Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The Infographics Show" channel.

  1.  @FrankBUILTperformance  It lasted long enough to result in the loss of over 600 merchantmen, all because Ernie King was Anglophobic, and refused to organise convoys because they were a British idea.
    1
  2. Because it was an act of war, committed in wartime. What do you think US & British submarines did during WW2.
    1
  3. Who?
    1
  4. I don't see the relevance. Several ships transmitted ice warnings.
    1
  5. 14 lifeboats could hold 65 people each. 2 emergency sea boats 35 people each, and 4 collapsible boats 49 people each.
    1
  6. And if it wasn't for the scientists of many countries, Britain & Canada included, the US wouldn't have had the Atomic bomb as soon as they did.
    1
  7. How can anyone take seriously the views of someone who posts a comment like that?
    1
  8. No one ever made such a comment.
    1
  9. Actually, no he didn't.
    1
  10. No one said 'Shut Up!' At least according to the evidence of Californian's operator. He described the message from Titanic as a request to clear the frequency. It was not offensive, and he did not take it as such. The people who make these comments don't seem to have much, if any, understanding of what 'Morse Shorthand' was.
    1
  11. Actually, around £850, based on the £7 of 1912. It wasn't merely a trip, by the way. It was emigration in the belief that they would be starting a new life.
    1
  12. No, it wasn't. It was not, however, connected to the engines, but was used for ventilation purposes.
    1
  13.  @nickdanger3802  Indeed. But you have stopped at half-time. You haven't mentioned the shattering defeat of the Japanese Operation U-Go, with 55,000 Japanese casualties.
    1
  14. It is another of the many myths which people have subsequently invented.
    1
  15. Actually, around £850, based on the £7 of 1912.
    1
  16. Gustloff carried troops, and U-boat crews, as well as civilians. She was also an armed auxiliary warship.
    1
  17. The Swordfish wasn't used in the Pacific. This 'training plane, not a combat aircraft' as you describe it, sank a greater tonnage of axis shipping than any other allied aircraft of WW2.
    1
  18. No one told Californian's Marconi Operator to 'shut up.' Phillips used a morse shorthand, 'DDD' which simply was a request to clear the frequency. Californian's operator even said as much in later testimony.
    1
  19. 'They wanted to try president Roosevelt for treason after the war but for what ever reason did not.' No, they didn't. Firstly because he was dead, and secondly because neither he nor Churchill had any pre-warning of any attack.
    1
  20.  @captaincanada5139  Actually, he owned an enamelware factory. I doubt that dropping crockery on advancing troops would have had much effect on the outcome of WW2.
    1
  21.  @captaincanada5139  Odd how people like you seem to feel the need to resort immediately to insults, rather than simply being able to discuss a subject, isn't it?
    1
  22. In which case, they should have been available over 30 years ago. Where are they?
    1
  23. How does it show that?
    1
  24. Why would there be? The fire had been extinguished at least 24 hours earlier.
    1
  25. Gustloff also carried troops and U-Boat crews. Moreover, she was an armed auxiliary or, in other words, a legitimate target.
    1
  26. Watches generally do not react well to being immersed in water.
    1
  27. Look up the 'Birkenhead Drill.'
    1
  28. No, they didn't storm any beaches, although they did inflict 55,000 casualties on the Imperial Japanese Army when XIV army defeated Operation U-Go. The Japanese were in more areas that the Pacific alone, even if you didn't know that.
    1
  29.  @davidhackamack4143  Really? Then you should be aware of what Slim's XIV Army did to the the IJA in Burma.
    1
  30. Is there an English translation of your post available for people to read?
    1
  31.  @tmel708  The words are English, but sadly not comprehensible English.
    1
  32. Graf Spee, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, the U-Boat fleet.
    1
  33. HMAS Sydney only commissioned in 1948.
    1
  34.  @anthonyburke5656  Indeed, but she was a light cruiser, transferred to the RAN before completion, and renamed Sydney. She did not survive the war. The carrier of the same name was a Majestic class light fleet carrier, launched as HMS Terrible in 1944, but not commissioned, as HMAS Sydney, until 1948.
