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

  1.  @292Nigel  'The US would have had no choice but to bomb the UK in order to liberate us from the Germans.' Really? From mainland United States? In the 1940s? How would they have done that? Yes, a large number of French civilians were killed by allied bombing and allied artillery. Just as a large number of American, British & Canadian servicemen were killed liberating Western Europe after the Western European armies had failed to defend their own countries.
    1
  2.  @292Nigel  You answered your own comment. 'The Germans would have been forced to invade Ireland.' Had they overrun Britain, of course they would. It would have taken them about ten days.
    1
  3. Perhaps a little unfair, as the Aviation Historian does at least seem to know her subject. I agree with you about the other two, however, as they seem to be working from scripts.
    1
  4. 'Control the Skies, control the grounds and the seas.' Not in 1940. The Luftwaffe controlled the skies over Dunkirk, apart from a few brief periods when RAF Squadron Patrols appeared, and totally failed to prevent the evacuation. In 1940, the Luftwaffe had had no training in anti-shipping operations, and were, consequently, poor at them, not even acquiring a high performance torpedo bomber until early-mid 1942. The Royal Navy in September 1940 had around 70 light cruisers and destroyers within close range of the Channel, backed up by around 500 smaller warships, and over 100 destroyers in total in Home Waters. In the whole of the war, the Luftwaffe managed to sink just 31 RN destroyers.
    1
  5.  @mikedimarco3008  I think you mean the Anglo-French Purchasing Board, which became the British Purchasing Commission after the fall of France? The one which purchased military equipment from the US at market rates. By December 1940 British cash orders for aircraft had exceeded $1,200,000,000 with deliveries of 300-350 per month and were expected to reach 500 per month by "early in 1941." The aircraft were supplied unarmed. The Neutrality Acts actually restricted US equipment being sold to Britain, by the way. What, out of interest, did you think they did? British survival was never in doubt after, firstly, the failure to attempt Sealion, even though it was likely to have been a German disaster, and secondly, Operation Barbarossa. The US, in point of fact, was reluctantly dragged into the war after Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Please don't try to imply that there was anything altruistic about it.
    1
  6. The carriage of a small quantity of small arms ammunition has never been denied. Indeed, it was openly declared on the manifest.
    1
  7. What captured Channel Steamers & freighters? By the end of September, the Germans had managed to assemble 159 small coasters for use as transports. Which Ju52s? In late August, the Luftwaffe records show a total of 226 operational transport aircraft. Hardly Overlord, was it? Furthermore, what would persuade the Royal Navy from removing itself from the area?
    1
  8.  @pacificostudios  You are assuming that the RAF has gone, which is not an assumption which has any credibility, and one which I do not accept. The title, in point of fact, refers to defeat, not annihilation. The Battle of Britain was not a battle of annihilation, akin to Stalingrad, and the worst that might have happened to Fighter Command was likely to have been the withdrawal of 11 Group to bases north of the Thames, out of range of German fighters, in order to rest, re-equip, and reform, taking advantage of the high fighter construction figures which British industry had been generating since June, 1940. What do you think strafing and mines might have done? The Germans had precisely seven minelayers, mainly converted merchant ships, supported perhaps by a similar number of destroyers. The British, with immediate access to a huge fishing fleet, had around 400 or so fleet and auxiliary minesweepers operational in September. Moreover, the RN patrolled the Channel from Plymouth and the Nore on a nightly basis. What was likely to happen when a destroyer flotilla encountered a German minelaying operation? Destroyers had splinter protection, not armour as such. However, they were fast and highly manoeuvrable. Perhaps you might explain how it was that, in the whole of the war, the Luftwaffe managed to sink just 31 of these, as you call them, 'tin cans? ' You might also wish to address another problem. The actual German plan for Sealion, which I have read, anticipated some 11 days & nights to get the first wave of nine divisions ashore. What happens at night, when the Luftwaffe could not supply even notional support, but when the RN could operate against the barges largely unhindered? The Sealion planners had managed to assemble plenty of barges, some 1,900 in fact, but such was their shortage of tugs for these barges, which were to be towed into and across the Channel in pairs, that the planners could, using every available tug, trawler, and coaster, only include 844 barges in the first wave. There were, literally, no reserves of towing vessels. What happens when these numbers are seriously reduced when RN destroyers, cruisers, and supporting smaller warships arrive from the Nore, Portsmouth, and Plymouth?
