Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Downfall of Germany: The Western Front (1/2) | Animated History" video.

  1.  Peter  Nonsense. Bismarck was, admittedly, hard to sink, but not difficult to cripple. Rodney destroyed most of her main armament and her bridge and internal communications within 20 minutes of engaging. After that, her sinking was not a battle, it was an execution. Tirpitz was destroyed by heavy bombs, dropped from high altitude, because she was an inconvenient 'Fleet in Being' which never actually emerged from hiding. The bomb, by the way, had not been designed specifically to destroy Tirpitz. Hood was, by 1941, an elderly warship with the armour of a WW1 battleship. She was certainly not superior to modern British & US Battleships. The last Japanese capital ship built in Britain was the Kongo, actually a battlecruiser constructed in 1912. After that, the Japanese built their own battleships, and Kongo herself was totally reconstructed between the wars. When did the Japanese sink the entire Russian navy, by the way? If you mean Tsushima, that was in 1905. As to 'any battleships that the US produced could easily be destroyed with a well placed hit from a salvo.' Well, the US, like the British, built their post WW1 battleships with the vastly superior ( to incremental, anyway) all or nothing armour system. At Guadalcanal, South Dakota sustained 27 hits, yet remained in action. I can't comment on the effect your indestructible German ships would have had on British battleships, as no British battleship was hit by one in WW2. Before you quibble, Hood was a battlecruiser.
    4
  2.  @jmadmaxx7295  Sorry, but could you explain what leads you to claim that 'Britain was in the brink of surrender from Nazi bombings alone,' as the historical record does not seem to agree with this opinion?
    3
  3.  Peter  German capital ships were outdated. All four had incremental armour, which the US & British had abandoned around 20 years earlier. The Scharnhorsts were pathetically undergunned, with low angle secondary armament, the Bismarcks had a four twin turret lay out which dated from WW1 and, similarly, a low angle secondary armament. All they had was speed, which enabled them to avoid action. Once Bismarck lost that, she was destroyed as a fighting ship in around 20 minutes by HMS Rodney.
    2
  4.  Peter  Exactly where do you get your nonsense from? Admiral Scheer was, in effect, a heavy cruiser. Capable of 26 knots, with 6 x 11 inch guns, and an armoured belt of 2.4 - 3.1 inches. By comparison, the North Carolinas were capable of 28 knots, had 9 x 16 inch guns, and belts of 12 inches. The King George Vs were capable of 27.5 knots, had 10 x 14 inch guns, and belts of 14 inches. Please explain why Scheer was superior to either. Of the four 'proper' German battleships, Bismarck was sunk by surface gunfire, Scharnhorst was sunk by surface gunfire, Gneisenau was crippled by mines, further damaged by bombing in port, and then scuttled, and Tirpitz stayed at the end of a fjord until sunk by bombing, largely because she was hidden so far out of sight that warships couldn't get near her.
    2
  5.  Peter  Hood was twenty years old.
    2
  6. On four of the five beaches, they worked successfully.
    1
  7.  Peter  Well, try this. The Scharnhorsts & Bismarcks had incremental armour, which hadn't been used in American capital ships since the Nevadas, and in British ones since the Nelsons, but had been superceded by the superior All-or-Nothing pattern. The Scharnhorst and Bismarcks had outdated low angle secondary armament, which had been discarded by the US navy since the Washingtons, and in the British navy since the King George Vs, in favour of a dual purpose system. The Scharnhorsts were desperately undergunned, with a weight of broadside of 6552 lbs. By comparision, the US Washingtons had a broadside weight of 24300 lbs, the British Nelsons 18432 lbs, and the British King George Vs 15900 lbs. Bismarck had a weight of broadside of 14112 lbs, but achieved it by the outdated use of four twin turrets, when the British & Americans were using the three multiple gunned turret design, saving both weight & space. The Scharnhorsts had 13.8 inch armoured belts, and 4.1 inch decks. The Bismarcks 12.6 inch belts and 4.7 inch decks. The Washingtons, by comparison 12 inch belts & 3.6 inch decks, the Nelsons 14 inch belts and 6.25 inch decks, and the King George Vs 14 inch belts and 6 inch decks. All the Scharnhorsts (32 knots) and the Bismarcks (29 knots) had was speed. The Washingtons (28 knots) and the KGVs (27.5 knots) were slightly slower, and the Nelsons (23 knots) much slower. Thus, the German ships could avoid action, but once forced into it were utterly outclassed. I don't supposed you even know that internal communications in both the Scharnhorsts & the Bismarcks ran between the incremental layers of armour, when resulted in Bismarck losing these, and most of her main armament, within about 20 minutes when engaged on 27 May? I don't need a 'sense of bullshit entitlement,' just knowledge of the facts. A pity you don't have the same level of understanding.
    1