Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
British policy was to continue the fight from Canada IF BRITAIN WAS INVADED. The supposed air superiority was of little use to a Luftwaffe which had failed badly at Dunkirk, because of a total lack of training in anti-shipping techniques. In September, 1940, the RN had around 70 destroyers and light cruisers within close range of the Dover Straits, supported by around 500 smaller warships. During the whole of the war, even after the Luftwaffe had rectified the earlier lack of training, it managed to sink 31 RN destroyers, and no British warship at all larger than a light cruiser. It only managed to acquire high performance torpedo bombers in early 1942.
Instead of pontificating about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done, perhaps you might pay closer attention to what it actually did? Or, rather, didn't do.
2
-
2
-
This, presumably, is the same Luftwaffe which hadn't been trained in anti-shipping operations, didn't (until mid 1942) even have a functional torpedo bomber, and had just failed badly at Dunkirk? The same Luftwaffe which, even after receiving proper training, sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN ship larger than a light cruiser, in the whole of WW2? The same Luftwaffe which could barely operate at all at night, when the RN could?
Just for information, the RN had just over 110 destroyers in Home Waters in September, 1940. 64 of these, supported by several light cruisers and around 500 smaller warships, were within five hours steaming of Dover.
This is 1940, by the way, not 1942-1945.
2
-
'The UK was knocked out of the war in 1940 and played no significant role in it's outcome beyond being a base for the USA.'
You mean apart from winning the naval campaigns in the Atlantic, Arctic, & Indian Oceans, and the Mediterranean Sea, planning and executing every major assault landing in the west, and at Normandy providing crews for 3261 of 4127 landing craft, providing 892 of 1213 warships, providing two thirds of 11600 aircraft, and, with Canada, providing two of every three men who landed on 6 June? Apart from that, you mean?
Oh, and inflicting massive defeats on the Imperial Japanese Army in Burma, such as 55,000 Japanese casualties when the U-Go offensive was defeated.
Please feel free to check any of the above facts to verify them for yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Wollemand ' “BoB In the air “was lost meaning: Britain had no more aircraft.' Why does it mean that? simply because you want it to? What it actually means is that the Germans have air superiority over the Home Counties. The British are still easily outproducing the Germans in aircraft, and any German bomber outside the range of fighter protection is still desperately vulnerable. Fighter Command has simply withdrawn north of London, in order to rebuild resources.
The crews of Prince of Wales and Repulse would tell you that their ships were sunk by aerial torpedoes delivered by well trained Japanese pilots flying high performance torpedo aircraft. As I explained earlier, the Luftwaffe had no such aircraft, and no such training, in 1940.
Actually, the British had re-equipped in armour so quickly that, in August 1940, they had felt safe enough to send a troop convoy including three full armoured regiments to North Africa (The 'Apology' Convoy). Moreover, it really doesn't matter how many tanks or troops the Germans have if they can't get them across the Channel.
I wouldn't doubt that the Luftwaffe 'would have' bombed the RN in the Channel. However, as they had failed to hit most of the ships collecting troops from Dunkirk when they were immobile, I would be willing to bet that, attempting to hit similar ships zig zagging at 25 knots or so, they were likely to have been even more unsuccessful. Furthermore, what happens to the invasion barges at night, when the Royal Navy can operate, and aircraft cannot?
2
-
The Royal and Royal Canadian Navies won the Battle of the Atlantic. The Royal Navy won the capaigns in the Arctic and the Mediterranean, and every major assault landing in the west, except Dragoon, was planned and largely executed by the British.
For every two US soldiers who landed in Normandy on 6 June, there were three British & Canadians, 3261 of the 4127 landing craft were British/Canadian manned, 892 of the 1213 warships were RN or RCN, two thirds of the aircraft were RAF, all three service chiefs were British, the minesweeping operation was overwhelmingly the work of British & Canadian sweepers, and the Escort & Support Groups which destroyed the attempts by U-Boats to intervene were RN & RCN, from the Western Approaches groups.