    1
  9.  @pacificostudios  A defeat is something like Kasserine, where a defeated force is able to regroup and, subsequently, successfully respond. It should be obvious. The worst Fighter Command might have suffered was much more akin to that than to Stalingrad, which is, I assume, why the video refers simply to 'lost'. British ground forces in September were not 'weak.' The British had 34.5 divisions by then, 20 of which were deployed on anti-invasion duties. Indeed, in August the British felt so secure that they were able to send a large troop convoy to North Africa, which led to the defeat of the Italian army in Operation Compass. Perhaps you might look up the efforts made by British industry to re-equip their army during the course of the summer. Not that it really mattered, of course, because however you may wish to either deny, or ignore, it, the Royal Navy held the Channel secure beyond challenge. "What was the state of British land defence in September 1940?" Already done and included in one of my books about 'Sealion.' I suggest that I know rather more about the subject than you think you do. 'We can also presume the Germans would have landed the same airborne troops they used against the Netherlands.' You might, probably because you don't know that, precisely because of fallschirmlager losses in Norway & the Netherlands, only some 4,500 such troops were still available in September. What was called 7th Parachute Division by the Germans at the time was, actually, only the strength of a weak brigade. Moreover, there were only 220 or so transport aircraft still in operation at the same time. You think that such numbers could 'seize airfields and even smaller ports on Day 1?' Absurd! A small force of lightly armed soldiers, with no hope of relief by more heavily equipped ground troops? As one of the actual German Generals of the time remarked, when the plan for Sealion as a whole was expounded to him, 'It would be like feeding my men into a meat grinder.' As my old Professor, M. R. D. Foot, was wont to say, the one thing more tedious than someone who doesn't know his subject is someone who doesn't know that he doesn't know his subject. You appear to fall into the latter category. At least, you consistently ignore every fact or statistic with which I present you. Thus, I will no longer respond to any of your nonsense. Go away and do some reading. You may be fortunate enough to pick up one of my books or articles on Sealion, Dynamo, or, even WW2 naval matters in general.
    1
  10. They did exist. Not to cross the Channel, but, supposedly to have been launched from barges close to the invasion beaches. They were tested in a shallow lake, and used to cross a river in Russia. How successful they might have been is questionable, even if the barges were fortunate enough to evade the Royal Navy in the first place.
    1
  11.  @Crashed131963  The idea was that they were dropped from barges close to the coast. They were supposed to be sealed, with an air pipe leading to the surface, and could be driven a short distance along the sea bed. 'Minor' problems included the inability to see which way the tank was going, or to detect obstacles in the way. It seems that the designers didn't really appreciate the difference between a shallow lake or river, and the Channel. They were never expected to travel more than a short distance along the sea bed, but I suspect that even that would have been beyond their actual capabilities. The converted tanks were known as the 'Tauchpanzer III.'
    1
  12. By September, 1940, the Royal Navy had withdrawn almost all warships from the China Station, except for a handful of WW1 era destroyers. The only substantial forces not in Home Waters were those in the Mediterranean, which were Cunningham's Mediterranean Fleet and Force H at Gibraltar.
    1
  13. Think again.
    1
  14. I would have been more interested had the panel consisted of distinguished historians with in depth knowledge of the subject. One of them was, apparently, an actor, and a second had a background in African history.
