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