Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

  1. The RAF Roll of Honour recognises 2927 pilots of all nationalities. Of these, 139, or 4.75%, were Polish.
    1
  2. Yet you presumably are happy to live in and benefit from the society those men gave their lives to protect?
    1
  3. No, it wouldn't. The best the Germans might have achieved would have been a measure of control over the airspace over South Eastern England, within the range of their fighter aircraft. Fighter Command would have been withdrawn to bases north of London. This would probably have been temporary because, as early as June, 1940, the British were outproducing the Germans in aircraft, and especially in fighter aircraft. Even better, Operation Sealion might actually have been attempted, and the towed barges, without surface ship escort, would have encountered the 70 or so Royal Navy light cruisers and destroyers based within four hours steaming of the Straits, followed by the 500 or so smaller supporting warships. Better still, the annihilation of the troops in the Sealion barges might even have brought about a political crisis in Germany itself.
    1
  4. Actually, I thought she did have some knowledge of the subject. The other two were, at best, box tickers reading from a script.
    1
  5. Sorry to quibble, but the Miles M.20 prototype first flew on 15 September, 1940, and the second (a potential Fleet Air Arm variant) on April, 1941. Isn't that rather late for the events under discussion?
    1
  6. Only one of those three 'historians' had any knowledge that was in any way relevant.
    1
  7. That is the catch. You have to pay for part 2.
    1
  8.  @behemothirl3  You first need to explain how a German seaborne invasion attempt, without a naval escort, could even hope to get past the Royal Navy's anti-invasion preparations. Good luck with that!
    1
  9. Well out of range of Allied air cover.
    1
  10. Unless, of course, your forebears had been executed, or died as slave labourers?Would have been quite so good then, would it?
    1
  11.  @cmd7930  Perhaps you might try explaining to the French, Dutch, & Belgian slave labourers how lucky they really were?
    1
  12. ​ @cmd7930  You need to look more closely into your own history. More than 500,000 Dutch citizens were forced to work in Germany during WWII. More than 30,000 perished through hunger, sickness, maltreatment and acts of war. You might also consider this 'chilled' approach of the nazis towards the Dutch?:- The Nazis had cut off food supplies to the western part of The Netherlands in retaliation for the exiled Dutch government supporting the Allies. Some twenty thousand people died and 4.5 million were affected by the direct and indirect consequences of the famine, which took place from November 1944 through May 1945. You do know that the RAF actually used Lancasters to drop food supplies into the Netherlands at the same time, I hope?
    1
  13.  @tonyjames5444  Well, I am a full-time historian, so you might consider reading my view. Firstly, the Norwegian campaign demonstrated two things. The first was that air power could influence a land campaign in a manner that sea power could not. The second was that air power could inconvenience naval operations but couldn't, in 1940 at least, prevent them. As Stephen Roskill wrote of Norway 'It is very far from being a triumph of air power over sea power. In spite of the total absence of air cover, short nights, and perfect weather, I do not think any essential sea or landing operation has not come off. And escort vessels, solitary & stationary in fjords, have been constantly maintained.' Secondly, dive bombers did not 'play havoc' with coastal convoys. Certainly one CW8, suffered 8 losses from a combination of S boats & Stukas, on 25/26 July. These convoys, from Southend to St. Helens Roads, comprised small colliers and coasters, moving very slowly. Between 1940 & 1944 there were 531 convoys (both CW & CE, the same route in reverse), involving 9097 ships. In total, 31 ships were sunk, not all in convoy & not all by air attack. Similarly, of FN & FS (River Thames to Firth of Forth) there were 3584 convoys, involving 104,792 ships, of which 203 were sunk by a combination of factors. In other words 0.34% of the CW/CE traffic, and 0.19% of the FN/FS traffic. Havoc? Thirdly, the Mediterranean. By January, 1941, the Luftwaffe, belatedly, had realised the need for training in anti-shipping operations. Even so, the Royal Navy was still able to prevent reinforcements reaching Crete by sea in May, destroying one convoy and forcing a second one to turn back. Fourthly, the Russian fleet, usually immobile in harbour, is not relevant.