    1
  15. How would the Luftwaffe have 'eliminated' the RAF? The worst case scenario would be that Fighter Command temporarily withdrew out of range of German fighters. The British were already outbuilding the Germans in terms of fighter production, and the Luftwaffe in 1940 (and, in fact, never) was nothing more than a tactical air force. Do you really think a 1941 invasion was even a remote possibility? Historically, by May, 1941, Fighter Command had 56 squadrons of fighters and fighter bombers carrying out regular sweeps over Northern France. As to where convoys would unload in the UK, actually where they historically did, in Liverpool and in Scotland, well out of the range of German fighter cover. Incidentally, what American bases and what American fighter cover, before mid 1942? The British at the time were not helpless victims, dependant on the United States for their very survival. As to U-Boats, in May 1941, there were precisely 33 operational front line boats, of which 24 were at sea on any one day, which was an increase on September 1940 ( 27 & 13, by the way), but hardly a force capable of challenging the Royal Navy in Home Waters. Moreover, historically, U-Boats tried to avoid destroyers or frigates, for obvious reasons. Certainly, by January, 1941, the Luftwaffe was better trained in anti-shipping techniques than it had been in 1940, when it had failed comprehensively at Dunkirk, leading to comments by senior commanders, most notably Oskar Dinort & Wolfram von Richtofen, that it was not capable of protecting convoys of invasion barges from the Royal Navy. As to U-Boats, to send them into the Channel is most unwise. The three which were sent in late 1939 are still there, with the result that no more were sent until 1944, and only then in desperation and with minimal effect. As to the coastal guns, by the end of August, 1940, the Germans had over 150 batteries of medium, heavy, and super heavy guns in place, and the first firings, at coastal convoys, took place on 12 August. These convoys were coded CE & CW, and consisted of small coasters & colliers. In the whole of the war, there were 531 such convoys, all proceeding up and down the Channel at slow speed. The total number of ships was 9097. Would you care to guess how many were sunk? Thirty one. Would you care to guess how many of these thirty one were sunk by coastal gunfire? NONE. In the whole of the war, your wonderful coastal batteries which would beat the Royal Navy back, actually managed to hit, but not sink, a grand total of 7 small merchantmen. Would you care to estimate how many destroyers and light cruisers were likely to succumb to these weapons? In September, 1940, by the way, the RN had around 70 light cruisers and destroyers within five hours steaming of Dover, and a further 50 or so such vessels within 24 hours. In addition, there were over 500 smaller warships in the immediate vicinity. I appreciate that Sealion 'would haves' always pontificate about what the mighty Luftwaffe 'would have' done, but are less able to demonstrate occasions when it actually 'did' it, but perhaps you should spend a little time looking at what, had slow moving trains of barges towed by tugs and trawlers, actually approached the Channel, the RN 'would have' done to them.
    1
  16. Not unless he was able to get sufficient supplies, and he was barely able to supply the army he had.
    1
  17. How exactly?
    1
  18. Pity he killed 20 million Soviet citizens to do it, don't you think?
    1
  19. As a German pilot pointed out 'The fighter is a hunter.' Tying their fighters to bomber escort duties hampered their effectiveness, but there was no realistic alternative.
    1
  20. In theory, yes.
    1
  21. You would need to define 'lost.' The worst that might have happened would probably have been the temporary withdrawal of 11 Group north of the Thames. From June, 1940, the British had been outproducing the Germans in aircraft, and especially in fighter aircraft. Even then, there might have been a positive outcome for the Churchill government, when the towed barges which the Germans intended to use for their invasion encountered the Royal Navy's anti-invasion forces, which consisted of around 70 light cruisers and destroyers, backed up by around 500 smaller warships.
    1
  22.  @vanmust  Force Z's two capital ships were sunk by torpedo aircraft flown by crews trained in anti-shipping operations. I point of fact, both ships were each hit by one bomb as well, but suffered minimal damage for the hits. By contrast, the Luftwaffe had not been trained in anti-shipping operations, and didn't even have an operational torpedo bomber until mid 1942. The Luftwaffe had just failed badly at Dunkirk, of course. Moreover, in the whole of the war, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser. Sealion enthusiasts always make terrifying claims about what the mighty Luftwaffe 'would have' done to the Royal Navy, but are never able to explain why, in the actual events of WW2, they never actually managed to do it.
