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

  1. Doesn't work because in 1940 both Tory and Labour politicians were, at heart, patriots. Now, and for some years past, almost all are not.
    2
  2. Because U-boats had a maximum surface speed of 16 knots, and trying to operate in conjuction with a surface fleet would have restricted the activities of both.
    2
  3. Yes, they did. But 95% of the defence of Britain in 1940 was in the hands of Britons.
    2
  4.  @joebloggs6131  If Churchill "didn't care" about other countries' losses, how was it that, statistically, British military losses as a percentage of national population were significantly higher than those of any other allied country except the Soviet Union? I think you will find that, of 2927 allied pilots listed as participating in the Battle of Britain, 19.6% were non-British. 574 0f 2927, in fact. Of the 574, 304 were from Commonwealth countries, by the way. A shame you didn't check your facts before commenting. Oh, and the Bomber Offensive had barely begun in 1940..
    2
  5.  @JayM409  Indeed. Mark Clark was able to foul things up instead.
    2
  6. 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
  7. Their Admiral was given plenty of warnings, and plenty of options. He simply refused to pass on the British ultimatum to his own government.
    2
  8.  @BrasilianZombie  So, you contend that a potention operation which was abandoned in October 1940 was really a diversion for an operation which began in June, 1941, do you? Why cite Clausewitz when he is clearly nothing more than a name to you? A suitable and relevant archive? Try the Bundesarchiv Militärarchiv, in Freiburg, as a conveniennt place to start. For a more easily accessible source in book form, you might look at 'The Invasion of England 1940' by Peter Schenk, for a detailed study of German plans written by a respected German historian. For Hitler's actual 'explicit orders' perhaps you might read Directive 16, of 16 July, 1940? I assume that you have heard of it? Possibly not.
    2
  9. Britain bombed Berlin before the outbreak of war? Try again.
    2
  10.  @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
  11. I wonder if you are aware of the average life expectancy of German surface ships at sea in WW2? That probably explains why, after mid 1941, they rarely risked it. Bismarck managed almost three weeks, I believe.
    2
  12. Do you also thank the Soviets?
    2
  13. Which, in 1940, had a non-aggression pact with Germany.
    2
  14.  @shootfirst2097  Aside from the fact that the Battle of Britain was not a decisive factor, the naval supremacy of the Royal Navy in home waters was, if you choose to believe that 574 non British pilots were the 'crucial factor' then your knowledge of 1940 is rather lacking. It appears that the fact that Britain was effectively alone during the period July -October, 1940 annoys you? Trying to re-write history does not alter the fact.
    2
  15.  @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
  16.  @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
  17. Tirpitz was a 'Fleet in Being' and such a role is never either exciting or, arguably, interesting. She actually fired her main armament in anger once, at Spitzbergen, when destroying a large shed.
    2
  18. Anderson was British, but Fredendall had direct command of II Corps.
    2
  19.  @peterwhite507  Who would have thought that von Armin was a great commander, or that his spoiling attack at El Guettar by a division which was never part of the Afrika Korps, was so important?
    2
  20. Which, of course, isn't in any way contradictory. The Commonwealth & Empire eventually played an important role in WW2, but in 1940 it was still largely unprepared for war, and was supportive at a distance.
    2
  21. Why do you people find facts so confusing? At the time of the Battle of Britain, the only Commenwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division and three Australian & New Zealand brigades. Enthusiastic support from Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa & India would not have been much help in repelling an invasion of Britain from Northern France.
    2
  22. Unless you consider the fact that, for some 15-20 years, she had been generally regarded as one of the most powereful capital ships on earth?
    2
  23. Because she was still working up in the Baltic. She was not considered operational for another seven months.
    2
  24.  @QuantenRitter  I did write that Prince of Wales was not fully worked up, didn't I? Moreover, despite her limited operational state, she inflicted more damage on Bismarck than Bismarck did on her. She was able to re-engage later the same day, after Lutjens, as a result of Bismarck's damage, had abandoned his commerce-raiding mission and was already making for St. Nazaire. You might perhaps read a few books about Operation Rheinubung, before trying to comment upon it?