    1
  14.  @tonyjames5444  Which naval historians talk about the successes of the Ju87s off Norway, and ABC, the Admiral who was impressed by the strike on Illustrious, also believed that the threat from air attack was not as great as some, such as Charles Forbes, believed. I have read ABC's autobiography, by the way. I notice you have posted about Crete. I have already answered part of this, but the other point to consider is that the bulk of the RN losses came when, once again, Cunningham's fleet was obliged to carry out a desperate evacuation with, as usual, no RAF air cover. The difference between this and Sealion (apart from the 6 months time period) being that, operating against the Sealion barges, the RN's anti-invasion forces, operating close to their bases, were free to operate at speed, and not tied down by the need to load escaping troops.
    1
  15.  @tonyjames5444  I am quite good at disputing incorrect conclusions, however honestly held. Which 'findings' were these then? You do know that, when told by Wavell that he should abandon the evacuation of Crete, ABC said 'It takes the navy three years to build a ship, and three hundred to build a tradition. The evacuation will continue.'
    1
  16. The difference being that there was water between them and Britain, and the Royal Navy held total supremacy of that water.
    1
  17. But did extremely badly at Dunkirk.
    1
  18.  Min Tin  Why?
    1
  19. Look at a map. The Channel Islands were not defensible from Britain in 1940. Any attempt would have resulted in the virtual annihilation of the civilian population.
    1
  20. How did they do that, exactly?
    1
  21. Not as long as the Royal Navy held supremacy over the Channel.
    1
  22. Nonsense. Marshall's ludicrous arguments for a 1942 or 43 landing in France would have led to disaster. The British wanted to ensure that the landings would be attempted when success could be more or less assured. If American ground troops were to see action in the west in 1942, where else other than North Africa was an option?
    1
  23. Finland didn't have 22 miles of sea, protected by the largest navy on earth, between them and their enemy.
    1
  24. If by that you mean that Churchill did not want the landings in France to take place until success was virtually assured, then you are correct.
    1
  25. How would 'clearing the Mediterranean' have been to proterct the Empire? The fact is that in 1942 the British were in North Africa in serious strength, and had been since the war began. If US ground forces were to see action in the west in 1942, where else could it be, given that, other than in Marshall's imagination, an attack on the French mainland was impossible? After the campaign in North Africa had ended, wasn't Italy the obvious next step?
    1
  26.  @justandy333  The British didn't pursue 'battlecruiser type ships.' They were evolving a hybrid battleship/battlecruiser type, the Admirals which were, at least in the case of the one completed vessel, Hood, far more of a fast battleship. Hood, for example, had battleship level armour, with the speed of a battlecruiser. After, the Nelsons & the KGVs had superior armour to any other capital ship except the Colorados.
    1
  27. By August, 1940, the British had sent a troop convoy to North Africa, where the British were operating A9, A10, A13, and Mark VI tanks, all British built. The first US tanks in North Africa were M3s (Stuarts) which did not arrive until late November, 1941. 'What makes you think the Germans could not have put U-boats in the channel?' They did. In late 1939 three Type IIs were sent there. Their wrecks, still encasing the corpses of their crews, are still there. The Channel was heavily mined, heavily patrolled, shallow, and subjected to strong tides and currents. In short, a death trap for your typical WW2 submersible. Repulse & Prince of Wales were sunk by aircrews highly trained in anti-shipping techniques, operating advanced high performance torpedo bombers. The Luftwaffe had not been trained in anti shipping operations, and didn't even have a suitable torpedo bomber unti mid 1942. U-boats, even in June-October, 1940, the period when the RN had withdrawn most of their anti-submarine vessels to form their anti-invasion flotillas, were not sinking merchant shipping 'left & right'. The German calculation was that it would be necessary to sink 600,000 tons per month to defeat Britain, based on von Holtzendorff's WW1 estimate. The actual figures for these months of the first 'Happy Time' were :- June 356937, July 197878, August 287136, September 284577, October 363267. In other words, only in one month did the U-boats achieved over 50% of their supposed target. In fact, in the whole of the war, the target was achieved only three time, in May 1942 (616835), June 1942 (636926), & November 1942 (802,160). Moreover, at the time of the invasion threat, the Germans simply had too few operational boats to have a decisive impact. In August & September 1940 there were 27, of which 13 were at sea, on average, per day. Octobers average was 12, Novembers 11, and Decembers 10. January 1941 saw a reduction to 8. As a number of these boats were small Type II 'canoes' unsuited to Atlantic operations, the Germans colud never hope to approach von Holtzendorff's target. Certainly, even at the height of the German campaign, it never remotely approached the successes of the unrestricted warfare of 1917.