    1
  23.  @vanmust  'Deadly accurate?' What happened at Dunkirk then, when the Luftwaffe failed badly? If your 'deadly accurate' Ju87s failed to hit stationary or slow moving ships, what makes you think that they 'would have' been able to hit similar ship, steaming at 25-30 knots and fully able to manoeuvre?
    1
  24. In point of fact, of around allied 2900 airmen credited to have taken part in the Battle of Britain, some 450 or so were not British.
    1
  25. Clark wasn't even supposed to take Rome. He was supposed to drive east, to prevent Kesselring's retreat, and reap the benefits of Cassino. By opting instead for his ego-trip, he extended the Italian campaign by at least nine months. My father was in Italy, and said that, whilst the British under Clark's command disliked him, the Americans detested him.
    1
  26. You would need to define what 'win' means. Feeling that they had air superiority, and attempting to launch their ramshackle invasion, was likely to have resulted in a German catastrophe in the Channel.
    1
  27. 'Packed full?' You mean the small quantity of small arms ammunition? No expedition since that time has ever found anything in the wreck site which was not on the manifest, and certainly no heavy weapons.
    1
  28.  @billyberserk7893  It was officially known on the ship’s manifest that it would be carrying small arms ammunition. As it turned out the ship carried 173 tons of ammunition which included some small arms, some artillery shell casings and aluminum powder to make explosives. The second explosion was from coal dust in an empty bunker.
    1
  29.  @ananthu8534  Isn't interesting that, as the time of Empire recedes, people with no actual knowledge of the facts start to post ludicrous ill-informed fantasies about it?
    1
  30. Really? Odd, then, that they was no invasion of Britain in 1940, don't you think? Assuming that you do think at all, that is.
    1
  31. What does that actually mean?
    1
  32. Tirpitz was bombed because she spent most of her career hidden in a heavily defended Noirwegian fiord as a Fleet in Being. She was, in May 1941, still around six-nine months away from being operational.
    1
  33. If the British had no tanks, how was it that they managed to send a troop convoy to North Africa in August, 1940, which included three Armoured Regiments? Indeed, if Britain was so defenceless, explain why the troops were even sent? Moreover, how do you propose that 'Germany would have conquered' given that the German navy at the time was tiny, and British was protected by the largest navy on earth? Was the typical German soldier of 1940 really such a good swimmer? 'No offense but you don't have a clue.'
    1
  34. Equally, it doesn't matter how many panzer divisions you have if you can't get any of them across the Channel because you don't have any craft capable of carrying them, you don't have a navy, and your enemy has a huge fleet.
    1
  35. George Orwell wrote this many years ago :- ‘England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horseracing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British’. Mr. Reynolds exemplifies the type.
    1
  36.  @dalj4362  Perhaps they might have TRIED?
    1
  37. Have you thought of the problems of conducting such an operation from a base over 2,000 miles away?
    1
  38.  @MasterWooten  But if Britain had fallen, and assuming that what remained of the British fleet was removed to Canada, there would be no re-supply bases on the eastern side of the Atlantic, and every piece of military hardware would require to be transported over 2100 miles. Nor, of course, would any theoretical assault landing have much in the way of air support.
    1
  39.  @MasterWooten  How? Which fighter aircraft in WW2 had the ability to fly 2100 miles, remain in combat for a time, and then fly 2100 miles back to base? Indeed, the US or combined US & Royal, navies could have retained control of the sea, but I know of no WW2 assault landing carried out without also having control of the air over the landing area. Do you?
    1
  40.  @MasterWooten  'BTW is it really 2100 miles from NL to the UK?; No. I apologise. You are right. In a straight line, it is slightly further. Exactly how many carriers do you think the United States had? Moreover, they were never placed in a situation where they were required to provide air cover on anything like the level that would have applied in your fantasy about an assault landing on Britain? Do you know how many allied aircraft took part in D-Day? Around 12,000. They flew over 14,500 sorties. Let's assume 85 sircraft per US carrier. You would need 141 carriers. Sorry.
