General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

doveton sturdee
War Stories
comments

Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "When The British u0026 The Nazis Fought For North Africa | Greatest Tank Battles" video.

@gilbertnadeau7181 You don't actually explain why, in your no doubt erudite opinion, Montgomery was an idiot. What exactly is wrong with a commander who assembles a numerical and material superiority in advance?
10
Gerry Hagen A general who seeks to have a material and numerical advantage before attacking is wrong how, exactly? Patton's campaign in the Lorraine is indeed famous, if only for the vast number of casualties the US army suffered.
9
@fanwtn5124 37 Panzer IV Specials arrived in North Africa between July & October, 1942. There were 30 operational at the start of 2nd Alamein. The F2 probably had a slight edge over the Sherman, but in October 1942 the M4 was an excellent vehicle.
8
@malreid749 'Jerboa.' It was known as a 'Desert Rat.' This had been the divisional badge of 7th Armoured Division since it was created from the 'Mobile Division' in February, 1940.
8
Actually, Britain's (and Canada's) most crucial victory in WW2 was the Battle of the Atlantic.
8
@williamallencrowder361 Simply not true. Where does Tobruk come into this? The invasion beaches were decided by the locations of the Allied troops in southern England, US troops were in the South West, and the British & Canadians in the South East. Why do you think Juno was any more dangerous than Gold or Sword? If the 'leper' reference is to Dieppe, then perhaps you are not aware that Canadian troops were used because the Canadian government had complained the Canadian troops were not 'seeing action.' If they were used as 'cannon fodder' it was at the request of the Canadian government.
7
What? A general who waits until he has built up a large superiority in men & material before beginning an offensive? Shameful! What was he thinking of?
6
Your obsession with Montgomery is as virulent as ever, I observe.
5
Except that a General who consistently outruns his supplies leaves something to be desired.
5
A real General who, after May, 1942, had only one victory, and that a minor one, at Kasserine. Why was Montgomery a joke, by the way?
5
Actually, if you mean a PzIII or an early mark PzIV, it did. The shortcomings of British armour at that stage of the war were down to tactics rather than equipment.
5
With more or less equal numbers, Rommel lost to Auchinleck in Crusader, and to Montgomery at Alam Halfa. Don't you perhaps consider that a commander who charges around without worrying about logistics leaves something to be desired?
5
Gerry Hagen Perhaps you could explain what happened on the two occasions I have cited. Perhaps you could provide sources which prove that Rommel always paid attention to logistics. Or are you claiming that the two occasions I have cited were not facts?
5
define 'better.' Why is a general who fails to understand the importance of logistics 'better' than one who does? The ridiculous 'dash to the wire' being a typical example. Why shouldn't a commander who has the opportunity to build up superiority in men and materials before embarking on a campaign do so? Isn't that what all commanders seek to achieve?
5
@raywhitehead730 The Suez Canal was more or less irrelevant to Britain in WW2, as convoys went round the Cape. The reason the Germans were actually in North Africa was to prop up the Italians after the catastrophe of Operation Compass. Just for information, in order to carry out an amphibious landing, it is useful to have access to landing craft, and there were virtually none in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time.
5
I'm sure we are all obliged to you for giving us your opinion. So much more interesting than the opinions of people who actually know something about the subject.
4
@shariqzafar 'I agree that his speed was too fast for the supply lines to move with him.' That is the whole point. A General who does not take into account his logistics is not a good general. There are too many examples of Rommel doing this. As to Montgomery, would you like a list of the battles this 'mediocre' general won? In contrast to Rommel, Montgomery was always well aware of his supply lines. Bonaparte was famous for saying that 'an army marches on its stomach,' and old Boney knew something about generalship.
4
Isn't it shameful that a General should build up his forces until he had a superiority in men & equipment?
4
@gabrielcalin4238 But he didn't. 'Would haves' count for nothing. Just think, Montogmery didn't attack at Alamein until he had the resources to ensure success. How shameful! Which fact doesn't change in the slightest my earlier comment about Crusader and Alam Halfa.
4
Gerry Hagen Because I have read the books. Read about his 'Dash to the Wire' during Crusader, or the 'Cauldron' at the Battle of Gazala. I am not stating an opinion, I am simply stating fact.
4
Gerry Hagen Here is a quote from one of my sources, by the way :- 'Certain modern historians, such as Larry T. Addington, Niall Barr and Robert Citino, are skeptical of Rommel as an operational, let alone strategic, level commander. They point to Rommel's lack of appreciation for Germany's strategic situation, his misunderstanding of the relative importance of his theatre to the German High Command, his poor grasp of logistical realities, and, according to the historian Ian Beckett, his "penchant for glory hunting". Citino credits Rommel's limitations as an operational level commander as "materially contributing" to the eventual demise of the Axis forces in North Africa,. Meanwhile, Addington focuses on Rommel's disobedience and struggle over the North Africa strategy, whereby his initial brilliant success resulted in "catastrophic effects" for Germany in this theatre of war.'
