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

  1. ​ @jebbroham1776  Don't be silly. How would these 'more forces' arrive, given the tiny number of transport aircraft in service? None of which could carry anything other than light troops anyway. By the way, by September, 1940, the British had 34.5 operational divisions on the mainland.
    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
  3.  @jebbroham1776  The idea of Britain being almost defenceless after Dunkirk is one of the enduring myths of 1940, in common with the belief that only the RAF stood between Britain & Invasion. In point of fact, in 1940 the British manufactured more tanks, and more aircraft, than the Germans did. The reason for this belief seems to have been Churchill's understandable determination to bring the manufacturing capacity of the United States into the war on Britain's side. Consequently, given the considerable opposition to foreign wars in the US at the time, he overplayed Britain's weakness. After all, saying 'we have the largest navy in the world, there is no possibility of Britain being conquered' would hardly have promoted the David against Goliath picture he was seeking to promote.
    2
  4. 'Her final battle?' You mean the one when she failed to score a single hit? 'Her unmatched power?' When, of course, a Rodney or a KGV wasn't around.
    2
  5.  @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
  6. No. The scariest battleship ever built was 'armoured frigate' HMS Warrior of 1861, together with her sister, HMS Black Prince. As the commander of the RN Channel Fleet was said to have remarked when first setting eyes on her when she joined his command, 'Good God! Look at that Black Snake.'
    2
  7. What peace offer? YOu neos all sing from the same sheet, but equally can never answer any question.
    2
  8.  @ClannCholmain  Do try harder. No one in 1940, except possibly Germany, was supplying the Soviet Union with anything.
    2
  9. 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
  10. Would this be before or after they had defeated the Afrika Korps at Mareth, and crushed them at Wadi Akarit?
    2
  11. As Bismarck was never ' the most feared ship ' your comment is both incorrect and infantile, little chap.
    2
  12. How long would it have take to train and equip 100,000 Channel swimmers?
    2
  13. The Commonwealth had little direct involvement in the defence of Britain in 1940, although it, and the Empire, played a significant role in the eventual outcome of the war.
    2
  14.  @nickdanger3802  'American suppliers delivered sufficient quantities of performance-enhancing 100 octane fuel to England in time for use by Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain." ' Which, of course, Britain paid for at the market rate.
    2
  15. Except that 'The British' at Jutland did nothing of the sort. No battleship in the Grand Fleet behaved in such a manner. Agreed, the battlecruiser fleet, influenced by David Beatty, did, but after Jutland the practice was immediately discontinued. There is, by the way, precisely NO evidence to suggest that that was the reason for Hood's loss in any case.
    2
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @williamallencrowder361  I presume you mean the Patton of the movie, not the Patton of history? You clearly are unaware of Bradley's opinion of his campaign on Sicily, or the US Army's assessment of his shambolic Lorraine campaign. Search for 'The Lorraine Campaign - An Overview' by Dr. Christopher Gabel, written for the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth.
    2
  19.  @williamallencrowder361  'Monty used commonwealth and allied troops for cannon fodder.' Always interesting to read the considered reasoned opinion of an intellectual. A shame that your post doesn't meet that criterion.
    2
  20. You don't actually know much about the events of 1940, or the planning & preparation for Sealion, do you. I think Mr. Kronkite's post sums you up more than adequately.
    2
  21. England? France and Britain had agreed with Poland that, should Germany invade her, then they would declare war. They never gave Poland any guarantee other than that. It was an attempt to avoid a more general European war by halting further German military expansion. Should Britain & France simply have sat back and allowed it to happen?
    2
  22. 'There are those that subscribe to the notion that Churchill had intelligence of the upcoming attack on Pearl harbour.' There are others who subscribe to the notion that both the Loch Ness monster and the Cottingley fairies really exist. They are equally deluded.
    2
  23.  @toinewitteveen6907  Then don't believe what you have been told. Just read the books instead.
    2
  24. The British called the gun the 17 pounder. The American 76mm gun was a different beast.
    2
  25.  @jacktattis  'Yes some people seem to give El Guettar equal status with El Alamein.' Alamein? That accidentally comic movie 'Patton -Lust For Glory' almost gives the skirmish equal billing with Stalingrad.
