back as anti-aircraft defences for German cities, and how many troops were needed to operate them?
I assume you don't. Still, be happy in your smug judgemental outrage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LocoCoyote Except the German surface fleet didn't actually achieve much. Graf Spee was an insignificant diversion at a time when the Allied navies had more than enough resources to deal with her. Hipper had one brief, moderately successful, sortie in early 1941. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had a similar degree of success in March, 1941, and Bismarck/Prinz Eugen failed in Operation Rheinubung. After that, the surface fleet either stayed safely out of harm's way (Tirpitz) or failed when it did briefly appear, in the cases of Lutzow, Hipper and, later Scharnhorst.
The U-boats, by the way, were nowhere near as effective as those of WW1 had been, and certainly did not come anywhere nearly as close to success as they had done in 1917.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@QuantenRitter The only significant damage done to Prince of Wales was a shell which passed through her compass platform, killing some of the bridge personnel, but not her captain. She was indeed hit seven times by Bismarck & Prinz Eugen. However, none of the shells actually exploded, and there were no hits on her main or secondary armament. You can easily check this from the many sources on Operation Rheinubung, had you the will.
The damage done to Bismarck had left her down by the bows and had reduced her speed. Moreover, Lutjens had not expected to encounter any British capital ships in the area, as Luftwaffe air reconnaissance had failed to notice their absence from Scapa Flow. It is doubtful that Bismarck had the speed to close with Prince of Wales, but in any case, Lutjens was more concerned with getting to St. Nazaire for repair, and could not even be sure that, as Hood & Prince of Wales had come as a complete shock to him, there were not other British heavy units in the vicinity.
'Probably Prinz Eugen could have finished her off alone.' That it the most idiotic & ignorant remark on the subject I have read for some time, and it is not worthy of further comment.
Just read a few accounts of the engagement rather than wandering into the realms of wehraboo fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit your agenda.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Followme556 The 50 destroyers, for which Britain paid, only became operational, with British or Canadian crews, well after the Battle of Britain had ended. Britain had to carry out extensive refits on them. Any other items, including aircraft, were also paid for, and had British crews.
There were 2927 pilots accredited as flying with Fighter Command in the Battle of Britain. Of these, 574 were not British. If you can name any nation fighting alongside Britain in 1940, other than Commonwealth ones building up their forces but still at a distance, please try.
To argue that Britain was not alone is as false as claiming that Britain & America supported the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War because of the International Brigade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AaronKelly-s8l No. France & Britain declared war, as they warned they would, because Germany invaded Poland. India declared war because it was part of the British Empire, whilst Canada, Australia, & New Zealand did because, as independent Dominions, they chose to express their allegiance to their mother Country.
Neither France nor Britain declared war in defence of Polish independence, but as a last attempt to avert a wider European war by blocking further German military aggression. Germany and Japan subsequently expanded the war, Germany by declaring war on the United States, and Japan by bombing Pearl Harbor.
Nor did Britain, or come to that the United States, Canada, or France, 'let the USSR occupy Poland.' That was already a fait accompli.
Either you are astonishingly ignorant of a few facts, or you are simply a crazed neo. I don't really care which.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JeffDoerr Oh dear! An immediate resort to insults. Oh well! Aside from the fact that any such hit has a degree of good fortune, as well as a degree of skill, involved, you haven't explained how it was that the Fleet Air Arm had previously scored disabling hits on two Italian heavy ships in the Mediterranean.
The point about the Swordfish was that, in the prevailing weather conditions in May, 1941, no other torpedo bomber in existence, American or Japanese, could even have got off the deck of a carrier in the first place. Moreover, you can hardly blame the Swordfish for the ineptitude of the German AA defences. All those wonderful, state-of-the art, weapons, and all unable to hit a cow's backside with a frying pan!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1