Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "War Stories" channel.

  1. What is this nonsensical title? Patton & Rommel never faced each other in battle.
    158
  2. Next week, the sadly neglected 'showdown' between Bonaparte & Marlborough, perhaps?
    26
  3.  @whispofwords2590  Perhaps you might read about the casualties George inflicted upon his own army in his overlooked, and best forgotten, campaign in the Lorraine?
    24
  4.  @kennygottlieb3628  How would a country with no navy successfully invade an island with the largest navy on the planet?
    23
  5.  @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
  6. @John Caron As is well known, no plan survives initial contact with the enemy. In any case, El Guettar was hardly the triumph depicted in the risible old 1970 movie. It was at best inconclusive. Odd that the movie forgot the Battle of Mareth, taking place at the same time, and the Battle of Wadi Akarit, wasn'r it?
    16
  7. Then ignoring French & British warnings that they would declare war if Germany invaded Poland was an odd way of demonstrating peaceful intentions, I suggest.
    11
  8. The Channel Islands are Crown Dependencies, and not actually part of Great Britain.
    11
  9.  John Cornell  Probably for much the same reason that the people who comment so sagely about Market Garden seem strangely reluctant to address the performances of Bradley & Hodges at the Hurtgen Forest, perhaps?
    11
  10. Why this fixation with real estate? The importance of Caen was not the town itself, but the fact that it was a route centre. The requirement was that the route centre, not the town, be denied to the Germans. The result was that eight Panzer Divisions and three Tiger Batallions were drawn into the battles around Caen, (where the British & Canadians fought them to a standstill) rather than being able to counter attack the beachheads, or move westward to oppose the US forces.
    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
  12. 'Top historians?' Hardly. One knew her subject, one was an actor, and the third a specialist on African history.
    10
  13.  @KK0346  No. Bismarck was already damaged, and was trying to get to St. Nazaire for repairs.
    10
  14. Which, like most of the rest of the movie, was absolute nonsense, of course.
    10
  15.  @gilbertnadeau7181  You don't actually explain why, in your no doubt erudite opinion, Montgomery was an idiot. What exactly is wrong with a commander who assembles a numerical and material superiority in advance?
    10
  16.  @atheistmecca971  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.
    9
  17. 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
  18.  Gerry Hagen  A general who seeks to have a material and numerical advantage before attacking is wrong how, exactly? Patton's campaign in the Lorraine is indeed famous, if only for the vast number of casualties the US army suffered.
    9
  19.  @charlesmartella  But as I commented earlier, the Channel Islands were, and are, Crown Dependencies, not part of Great Britain.
    9
  20.  @KrisBurns22  You don't think that facing eight Panzer Divisions and three independent Tiger batallions might have played a part? Presumably not, given the infantile nature of your original reply.
    9
  21.  @atheistmecca971  OK. If it cheers you up, change my comment to 'a tiny navy.' It doesn't change my point about the utter irrelevance of the Kriegsmarine in 1940 and after one iota.
    8
  22.  @fanwtn5124  37 Panzer IV Specials arrived in North Africa between July & October, 1942. There were 30 operational at the start of 2nd Alamein. The F2 probably had a slight edge over the Sherman, but in October 1942 the M4 was an excellent vehicle.
    8
  23.  @malreid749  'Jerboa.' It was known as a 'Desert Rat.' This had been the divisional badge of 7th Armoured Division since it was created from the 'Mobile Division' in February, 1940.
    8
  24. Actually, Britain's (and Canada's) most crucial victory in WW2 was the Battle of the Atlantic.
    8
  25.  @ditto1958  You don't think that revising the Overlord plan and then executing it was important, then?
    8
  26. Amarican pilots? Less than ten. Canadian pilots 117. 'Alone' means in the sense of being the only nation still actively in arms against Germany in 1940, and it is correct.
    8
  27.  @King_of_Railways  You think that the Czech & Polish pilots saved Britain? Presumably the over 2,600 British & Commonwealth pilots simply sat back and watched in awed admiration, did they?
    7
  28.  @williamallencrowder361  Simply not true. Where does Tobruk come into this? The invasion beaches were decided by the locations of the Allied troops in southern England, US troops were in the South West, and the British & Canadians in the South East. Why do you think Juno was any more dangerous than Gold or Sword? If the 'leper' reference is to Dieppe, then perhaps you are not aware that Canadian troops were used because the Canadian government had complained the Canadian troops were not 'seeing action.' If they were used as 'cannon fodder' it was at the request of the Canadian government.