    1
  28.  @oil3616  Actually, the Suez Canal wasn't important. British convoys didn't use the Mediterranean for obvious reasons. They came and went via the longer but safer Cape route.
    1
  29. It puzzles me how supposedly sensible people can claim that the two events are connected. Rather like claiming that, had Louis XIV won the war of the League of Augsburg, Picasso might have been Holy Roman Emperor, and just as daft.
    1
  30. What benefit did the British get out of the sinking? Please explain.
    1
  31.  @Arltratlo  No. The US didn't declare war for another two years, and only then because the Germans re-introduced unrestricted U-Boat warfare in desperation. How did the British benefit from t the loss of a prestigious liner?
    1
  32.  @Arltratlo  MY lack of understanding? In the words of a famous tennis player, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS! Why don't you explain to me, in simple language, what benefit the sinking of Lusitania was to Britain in 1915?
    1
  33.  @Arltratlo  The Germans abandoned unrestricted submarine warfare because of the reaction in the United States. This was because, even though Lusitania was a legitimate target, the fact that Germany would attack such a target was both unexpected and, by the standards of 1915, considered barbaric. If the 'British will always fight to the last US soldier!' how is it that, to use WW2 as an example, British military casualties were higher, as a percentage of total population than any other of the western allies? Offensive and unsubstantiated comments are hardly a substitute for argument, as you have just demonstrated.
    1
  34. The Luftwaffe didn't do well against easier 'can't miss' targets at Dunkirk. In fact, in the whole of the war, it sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. Shore Batteries? By the end of August, 1940, there were 150 medium, heavy, and super heavy guns lining the Channel coast. In the whole of the war, these damaged seven British merchantmen, but sank none. Between August & December, 1940, 1,880 rounds were fired at Channel convoys, with no hits at all. On 29 September, the monitor HMS Erebus shelled Calais. As she withdrew, she came under fire from the great Griz Nez guns, without result. On 10/11 October, the battleship HMS Revenge shelled barge concentrations in Cherbourg. Shore batteries fired at her for 90 minutes, again without result. U-Boats? In WW2, the German U-boat fleet took great pains to avoid close encounters with escorts. Now you suggest that they should deliberately seek them out? In fact, the Germans sent three U-Boats, U12, U16, & U40, into the Channel to operate against British shipping in late 1939. Their wrecks are still there. Your reference to Prince of Wales and Repulse fails to acknowledge that both were sunk by high performance torpedo bombers flown by highly trained crews. When did the Luftwaffe acquire torpedo bombers? Actually, mid 1942. In 1940 the Luftwaffe had had no training in anti-shipping techniques, and was, according to senior commanders such as Oskar Dinort & Wolfram von Richthofen, incapable of protecting the invasion, given that by September, 1940, the RN had 70 light cruisers and destroyers within five hours of the Straits of Dover, with 500 or so smaller warships in immediate support. Don't worry about the Home Guard, as the most they might have needed to do was to help bedraggled survivors from sunken barges into PoW cages. Sorry, to be so brutal, but there are a number of books from which you might have gleaned this information.
    1
  35. No, but the tauchpanzer was intended to be dropped on a barge near the landing beach.
    1
  36. Actually, attacks by one side, in order to, apparently, pave the way for an assault landing, using barges towed by tugs and trawlers.