I appreciate the lack of confidence in the United States following the recent events in Afghanistan, but distorting the past to make up for failures in the present solves nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@massimomax3215 Actually, I don't need to guess, I know. I have the Official Admiralty publication, 'British Vessels lost at Sea, 1939-1945.' There were 9 destroyers (6 lost to aircraft), 7 auxiliary minesweepers (4 to aircraft), 1 auxiliary AA vessel (to aircraft), 1 armed boarding vessel (to aircraft), 1 gunboat (to aircraft), 13 trawlers & drifters ( 5 to aircraft), 2 yachts (1 to aircraft), and 1 tug (to aircraft).
The auxiliary minesweepers & auxiliary AA vessels were actually requisitioned paddle steamers, by the way. Whilst it was cunning of you to choose May & June, presumably in order to include the Dunkirk evacuation, all you have done is demonstrated quite how inept the Luftwaffe were in their failed attempts to prevent it. Thus, In May and June in the Channel, the RN lost only nine front line warships, 6 of which to were to air attack. Would you like to know the names of any of the ships, by the way? You only have to ask.
Just to give you some idea of the paucity of your argument, by September, 1940, when an invasion attempt might, just possibly, have been attempted, the Royal Navy had 182 destroyers in commission, of which 64, plus 5 light cruisers, were allocated to anti-invasion duties, together with around five hundred smaller warships. No wonder that Wolfram von Richthoven & Oskar Dinort, two of the most senior Luftwaffe commanders at the time, both said that protection of the invasion barges was utterly beyond the Luftwaffe's capabilities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Randal Gliph I must admit that this pair of scroungers aren't really high on my list of interests at the moment, but I believe that the 'Relationship' with the Royal Family is to be reviewed in the New Year.
My own view of them, which to be honest does, I suspect, concur with almost everyone else in the UK other than the Wokes & Snowflakes who run the BBC, is that they have an almost limitless sense of entitlement, which leads them to assume that they can happily exploit the 'Royal Highness' titles without accepting any of the duties and responsibilities that are involved. Even keen Republicans in the UK, whatever their views on the future of the monarchy, would not deny the Queen's almost boundless sense of duty, and the manner in which Harry & his keeper seem intent upon dragging the House of Windsor down is a source of widespread disgust.
As to Harry's attempt to interfere in US politics, I thought things like that had ceased over 200 years ago when you Colonials had the best of a rather nasty disagreement?!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Always nice to read the views of a Sealion 'Would have,' by which I mean one who pontificates alarmingly about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done to the Royal Navy in 1940.
'For proof, see what the Japanese did to the Battleship Prince of Wales and the heavy cruiser Repulse. Both were sent to the bottom by land-based bombers.' (Repulse was a battlecruiser, by the way) This is not proof at all. The ships were sunk by torpedo bombers, flown by crews trained in anti-shipping operations. In 1940, the Luftwaffe didn't have any torpedo bombers. In fact they didn't acquire any until mid 1942.
Furthermore, the German crews were trained in the support of ground troops, and had had no similar training where ships were concerned. How else do you explain why it was that, presented with targets either motionless, or moving at slow speed, at Dunkirk, the Luftwaffe failed comprehensively to halt the evacuation?
Indeed, how do you explain why, in the whole of the war, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN ship larger than a light cruiser? To put this in perspective, in September, 1940, there were around 70 RN light cruisers and destroyers within five hours of Dover, supported by around 500 smaller warships. There were over 40 more RN destroyers in home waters, by the way. I haven't mentioned the heavy ships of the Home Fleet at Rosyth, as Admiralty planning did not include these in anti-invasion preparations.
As to German troops ashore? The Kriegsmarine plan provided for these to be transported in barges, towed by tugs or trawlers, down the Channel at five knots, with minimal naval protection. The first wave, lacking much motor transport or divisional artillery, and with minimal armoured support, required eleven days to be landed in full. As a German general of the time is said to have remarked of the 'plan,' 'I might just as well put my troops through a mincing machine.' A wise assessment, I suggest.
In short, what Earl St. Vincent said in the Lords during the Napoleonic Wars still held good. "I do not say they cannot come, my Lords. I only say, they cannot come by sea."
Finally, may I paraphrase Jane Austen? "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that, the less a Sealion 'Would have' knows about the facts of 1940, the more strong is the conviction that the attempt might have succeeded!"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2