Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "War Stories"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dwight4626 'Do you think we would have won without the Yanks ?' Actually, it depends what you mean by 'won.'
Moreover, we would certainly not have been invaded, and therefore we wouldn't now be speaking German. We had the largest navy on earth, and from June 1940 onwards the British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft, and especially in fighter aircraft. This video is about 1940, by the way, when the US were selling supplies and equipment at market rates.
You probably don't know this, but FDR viewed Land-Lease, when it was finally pushed through in early 1941, as a means of buying time until the US had begun to re-arm. It was never altruistic in the slightest.
2
-
@dwight4626 Do you think that the British & Commonwealth weren't? The largest single military defeat inflicted upon the Japanese army was the defeat of their Operation U-Go, with 30,500 Japanese killed and a further 23,000 hospitalised. The victors, by the way, were the Anglo-Indian XIV army.
The US navy, of course, was able to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific because the Royal Navy fought, and won, the allied campaigns in the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nickdanger3802 Still replying with odd irrelevancies, I observe.
However, you might wish to refer to V. E. Tarrant's's 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1918-1945' for a detailed analysis.
Coastal Command are credited with 196 sinkings, US Naval & Army Aircraft with 86, other allied navies with 17, other causes (mines, scuttling, accidents, internment, collisions, and unknown losses) 119, and bombing in ports or shipyards, also 84.
Oh, and US Navy 48.5. Royal & Royal Canadian Navy 257.5.
Total 808.
Do explain the relevance to the Battle of Britain?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bizarre how confused people like you can be. Churchill (and Herbert Kitchener) saw Gallipoli as a means of using sea power to avert the unfolding carnage on the Western Front. Had you actually read a book on the subject, rather than simply a 'Churchill was a bad man' manual, you would have found that Kitchener had been asked by the Russian General Staff if the Allies had some means of reducing Ottoman pressure on Russia's southern flank.
Thus, Gallipoli was suggested as a means of :- 1). Responding to the Russian appeal. 2). Encouraging neutral Eastern European states to join the alliance against Germany, Austria-Hungary, & Turkey. 3). Perhaps even knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war.
Churchill put the idea to Herbert Asquith, who (not Churchill) actually authorised the Operation, after which Churchill, nor any other politician, had any part in the planning or execution of it. When the campaign failed, Asquith needed a scapegoat, which was Churchill'
Narvik was rather different. It was an Allied attempt to support Norway after the German invasion, intended to enable at least part of Norway to remain unoccupied, but perhaps more importantly, to prevent German freighters using Narvik as a means of transporting iron ore to Germany when the Swedish ports were iced up in winter. In fact, it might well have worked, at least in denying Narvik to the Germans, had not the expedition been withdrawn following the Blitzkreig on the Low Countries and France.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The subject under discussion is the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WW2. Don't you understand that? I would have thought that there was something of a clue in the title.
Whilst the Commonwealth and Empire later played a significant role, as early as 1940 most of it was providing moral rather than actual physical support. In September 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Earlier, in June, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. Had the Germans attempted Sealion, after securing control of the air from Fighter Command, which consisted overwhelmingly of British pilots, then the ground troops facing the landings would have been almost entirely British.
Not to worry, though, because the British Royal Navy was more than capable of dealing with the ramshackle collection of barges which the Germans intended to use.
It seems you don't like the actual facts of 1940, so you have invented new ones.
2
-
The subject under discussion is the Battle of Britain, not the whole of WW2. Don't you understand that? I would have thought that there was something of a clue in the title.
Whilst the Commonwealth and Empire later played a significant role, as early as 1940 most of it was providing moral rather than actual physical support. In September 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain, 32.5 were British. Earlier, in June, the only Commonwealth forces in Britain were one Canadian division and two Australian/New Zealand brigades. Had the Germans attempted Sealion, after securing control of the air from Fighter Command, which consisted overwhelmingly of British pilots, then the ground troops facing the landings would have been almost entirely British.
Not to worry, though, because the British Royal Navy was more than capable of dealing with the ramshackle collection of barges which the Germans intended to use.
It seems you don't like the actual facts of 1940, so you have invented new ones.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brianjones5379 '25 countries were helping in some way.' Hardly.There were a small number of individuals from other countries, and from the Commonwealth. They flew in British aircraft.under British command, and following a British air defence system. There was not one European country 'helping in some way' and whilst the Commonwealth and Empire did play a major role later, in 1940 it was still building up for that effort.
In September, 1940, of 34.5 divisions in Britain deemed operational, 32.5 were British. There were Commonwealth troops in Britain, but only one Canadian division, and two Australian/New Zealand Brigades. The only Indian troops were a single division in North Africa, with the Western Desert Force facing the Italians.
In the event of an attempted Sealion, good wishes from far away would not help to defeat it. However, the possibility of such an invasion was small, given the overwhelming strength of the Royal Navy in Home Waters.
That too, by the was almost entirely British, apart from a small number of Canadian and Free French destroyers.
2
-
2