    1
  37.  @easterworshipper730  If Sealion wasn't real, why did the Germans comandeer 159 coasters, 400 tugs, 1150 motor boats and 1900 barges, convert them, and move them to Channel ports? Why did they train nine divisions to form the first assault wave, eight divisions to form a second wave, and six divisions to form a third wave/ Why did they sacrifice 1600 aircraft and 2700 experienced aircrew for something that wasn't a 'real thing?' Or, and if there were 'attacks by both sides' why was the whole of the air fighting of the Battle of Britain over the UK? I observe that overwhelming ignorance can still be found in some people.
    1
  38. Snow has a First in Modern History from Balliol College, Oxford. You may not regard him as a 'proper historian' but most people do.
    1
  39. They would have had much greater problems getting their towed barges into and across the Channel in the first place.
    1
  40. @Studentofsweetscience Really? Then how was it that the Luftwaffe failed so badly at Dunkirk, and that in the whole of the war the Luftwaffe sink 31 RN destroyers, and no British warship larger than a light cruiser?
    1
  41. @Studentofsweetscience try again. Force Z was sunk by Japanese Torpedo bombers. The Luftwaffe didn't have any torpedo bombers until mid 1942. 'Pretty much every Battleship that went down in WW2 went down to dive bombers.' Apart, of course, from Royal Oak, Barham, Prince of Wales, Repulse, Hood, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Fuso, Yamashiro, Mutsu, Kongo, Kirishima, Bretagne, & Dunkerque, that is. 'Maybe because the British didn't leave their ships within reach without cap.' Oh, please! Just buy a book about the naval campaign in the Mediterranean.
    1
  42. @Studentofsweetscience Why should I study the war in the Pacific in order to write about the Battle of Britain? I notice you have, as Sealion 'Would Haves' always do, ignored the facts I gave you about the lacklustre performance of the Luftwaffe. If the Royal Navy 'dare not brave the Channel' why were there around 70 destroyers and light cruisers within five hours steaming of Dover, with around 500 smaller warships in immediate support. Why did both Oskar Dinort & Wolfram Von Richtofen tell their own superiors that protecting the invasion barges was beyond their capabilities? Yes, I know how many ships were sunk at Dunkirk. Actually, very few, unless you include 162 of the 'Little Ships' left behind at the end of the successful evacuation. You should read the official Staff History, and not rely on myth. 4 of 41 RN destroyers were sunk by air attack. 5 of 38 minesweepers, 23 of 230 trawlers, and 9 of 45 merchantmen by all forms of attack. One, of 26 gunboats and corvettes, was lost. Don't, by the way, believe the fantasy of the RAF at Dunkirk. For long periods, according to their own records, they were simply not present. Why, by the way, do you think battleships would even be used as evacuation vessels? You don't actually know many actual facts about Sealion, do you?
    1
  43. In view of the number of posts, it seems that many do.
    1
  44. It really didn't matter. The Royal Navy held overwhelming supremacy in Home Waters. Canal barges towed by tugs or trawlers were hardly assault ships.
    1
  45. You must be German. Thinking that a scuttled ship is not quite so sunk is an oddly Germanic thing. Hence the enthusiasm of the German Navy for the procedure.
    1
  46. Presumably, you think that you wouldn't have been either executed, or deported as a slave labourer?
    1
  47.  @jasonoreilly2795  Which would have made you a prime candidate for a slave labour camp.
    1
  48. Churchill was out of office well before the British left India, and Partition was almost entirely the result of Jinnah's demand for a separate Islamic state. Are you really so ignorant?
    1
  49. I observe that you feel the need to change the subject, little chap. Intelligent people would have known that Churchill lost the General Election of 1945, and that Mountbatten was appointed Viceroy of India by Clem Attlee in March, 1947. You must be very sad that your education has been so lacking.
    1
  50. What exactly did invading Sicily & Italy have to do with 'saving the Empire?' Tunisia fell in May, 1943. What would you suggest the massive Allied forces in North Africa should have done instead?
    1