    2
  25. 'A fair fight?' Do you actually know the difference between a war and a game of tennis?
    2
  26. He was interviewed not so long ago. As he is 100 years old, perhaps he simply does not wish to be pestered?
    2
  27.  @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
  28. Eventually, yes, but the reality is that in 1940 actual material help from any Commenwealth or Empire country had not arrived. Other than a small number of aircrew, one Canadian divisions, two understrength Australian brigades, and 5,000 New Zealand troops, the defence of Britain was almost entirely in British hands alone. Queen, by the way? In 1940?
    2
  29. Your medication clearly is no longer effective. Another visit to your psychiatrist is clearly necessary. Tell your carers at once.
    2
  30. My primary answer would be even shorter : RN.
    2
  31. I assume you don't know what Sherman Firefly was?
    2
  32. No, the Western Allies, together with the Soviet Union, won WW2.
    2
  33. you seem to think that fairness should apply to warfare. It doesn't.
    2
  34. The 1st Canadian DIVISION was in Britain, and landed in Cherbourg as part of the Reconstituted BEF after Dunkirk, until it was withdrawn when General Weygand warned Alan Brooke that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance, which he did on 14 June. Indeed the British did withdraw their 13 divisions across the Channel, after the 100+ divisions of the Belgian and French armies had either capitulated or collapsed. I do find you ignoramuses, especially those of you with faulty caps locks on your keyboards, extremely tedious. Why don't you just buy a book or two?
    2
  35. You don't actually seem to have much knowledge of the subject, I fear.
    2
  36. Then list her triumphs and achievements.
    2
  37. In 1940, the threat of an invasion attempt was a credible one. The only help Britain was receiving from the US at the time was paid for. Granted, the US did play a major role in the defeat of Germany, but only after being dragged unwillingly into to the war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. American 'help' as you call it, was based primarily on self-interest.
    2
  38. Ten or eleven US pilots and around 145 Poles. As to whether Britain was alone, how many other European states were allied with Britain in the summer of 1940? The Commonwealth did indeed come to Britain's aid, but in Summer, 1940, the only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, and three Australian & New Zealand brigades.
    2
  39. So, commandeering 2000+ barges, 400+ tugs, 200+ freighters, & 1100+ motor boats, converting them, and moving them to Channel ports, was a bluff? Not to mention losing 2500+ aircraft and many of their experienced crews? If you think Soviet equipment in 1941 was 'the best' you need to do a bit more reading.
    2
  40. The Royal Navy made rather short work of Bismarck in 1941, if I recall correctly.
    2
  41.  @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
  42.  @lilmike2710  Clearly, far better than you can write.
    2
  43.  @lilmike2710  Definition of 'write' from my dictionary :- 'To make marks that represent letters, words, or numbers on a surface, such as paper or a computer screen, using a pen, pencil, or keyboard, or to use this method to record thoughts, facts, or messages.'
    2
  44. Ten of 25 who took part.
    2
  45. Clark was expected to drive east from Anzio, to cut off Kesselring's retreat. In stead, he managed to get his photograph as the Liberator of Rome, and in so doing extended the campaign by nine months at least.
    2
  46. 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
  47.  @michaelwest6330  Perhaps you are unaware of what happened at the General Election of 1951? 'Read French painters art and sold them in the South of France as read.' What does that even mean?
    1
  48. Actually, he does know that 'Britain' was at war. In 1840, the Commonwealth & Empire were supportive, but not as yet where actual boots on the ground were concerned.
    1
  49.  Gerry Hagen  I am sure the Germans had 'the will' to win at Stalingrad, Kursk, or Overlord. They simply didn't have a way. If it becomes necessary to disregard known facts in order to argue a method whereby something might theoretically be achieved, then sensible discussion is reduced to childish fantasies.
    1
  50.  @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