    7
  29. Much of what you say is valid. Perhaps the correct phrase might have been 'Britain stood almost entirely alone.' In September, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British.
    7
  30. 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
  31.  John Cornell  'Yet for some reason they would rather focus on Market Garden and blame Montgomery for everything.' I, too, wonder why that might be. But I don't wonder for long!
    7
  32. Adding an exclamation mark doesn't make a facile comment true.
    7
  33.  @atheistmecca971  Actually, in September, 1940, they had 63, of which 27 only were operational front line boats, and on average 13 were at sea on any one day during the month. U-Boats are hardly suitable for protecting invasion convoys, and spent most of the war avoiding escorts rather than challenging them. Moreover, the Channel is a most unsuitable place for submersibles. The Germans sent three there in late 1939. They (and their crews) are still there.
    6
  34. You mean like his awful Lorraine campaign, or his antics in Sicily? Would you really claim that Montgomery had no 'success & results?'
    6
  35. In 1940, aside from the EU not existing, Genial Uncle Joe was old Adolf's bestest chum.
    6
  36. Really? By the time the US arrived in WW1 the Germans had been ground down by the British blockade. The 1918 Spring Offensive had failed, and they were about to suffer the disaster that was the Hundred Days. The Allies were approaching victory before American troops even appeared on the Battlefield. I refer you to the Hundred Days. In WW2, by the time the US was dragged in as an active participant, the idea of a British defeat/German invasion had long passed. Certainly, the arrival of the US ensured a speedier German defeat than would have been possible otherwise, but to suggest than anyone 'saved' Britain is absurd.
    6
  37. Patton's 3rd Army became operational in Normandy on 1 August, 1944. Rommel was seriously wounded on 17 July, 1944 when his car was attacked by RAF aircraft. Patton's 'success' in North Africa seems to have consisted of the inconclusive skirmish at El Guettar in late March/early April, 1943, against an understrength 10th Panzer, at a time when what remained of the Afrika Korps was being defeated at Mareth, and later largely dismantled at Wadi Akarit in early April. Of course, anyone watching the ludicrous 1970 movie might be misled into believing that El Guettar was on a par with the Battle of Leipzig in importance.
    6
  38. Unlike George Patton, I suppose? Having read about his appalling campaign in the Lorraine, it seems he was content to restrict his activities to allowing his own countrymen to die in large numbers. As you like history, you might seek to read 'The Lorraine Campaign - An Overview' by Dr. C. R. Gabel. Published by U.S. Army , Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth.
    6
  39. Bismarck was dealt with on her first operation, without sinking, or even seeing, a single allied merchantman. Titpitz fired her main armament in anger once, when destroying a large shed at Spitzbergen. Other than that, she was kept safely out of harm's way at the end of a Norwegian fjord. A nuisance and a potential threat to Arctic convoys as a Fleet in Being, but a 'nightmare?' Please don't be silly.
    6
  40. What? A general who waits until he has built up a large superiority in men & material before beginning an offensive? Shameful! What was he thinking of?
    6
  41. Would you have recommended captulation instead?
    6
  42.  @atheistmecca971  The question was about the Battle of Britain and Operation Sealion, not about the Battle of the Atlantic, and the fact is that U-Boats were utterly useless in terms of providing protection for an invasion attempt.
    5
  43.  @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
  44. Almost certainly, the battle would have ended more or less as it did.
    5
  45. But, presumably, forget the other 70 RAF fighter squadrons?
    5
  46. Your obsession with Montgomery is as virulent as ever, I observe.
    5
  47. I believe that, late in the war, Eisenhower asked Bradley what sort of casualty levels could be expected if Bradley's Army Group made an effort to get to Berlin, and Bradley gave an estimate of 100,000. Eisenhower already knew the agreed post war occupation zones. Do you seriously believe it would have been worth 100,000 dead Americans, simply to take territory which would later be handed over to Soviet troops?
    5
  48.  @revolrz22  Comparing El Guettar to Overlord is simply ludicrous. Read :- 'Eisenhower and the Art of Warfare: A Critical Appraisal, by D.J. Haycock, among many other sources reaching a similar conclusion.
    5
  49.  @skippa7324  Because the nature of the campaigns in which they were engaged were also totally different.
    5
  50.  @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