Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Military History Visualized"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@markkover8040 The accident rate of Wasp's pilots, using aircraft designed for carrier operations, should tell you something. As for carrying out trials in the Norwegian sea, would that really have been possible, in an area regularly patrolled by RN submarines and surface vessels?
By the way, only 7 carrier capable 109ts were built. The remainder were built without the necessary carrier modifications. Even the seven built didn't have folding wings, by the way.
Incidentally, when the project was re-activated, the 109t was considered to be obsolete, and major modifications would have been required to the carrier's lifts, catapults, hangar floors, and arrestor gear to accommodate the new aircraft briefly considered.
2
-
@markkover8040 Certainly, ore did continue to be shipped via Narvik, but in greatly reduced quantities. Rolk Karlbom, in the 'Scandinavian Economic History Review' published a whole host of statistics. For example, between 1937 & 1944, the figures were as follows. These are in thousands of tons, and are for shipments via Narvik :-
1937, 4919. 1938, 4771. 1939, 4027. 1940, 504. 1941. 725. 1942, 1140. 1943, 1936. 1944, 1106. Thus, shipments did continue, but at a much reduced level. Furthermore, in 1937, total German ore imports from Sweden, again, in thousands of tons, were 9084, of which 54.2% was via Narvik. In 1941, the total was 9260, of which 7.83% was via Narvik.
Not that this is particularly relevant, by the way. Navigating small groups of ore ships through coastal waters is rather different from carrying out sea trials of a large warship. To give you a comparison, between 1940 & 1944 the British ran a regular series of convoys from Southend to Methil, and the reverse. These convoys followed closely restricted routes down the East Coast. There were 531 convoys, mainly of small colliers, involving 9097 vessels in total. They were under regular attack by the Luftwaffe and by S boats. Total losses? 31 vessels, of which 24 were in convoy and the rest stragglers.
As Graf Zeppelin never carried out any trials of any sort, the activity of RN warships in the Norwegian Sea is, similarly, irrelevant. However, Alastair Mars' account of RN submarine activity in WW2 assures me that RN boats did carry out regular patrols. These increased once German naval forces had been transferred to the 'Zone of Destiny' and the probability is that the prospect of encountering a large target such as Graf Zeppelin would have resulted in augmented numbers of boats.
70 Bf109T1s were ordered from Fieseler, but only 7 completed with carrier capability. The remainder were built as T2s, without carrier capability, and sent to Norway until the end of 1941. The conclusion that they were obsolete when the project was briefly re-activated was not mine, but that of the Luftwaffe & Kriegsmarine. An alternative, the Me 155, based on the Me109G, was designed, but subsequently abandoned.
A version of the Ju52 with folding wings? Really? A naval version of a three engined transport aircraft?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Losantiville No. To control the eastern end of the Mediterranean you need a naval base at Alexandria, which the British had, and maintained, throughout WW2. To take Suez, it would be necessary to take Alexandria first, in which case, assuming that the British maintained a presence in the Middle East east of the Canal, supplies could still be delivered via the Gulf of Aqaba. In such circumstances, the British would no longer have a naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, although Malta could still be maintained via Gibraltar, as it was historically, and communications with India would continue via the Cape, again as happened historically. The loss of Alexandria would certainly be a major setback, but not necessarily a terminal one.
Certainly, if Gibraltar fell as well, the Mediterranean and Malta would fall, but the capture of Gibraltar would require the support of Spain. As Spain at the time depended to a large extent on food convoys from the United States, and as FDR had informed Franco that such convoys would cease if Spain joined the axis, it is unlikely that such support would be forthcoming.
The other problem from the German point of view would be the ability to maintain supplies to a larger axis force in North Africa. Certainly Italy had a large navy, but historically seemed oddly reluctant to use it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cybereus836 Clearly, Mr. Forcyzk didn't examine the Royal Navy 'Pink List' for 16 September, 1940. This, effectively the RN 'Order of Battle' states the location and operational state of every warship of destroyer size and upwards. There were 25 destroyers at the Nore, 20 at Portsmouth and Southampton, and 12 at Plymouth, for a start, backed by several light cruisers.
