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