    1
  35.  @anthonyburke5656  Sorry. I replied to your first post before I read the second!
    1
  36. No-one from H & W or White Star actually said that.
    1
  37.  @maximilianodelrio  The bomb was made by scientists from a number of countries, Canada and Britain being the most prominent.
    1
  38. In point of fact, the US Navy was better in large scale carrier based fleet actions in the Pacific. The Royal Navy quickly dealt with the German surface fleet, neutralised the Italian fleet, and became the most proficient in the world in the field of convoy defence. The two navies had different objectives, and they both achieved them.
    1
  39. Quite a challenge towing river barges full of troops across the Atlantic. Why not just shoot them on shore and cut out the middle man?
    1
  40. Which, of course, no-one from White Star or H & W ever said.
    1
  41. The Germans didn't have any long range bombers.
    1
  42. Nonsense.
    1
  43. No one yelled at anyone. Voice communications were still in the future.
    1
  44. At Sakishima Gunto, Corsairs, Avengers, Hellcats, Fireflys & Seafires. Why should that be relevant? Were the Canadians, or the Poles, any less Canadian or Polish because they used British equipment?
    1
  45. If his autobiography was destroyed, how do you know what it did or didn't claim?
    1
  46.  @leon419  The only fire was a small one in a coal bunker, which had been extinguished at least a day before the collision. Do you seriously believe that Smith would have set out to cross the Atlantic in a ship with a compromised hull?
    1
  47. Who thought that they were better than others?
    1
  48. Don't be silly. There was no 'uncontrollable' coal fire. There was a smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of damp coal, in one of 19 bunkers. This was discovered almost immediately, during the bunker checks carried out on a daily basis, in accordance with IMM regulations. A team was set to work on it, and it was extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision. The only part of the ship affected was the paint inside the bunker. No-one left the ship. You are confusing the replacement of the passage crew, mainly of Belfast men, with the deep-sea crew, of men recruited from the Southampton area. This was a fairly common procedure. Why do you think shovelling coal into the boilers would increase speed? Have you never heard of safety valves? Once the working operating pressure of the boilers, in this case 215 psi, was reached, the safety valves would simply lift. Speed would be unaffected. 'When one of the coal stokers who survived later testified at a court inquiry in the UK as to the fire & above facts, his testimony was squelched by the judge'. Sorry, but that is, unambiguously, untrue. I have never understood why people find the need to invent lies on this subject. Perhaps you could explain the reason to me?
    1
  49.  @JS-bm9tf  I see the problem. I fear that Senan Molony is simply a journalist who thinks he has found a good way to sell a book, and may well have succeeded. I doubt factual accuracy is his primary concern. The three points you took from the book are highly questionable. There was a smouldering fire in one of 19 bunkers, which had no effect on the material condition of the ship. Coal from that bunker was simply used first. After all, the Olympics burned around 600-800 tons per day when at sea. Titanic was not at full speed, as five boilers were never connected, and there was no weakened steel.
    1
  50. Look up Operation U-Go, a Japanese offensive against Burma & India, which ended with 55,000 Japanese casualties, before you assume that the British & Commonwealth were not playing a significant role against Japan. Formidable, by the way, carried 51 aircraft at Okinawa, Implacable 81, Indomitable 60, & Victorious 51. None were withdrawn from the battle as a result of damage, or from shortage of aircraft. 'Um, the British weren't fighting in Europe, really.' Presumably, you mean, apart from North Africa/Tunisia, Italy, and NW Europe? The Royal Navy planned and executed all the major assault landings, and the British and Canadians provided two of every three men who landed on the Normandy beaches on 6 June, as well as 3261 of the 4127 landing craft, and 892 of 1213 warships. Us troops became numerically superior for around the last six or seven months of the German war. Prior to that, the RN & RCN fought and won the Battle of the Atlantic, kept control of the Mediterranean, prevented Japanese incursions into the Indian Ocean, and protected 78 Arctic convoys. The RN was overwhelmingly the dominant allied navy in the west, leaving the US navy to concentrate against Japan in the Pacific.
    1