4
@raywhitehead730 Hardly. In WW2 British convoys did not use the Suez Canal, because of the obvious risks from axis air and naval forces in the Mediterranean. Supplies to 8th Army were invariably sent round the Cape, with few exceptions. The Middle East oil fields were undoubtedly important, but their produce, similarly, was not shipped via Suez.
4
@raywhitehead730 Official records don't differ at all. The Queen Mary did indeed steam from Scotland to Suez in Mid 1942. Via Freetown, Cape Town, & Simonstown. In other words, round the Cape, NOT through the Mediterranean. You have even confirmed this yourself. If you believe that the British used the Suez Canal for anything other than sending warships to and from the Mediterranean fleet, then please provide details of the relevant convoy movements. Certainly, Allied merchantmen were sunk by U-Boats in the Indian Ocean, but passing through the Suez Canal, and then through the Med., would have exposed them to German & Italian air attack, greater risk from German & Italian submarines, of which there were far more than ever operated in the Indian Ocean, and even a possible sortie by the Italian surface fleet. Which is why the Suez Canal & the Mediterranean were not used for convoy routeing.
4
@raywhitehead730 Might I remind you of your original comment : ' Do nothing, after all the only reason for the Germans to be in Africa was to deny the Suez Canal to Britain,' and my reply : 'The Suez Canal was more or less irrelevant to Britain in WW2, as convoys went round the Cape.' Most supply ships to Malta came via Gibraltar, although a few came from Alexandria. The convoys from and to Britain from the East went round the Cape. Military operations keeping Malta fed and armed were totally different affairs. You will struggle to find any occasion when a convoy of merchantmen used the Suez route.
4
@raywhitehead730 I haven't said that the Suez Canal was 'shut down,' only that it was not used by convoys between the East and the UK. It was used by military traffic, in particular warships moving to and from the Mediterranean Fleet. Supplies and reinforcements, like the eastern convoys, went round the Cape. In the case of military supplies and reinforcements, these unloaded in Suez, at the southern end of the canal, not at Port Said. Seriously, would you send a slow moving convoy of merchantmen through the Mediterranean in the face of German & Italian aircraft and submarines? Neither would, or did, the British.
4
@johnpeate4544 All very well, but you have failed to address Montgomery's fatal flaw, at least where certain of his critics are concerned. His birthplace.
3
Operation' Crusader,' perhaps. When Auchinleck did.
3
@JohnRodriguesPhotographer The taking of Caen was not the critical factor. The critical factor was preventing German armour reaching Normandy. Consequently, the British & Canadians ended up facing 8 Panzer Divisions and 2 Independent Tiger Battalions. In terms of the success of Overlord, Caen was a mark on a map.
3
What a pity Montgomery wasn't as modest and self-effacing as others, such as Patton or MacArthur. Indeed, his conduct remains the subject of debate. However, the overwhelming majority of it is favourable to him. He was an unpleasant, self-obsessed, individual, but he was generally protective of the lives of his soldiers, and sought to avoid committing them to battle without superiority in numbers, equipment, and supplies. He was fortunate in that he was the first British commander in WW2, on land at least, to be in such a position.
3
@nickdanger3802 Rather like giving the credit for a test cricket century to the bat, rather than to the user of the bat.
3
The British referred to Mark III and Mark IV 'specials.'
3
Montgomery defeated Rommel every time he faced him. Isn't that the prime requirement for a military commander?
3
@raywhitehead730 Which was 30 years after WW2 had ended, so isn't really relevant.
3
@raywhitehead730 For the reasons for that, you should look at Admiral Ernie King, whose Anglophobia caused him to refuse to set up a convoy system, or even press for shore lights to be turned off. Eventually, the RN & RCN sent convoy escorts to the US East Coast.
3
@raywhitehead730 Sadly, he is no longer with us. However, his database covers SL Convoys (North Atlantic), OS & KMS Convoys ( UK to Freetown) and MKS Convoys (Western Mediterranean to UK). There is also a section on Russian Convoys. None of these have any relevance to the Eastern Mediterranean or the Suez Canal.
3
@nickdanger3802 'British ideas, as embodied in the Ram, a tank designed by the Canadian General Staff, using the M3 as a starting point, also influenced the development of the American Sherman tank.' The rapid manner with which the US was able to produce a tank as battleworthy as the M4 was admirable, but part of the rapidity was because they were able to draw upon British battlefield experience. Incidentally, part of the reason the British seemed to lag behind in the production of a 'first class' tank was, bizarre at it might seem, the smaller loading gauge on British railways. It sounds odd, but it is a fact.