    1
  41.  @MasterWooten  No. Your premise that Britain had been conquered means that Germany had no enemies left in Europe, and had access to British industry, which had great manufacturing capacity. I observe that you are now introducing a new factor, the Soviet Union. You hadn't mentioned that before. I have never been ;hung up; on Newfoundland. It was you who named Newfoundland as a staging post, not me, Greenland is 1600 miles from Britain. Precisely the same problem of aircraft range arises. 'So play with that one for a bit if you're bored.' No need to get nasty, little chap. It is far from boring, and merely a matter of moments debunking your foolishness. It is hardly a three pipe problem, as Holmes might say.
    1
  42.  @MasterWooten  Excellent. Your original post described a bid to retake an occupied Britain from bases in Newfoundland, and ignored every basic reality of naval or air warfare in WW2. At least you seem to have accepted that as the nonsense it truly was. You are wrong about German access to Britrish industry, by the way. French, Czech, & Polish industry was forced into line, largely by the threat of 'if you don't work, you won't get any rations.' I doubt Britain would not have received similar treatment. Now, you seem to have diversified into an even sillier idea, that American/Canadian/Australian forces might attack in 'the South.' That is even dafter than your Newfoundland scheme. Oh, and it isn't me presenting any silly 'scenarios.' You are the person guilty of that.
    1
  43.  @MasterWooten  German supplies for their forces in an occupied Britain did not need to come from any distance. Only from occupied France, or indeed from Britain herself. Unlike Britain, Germany had no large overseas empire, and did not need imported goods on anything like the same scale as Britain did. Thank you for making my argument for me. The campaigns in North Africa and were fought & won by the allies precisely because there was a secure base in the UK. Supply and military convoys were sailed regularly to the Middle East round the Cape, and most of the troops who fought this campaign were British & Commonwealth/Empire. Moreover, where did the troops which landed in North Africa come from? One convoy from the US, and two from the UK, with overwhelmingly Brirtish naval escorts. In your fantasy, none of the British part of this is available. In addition, the naval control of the Mediterranean, which made Husky even possible, was almost entirely British. Finally, how is any of this even vaguely relevant to the liberation of occupied Britain by forces based in Newfoundland or even Greenland? I can understand why you have dropped that nonsensical idea.
    1
  44.  @MasterWooten  Sorry, I am not masting further time with you. If you seriously believe that a liberation of Britain could have taken place from across the Atlantic, then you are not worth bothering with.
    1
  45. Simply not true. In WW2 British military deaths were 0.85% of the population. US military deaths were 0.28% of the population. By the time Germany ceased, abruptly, to be Genial Uncle Joe's best pal, the British had been fighting Germany for almost two years.
    1
  46. Apart, I assume, from those Britons who were deemed unacceptable, and gassed or disposed of in other ways, or those chosen to work as slave labourers in the factories of the Reich?
    1
  47. There is indeed lots of evidence in favour of the conclusion that it was never remotely possible.
    1
  48.  @MikeJamesJohn  Could you provide more detailed information on the whereabouts in the U.K. of these American troops in 1940 & 1941, please? What do you think is being fed to me, by the way?
    1
  49. Good to see that you feel the need to agree with your own comment. Of course the UK hadn't the manpower to mount a full frontal assault, any more than the mighty Germans had a navy capable of protecting an invasion attempt on Britain. Britain, was first and foremost, a Sea Power with a comparatively small population, but the largest navy on the planet.
    1
  50. Even so, 'What ifs' are always fascinating. Supposing, to give an American example, the Confederates had occupied Little Round Top at Gettysberg, or Lee hadn't thrown much of his army away with Pickett's Charge? Or Harold Godwinson had kept his Shield Wall intact at Hastings, and waited for reinforcements, rather than seeing his men charge down on the Normans and abandon a strong defensive position. Or Joe Stalin had become a Russian Orthodox Priest?
    1