The 'enemy invasion flotilla' consisted of 894 converted barges, towed in pairs by tugs, trawlers, and small coasters, from ports from Flushing to Boulogne, together with 300 motor boats from Le Havre. To defend this force, the German navy had five destroyers from Cherbourg, and two destroyers from Zeebrugge.
2
-
2
-
@cybereus836 Actually, I said 'I merely stated a whole series of facts' which I did. The facts were taken from the Royal Navy Pink List, from 16 September, 1940. Look it up for yourself. It will prove that I am correct.
'The thing you discount which Forcyzk mentioned is: having boats in the general body of water encompassing England does not discount that those Boats now have to FIND that invasion flotilla.' Oh, please! The Royal Navy patrolled the Channel every night, with destroyer patrols from Plymouth & from The Nore. Occasionally, the destroyers would shell the invasion ports as they passed.
Moreover, the Kriegsmarine estimated that the time required to extract the barges from their ports, form them up into their box formations (with the barges being towed, in pairs, by tugs, trawlers, or small coasters, at just above walking pace), then proceed down the Channel, to the landing beaches between Folkestone and Brighton, would, in the case of the largest formation (380 barges from Boulogne & Le Havre) require THREE DAYS. Moreover, the formations from Ostend , Dunkirk, & Calais would pass through the Straits, which are 25 miles wide. Find them? Please don't be silly. The barge trains would have been clearly visible from Admiral Ramsay's HQ at Dover Castle. If Mr. Forcyzk didn't know that, then his research was sadly lacking. You might like to read 'Invasion of England, 1940' by Peter Schenck, for the German view, which actually agrees with mine, by the way, and provides details of the complete plan.
In point of fact, as a naval historian, I have not much concerned myself about the Battle of Britain, because the main defence against invasion was always the Royal Navy. As Admiral John Jervis, Earl St. Vincent, told Parliament during the Napoleonic invasion threat " "I do not say they cannot come, I only say they cannot come by sea".
Most modern historians, by the way, agree that Sealion was never a realistic operation. Didn't you know that?
2
-
In September, 1940, there were 7 RN destroyers at Scapa Flow, 16 at Rosyth, 20 at Portsmouth, 12 at Plymouth, 25 at The Nore, 7 in the Humber, 21 in escort ports, and 8 at sea on escort duty.
However, the Germans had five operational destroyers at Cherbourg, so in the minds of the Sealion fantasists, the Royal Navy was seriously outnumbered.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dragilxcom4176 Another Sealion 'would have.' The Channel is a death trap for submarines, being shallow, subject to strong currents, and heavily mined. The Germans sent three boats into it in late 1939, and all were promptly sunk. Furthermore, the U-Boat fleet at the time was small, with only 27 operational front-line boats, of which 13 on average were at sea on any one day in September, 1940. Usually, boats tried to avoid going near fleet destroyers, as it tended to end badly for them. You suggest that, in order to satisfy your fantasy, they should actively seek them out? Oh well, ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
'If Germany had the air superiority, RN would have no chance.' You mean like at Dunkirk, when the Luftwaffe, with air superiority, failed to prevent Dynamo, when the rescue ships were sitting targets? This same Luftwaffe, untrained in anti-shipping operations and without even a torpedo bomber, 'would have' been able to sink or disable, in large numbers, RN warships moving at speed, when they previously hadn't been able to hit them when they were stopped close inshore?
This Luftwaffe you laud, which historically in WW2 sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN warship larger than a light cruiser, 'would have' dealt with the 64 RN destroyers on anti-invasion duties within 5 hours steaming of Dover, supported by several light cruisers and over five hundred smaller warships, and after that 'would have' dealt with the further fifty or so RN destroyers further away, but still in Home Waters?
Instead of posting from ignorance about what the Luftwaffe 'would have' done, why not buy a book, read about what, historically, the Luftwaffe actually did (or rather didn't,) do, and then try to explain it?
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1