2
@nickdanger3802 I always understood that was the reason for the Lee/Grant as well. The Ram itself was not particularly innovative, and many countries, Britain included, had been building turreted tanks for some time, the Vickers Medium being a typical British example, but I understood (from a conversation at Bovington years ago) that the it influenced the eventual M4 shape. Movement of the Churchill by rail in the UK did pose me a bigger problem, which took some searching. All previous British tanks had been within the British loading gauge restriction of 9' 6" (A10 - 8'4", Matilda II - 8' 6", Crusader 9'1"). Looking at the few wartime photos. of Churchills on flat cars, they do seem to have one thing in common, in that projecting rectangular 'boxes' on the side of the vehicle near the rear, clearly visible on most photos. of the tank, appear to have been removed. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that this brought the overall width down to below 9'6". Later in the war, as the British built Scammell tank transporters and acquired around 1,000 Diamond Ts from the United States, other alternatives to rail transport became available and the width restriction was not such a problem.
2
@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
@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
@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
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
Would it help if I apologised for Montgomery's place of birth?
2
Clearly, you have never heard of John Churchill, First Duke of Marlborough.
2
@bigwoody4704 Odd that you should object to Montgomery being sensible enough to ensure that he had numerical and material superiority before going into battle. Are you equally critical of the other allied commanders who did precisely the same?
2
@thevillaaston7811 I have encountered him a number of times. I agree. His obsession borders on the fanatical.
2
@nickdanger3802 ???????????????
2
@nickdanger3802 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a211668.pdf
2
@christopherbeckford3102 Don't you understand that it is invariably Logistics that win battles in modern war?
2
General Patton never met Rommel on the battlefield. He did, however, meet one German Panzer Division (10th) at El Guettar, and fought an inconclusive action against it, despite what the ludicrous movie suggests. 10th Panzer was not part of the Afrika Korps. Rommel had previously had to terminate his victory at Kasserine in order to send his Afrika Korps to the Mareth Line. By the time of El Quettar, the Afrika Korps was at Mareth, where it was defeated by 8th Army. Shortly afterwards, what remained of the Afrika Korps was largely destroyed at Wadi Akarit, again by 8th Army.
2
@bigwoody4704 No confusion at all. Montgomery wasn't seeking to attack 'Rommel,' he was attacking the German/Italian 1st Army, which at the time included the divisions which had comprised the Afrika Korps. Rommel's last act in North Africa was the defeat at Medenine on 6 March, which, although Messe was in command, had been Rommel's idea for a spoiling attack. The attack was abandoned within a day, with the loss of 50 or so tanks, before Messe's army moved on to the defeat at Mareth, and disintegration at Wadi Akarit.
2
@bigwoody4704 Why do you think it matters? Montgomery won the battles of Medenine, Mareth, & Wadi Akarit in quick succession, in any case.
2
@bigwoody4704 You appear to have changed the subject from your original post, which seemed more concerned with who you claimed Montgomery thought he was fighting.
2
Operation 'Cobra' took place in the last week of July, 1944. Patton arrived in France in the first week of August, 1944. Haven't you read Bradley's opinion of Patton's behaviour in Sicily, or even an account of Patton's Lorraine campaign? After you have read these, have a look at the Hurtgen Forest.
2
Actually, they were offered to Churchill by FDR after the fall of Tobruk.
2
'A fair fight?' Do you actually know the difference between a war and a game of tennis?
2
@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
Gerry Hagen It is a shame that few people have heard of Richard O'Connor and Operation Compass.
1
@rogerpattube Even though not true.
1
@MrColussi Nonsense. O'Connor was captured in early 1941 by a German patrol. Montgomery was only appointed in August, 1942. Richard O'Connor was born, by the way, in that well-known Irish hamlet of Srinigar.
1
@nickdanger3802 My first bat was a Gunn & Moore Autograph, although I moved on to the Maestro later.
1
Montgomery was a disgrace. Imagine being a successful general, yet having the shameless temerity not to have been born in the US.
1
You clearly have never heard of Mark Clark.
1
@mikhailv67tv Well, in that case you already know the name of the most useless general of WW2. At least, in the European Theatre.
1
@mikhailv67tv Well, to give one example, after the breakout from Anzio, Truscott, the American commander, expected his units to drive east, in order to cut off the retreating German 10th army. Truscott was appalled to receive orders from Clark to head north, in order to take Rome, but reluctantly obeyed. As a result, the open city of Rome fell to Clark, who was able to enter it in triumph, but the 10th army escaped. The Date? 4 June, 1944. Clark knew what was about to happen in Normandy, but wanted his day in the sun before Italy was removed from the front pages. He got it, but in so doing extended the campaign in Italy by nine months.
1
@raywhitehead730 Which doesn't mention the use of the Mediterranean by convoys to or from the UK to/from India or the Middle East.
1
Their problem was in getting supplies to North Africa. Port facilities were poor, and Rommel, even with the comparatively small forces at his disposal, was often short of supplies.
1