Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries"
channel.
-
2
-
@loneprimate Don't get so worked up. However wonderful the Canadian Division was, it was still only one division, after if had been withdrawn through St. Malo by the Royal Navy as part of Operation Cycle in mid June, 1940, along with 52nd Lowland. 3rd British, already re-equipped was preparing to sail to Cherbourg when General Weygand informed his 'allies' that the French army was no longer able to offer organised resistance. Thus, it was not the only fully equipped division, was it?
Not that this is relevant, as by the time the Germans were even theoretically in a position to attempt an invasion, mid September, 1940, there were 34.5 operational divisions in Britain, of which 32.5 were British. Indeed, in mid August, the British had felt strong enough to send a large troop convoy to North Africa.
Before you get so agitated, why not try finding out a few facts?
2
-
2
-
Always nice to read a post by an enthusiastic Sealion 'Would have.' The same lack of knowledge always shines through.
First, the Germans didn't have any operational torpedo bombers until mid 1942. They had a tiny number of seaplanes capable of using torpedoes, but only ever risked them in the far north, against unarmed merchantmen, as they were extremely vulnerable.
Secondly, the 1940 Luftwaffe bombing arm had simply not been trained as anything other than a ground attack force. It had just failed badly against the Evacuation fleet at Dunkirk. Just for interest, your mighty Luftwaffe, in the whole of WW2, sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship bigger than a light cruiser. In September, 1940, the RN had 70 destroyers and light cruisers within five hours of the Straits, supported by around 500 smaller warships. There were a further 40 or so other destroyers also in Home Waters at the time. I haven't, of course, mentioned the battleships, battlecruisers, and heavy cruisers of the Home Fleet, based at Rosyth and Scapa Flow, as the Admiralty didn't intend to use. them.
Thirdly, Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by Japanese torpedo aircraft. As I have explained, the Germans had nothing similar at the time. Moreover, unlike the Germans, the Japanese had been well trained in anti-shipping techniques.
Fourthly, based on Admiral von Holtzendorff's calculations that Germany needed to sink 600,000 tons of Allied shipping per month to cut the British supply lines, the Germans never actually came close, rarely exceeding 400,000, and often being below 100,000.
Instead of pontificating about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done, why not simply explain why they never came remotely near actually doing it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ole-mariusbergesen7818 I really do not know how many times I need to point out to people that at the time of Sealion the Luftwaffe did not have any torpedo bombers. The largest RN ship the Luftwaffe sank was a light cruiser, by the way. Similarly Bismarck was damaged by the Swordfish, but sunk by a surface fleet.
How do you explain that the Luftwaffe, when presented with 'fish in a barrel' at Dunkirk, only sank four out of forty--one destroyers? Do you consider that their total lack of training in anti-shipping operations might, just possibly, have been relevant. Oddly, Oskar Dinort & Wolfram von Richthoven, the two senior German air commanders at the time, did.
As to your original amusing suggestion that the ' Luftwaffe could easily have changed their focus to dockyard, harbors and every part of the supply chain' have you the faintest idea how many ports were available to the Royal Navy on the British homeland, how big they were, and how far apart from each other they were? Obviously not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The so-called 'Little Ships' were actually used for a specific purpose, which was to ferry troops from the beaches to the transports & warships waiting offshore. The bulk of the men evacuated came in destroyers (102843) smaller warships such as minesweepers and armed trawlers (97147) and transports (127363). The Little ships actually brought back 6029. You should not let silly films like 'Dunkirk' deceive you. There was, by the way, no German navy able to intervene.
The difference here is that the barges (towed in pairs by a tug or a trawler) were expected to transport large numbers of infantry & horses, largely without artillery or motor transport and with minimal naval protection, across the Channel at around 5 knots, in the face of attack from the Royal Navy which, by September 1940, had around 70 cruisers & destroyers, and some 500 smaller warships, within 5 hours' steaming of Dover.
That is why 'those "slow barges" were not good enough for invasion.'
2
-
2
-
The Germans did have submersible tanks. The So-called Tauchpanzer III. Which was a sealed Panzer III with an air tube connecting it to the surface. It could, theoretically, operate up to a depth of 15 metres. The idea was that they would be dropped from the ramp of a landing barge close inshore.
They had been tested, and were later used in action to cross the Bug river. That said, there were a number of problems where Sealion was concerned, primarily the inability of the driver to see obstacles on the sea bed. They probably would have failed, but they did exist.
The Luftwaffe point is easily dealt with. Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk by highly trained crews flying high performance TORPEDO bombers. In 1940, the Luftwaffe had notr been trained in anti-shipping operations, and as a result had failed badly at Dunkirk. Moreover, the Luftwaffe did not acquire a suitable torpedo bomber until mid 1942.
Indeed, in the whole of WW2, the Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN ship bigger than a light cruiser. In fact, eight of them.
Both claims are entirely accurate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abhivermaz Churchill was a complex man, with both strengths & flaws, but he was able to motivate Britain in a way that almost certainly no-one else (and especially not Lord Halifax) could.
Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
All the above can be documented, although I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't fit with the revisionist propaganda you have been fed, and apparently swallowed whole.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Oh good. Another Sealion 'would have.' How was it, in your considered opinion, that the mighty Luftwaffe failed to prevent Dynamo, despite having what might be considered sitting targets, i.e., ships in a confined space, stopped or moving slowly, and crowded with troops. Could it be because the 1940 Luftwaffe had had no training in anti-shipping techniques?
Furthermore, you confuse the respective capabilities of Japanese as opposed to German air forces, and you forget that Pearl Harbor was the base of a neutral country, with none of the ships at any sort of military preparedness.
Bismarck hardly benefits your case, in that the air attack which crippled her was carried out by torpedo bombers. The Luftwaffe did not have any high performance torpedo bombers until early 1942. Not much use for Sealion in 1940, I suggest?
You might also wish to address the fact that, during the whole of the war, your mighty Luftwaffe sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship bigger than a light cruiser. Just for information, in September, 1940, there were around 70 RN light cruisers and destroyers within five hours' steaming of the Channel, and just over 100 RN destroyers in total in home waters. You can add to these numbers around 500 smaller warships available to sail as supporting vessels to the main destroyer force.
In short, instead of pontificating about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done, why not address the rather more prosaic facts of what the Luftwaffe actually did, or rather didn't, do?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@The_Conqueeftador In 1940, the Luftwaffe had no torpedo bombers, apart from a handful of outdated seaplanes based in Norway, and little or no training in anti-shipping operations. In fact, in the whole of WW2 the Luftwaffe managed to sink 31 Royal Navy destroyers and no RN ship larger than a light cruiser. Indeed, the Luftwaffe had recently failed almost completely at Dunkirk.
U Boats? There were, on average, 13 operational boats at sea on any one day in September, 1940. Moreover, in late 1939, the Kriegsmarine sent three boats on operations in the Channel. They, and their crews, are still there. There is a reason why U-boats avoided the Channel. It was a death trap for WW2 submersibles.
Finally, throughout WW2, U-boats sought to avoid contact with warships, concentrating instead on merchantmen. You appear to suggest that, for Sealion, they would, in theory, attempt to do something they rarely did in reality, and be successful at it.
Your error is to believe that the Luftwaffe of 1940 can be considered to be on a par, in terms of anti-shipping operations, with the British Fleet Air Arm or the US & Japanese air arms of late 1941/1942 onwards, when in reality there is simply no comparison.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2