    2
  26.  @JohnRodriguesPhotographer  Then you should read more. Caen was a route centre. The intention was to prevent German armour using it to counter attack. In the event, the same result was achieved.
    2
  27. No, it isn't a fact. Bismarck was located by a Catalina, but never attacked by one, for obvious reasons.
    2
  28. Not quite the same, but the last US carrier to be lost in WW2 was USS Bismarck Sea (CVE 95) although she was named after the Battle.
    2
  29. Which American divisions were at 2nd Alamein?
    2
  30.  @johngoard8272  Nothing to google. There were no US divisions at 2nd Alamein, although US supplied weapons and equipment was very valuable.
    2
  31. The Kreiegmarine was even more seriously weakened by the Royal Navy. An airborne assault was never remotely possible. After Norway and the campaign against the Netherlands, Belgium & France, the Germans were reduced to only around 4,500 paratroopers, and had only around 220 transport aircraft still operational.
    2
  32. As I assume you know, late June 1940 until June, 1941.
    2
  33.  @georgehegarty7277  Well, anyone who replies to a post about Polish fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain with a comment about the authorship of Hamlet is certainly odd or special.
    2
  34. 'Every aircraft, tank, and military man on foot' had an Enigma Machine? I really don't think so.
    2
  35. Perhaps, little chap. But old Benjamin was a very fine musician and composer.
    2
  36. You read wrongly. USS Iowa was only launched around 15 months after Bismarck's sinking.
    2
  37. Actually, most of the German High Command appear to have had no idea who Patton was, at least according to Henrik Bering.
    2
  38.  @k5760-t5p  'was fixed quickly.' What was?
    2
  39.  @k5760-t5p  'that was just for a very very short time.' Again, what was?
    2
  40.  @k5760-t5p  There was little military support from the Commonwealth/Empire until later. In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. The only significant others were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. Financial support, presumably you mean Lend-Lease, only began in March, 1941.
    2
  41. Actually, 10th Panzer had around 50 tanks, most of which were destroyed by tank destroyer battalions. The American forces lost 22 tanks in this skirmish. I assume you mean El Guettar? Most of the German forces were at Mareth, where they were about to be badly mauled, before what remained of the Afrika Korps was more or less destroyed at Wadi Akarit.
    2
  42. How exactly was Montgomery 'a coward?' If a commander has the opportunity to go into battle with a a superiority in men & materials, shouldn't he do so?
    2
  43. No, but the title cons the ignorant into having a look!
    2
  44. But in 1940, Britain very much did stand alone. The only Commonwealth troops in Britain were one Canadian division, and three Australian/New Zealand brigades. In the, admittedly, highly unlikely, event of a German landing on the British south coast, vocal support from states many miles distant would have been of little value.
    2
  45. 'Had to abandon the French?' There were 13 divisions in the BEF, the French & Belgians had over 100 divisions. When Belgium capitulated and the French army collapsed, what exactly would you suggest the BEF should have done? Why do you believe that Force Z was on a suicide mission? Firstly, they were not sent to a war zone, but as a deterrent, and secondly, up to that time no capital ship had been sunk by air attack whilst at sea. Certainly Singapore was a major failure, but, given the British commitment to the war against Germany & Italy, the best trained and equipped British & Commonwealth troops were in Europeand North Africa. It is what happens when you have a comparatively small population and a huge navy. It is only possible to maintain a small army.
    2
  46.  @WJack97224  What was this in your first post then? 'sent HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse to a suicide mission,?' The British had the option of either using their navies to evacuate a trapped army (together with 120,000 French troops) or surrendering after the French army began collapsing around them. Seriously, if you can't remember your own comments, then there really is no purpose to be served by correcting your errors.
    2
  47. Oh look! Another neo. I expect you are word perfect on the Horst Wessel song, little chap.
    2
  48.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  Do you really think he would have taken any notice anyway!?
    2
  49. 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
  50. Then they might well have had the sense not to get involved in a catastrophic war in the first place?
    2