Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Historigraph"
channel.
-
2
-
@WorshipinIdols Except that, as a result of the battle, Bismarck, listing, down by the bows, and short of fuel, promptly abandoned her commerce raiding mission and made an unsuccessful, slow speed, run for St. Nazaire. As none of the hits on Prince of Wales actually exploded, because none hit her all-or-nothing belt, she was only lightly damaged, and actually re-engaged later in the day.
To judge who were the strategic victors, ask yourself:
1). What was Bismarck's strategic objective?
2). How much of it did she achieve?
Incidentally, I said 'a series of failures,' I did not say that there were no successes, even though they were few and far between.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WorshipinIdols Where have I lied/
1. If you can't be bother checking your own posts, why expect me to guess at their meaning?
2. I don't think I have mentioned ranges or gunnery, but I do know the details of the action, clearly better than you do. Bismarck opened fire at 22,000 yards, and scored the decisive hit or hits at around 18,000 yards.
What is a 'state-of-the-years' 380mm rifle, by the way? Do tell.
3. I did in fact refer to the hit which caused 600 tons of water to enter Prince of Wales amidships. As I also said, I have read Leach's full damage report. The hit caused a temporary two knot speed reduction, although this appears to have been restored quickly. Leach withdrew following the loss of Hood because he was aware that his half worked-up ship should not attempt to challenge Bismarck unsupported, and because one of the troublesome quadruple turrets had jammed. He did precisely the right thing, joining the senior officer present, Wake-Walker, and helping to shadow the Bismarck as she made for St. Nazaire. Tovey later agreed that this action was the correct one.
Again, where have I lied?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WeMustResist Simply not true. Firstly, for a time aerial bombing was the only physical way that Britain could strike back at Germany, and, secondly and more importantly, the Royal Navy had plenty of resources given to it.
Aren't you even aware of the large number of escort ships built, the huge number of assault ships and craft without which landings would have been impossible, and the number of cruisers and destroyers built during WW2?
The Royal Navy had 200,000 personnel, including Royal Marines & Royal Naval Reservists, in 1939. In 1945 it had 800,000 personnel, with a further 73,000 WRNS. In terms of ships, 15 battleships & battlecruisers, 7 carriers, 66 cruisers, 184 destroyers, 60 submarines, and 45 escorts in 1939. By 1945, 15 battleships & battlecruiser, 55 carriers, 67 cruisers, 308 destroyers, and 161 submarines I won't even bother to tell you the number of escorts in service in 1945.
Those 1945 figures, by the way, are after wartime losses have been deducted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, there was little to choose between the two battlefleets. The British had 296 guns of 12 inch and above, and obtained 110 hits. (0.37 hits per gun.) The Germans had 200 guns of 11 inch and above, and obtained 80 hits (0.40 hits per gun.)
British overall figures are skewed by the poor performance of the Battlecruiser fleet. Beatty had always placed rate of fire ahead of accuracy (hence his foolish encouragement of his captains to store cordite above the protective blast doors) with the result that Jellicoe's Grand Fleet (and Evan Thomas' BS5) fired 2626 heavy shells to obtain 98 hits, or 26 rounds per hit, while the battlecruisers fired 1650 shells to achieve 26 hits, or 64 rounds per hit.
The most accurate shooting by either side by individual squadrons was by Evan Thomas' superb 5th Battle Squadron of 'Queen Elizabeths.'
You are right about internal design, but this was to a large extent inevitable. The Germans built their heavy ships to operate in the North Sea at short range for short periods. Crew facilities were cramped and uncomfortable, but in harbour crews could use accommodation ships and shore barracks. The British, because of their world wide commitments, built ships which could operate for extended periods away from shore facilities, hence the need for more open spaces within the ship itself.
As to what was wrong with 'our bloody ships,' my view is that the main problem was the free and easy, 'it will be all right on the day' attitude of the man who said it, David Beatty.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@julianmhall I didn't say that they 'sat on their hands and did nothing,' only that the Admiralty regarded the interception and destruction of a ragged fleet of towed barges with minimal defensive support was a task best left to the surface fleet, which had overwhelming superiority in the Channel area.
The best aircraft available to the FAA at the time were the Fulmar, in service from March 1940 with 806 Squadron, operating from HMS Illustrious in the Mediterranean at the time, and the Swordfish, equipping both carriers and ground based FAA squadrons. The only carrier in home waters at the time, HMS Furious, with 18 Swordfish, 6 Sea Gladiators, and 12 Skuas, was based at Scapa Flow, with the battlecruiser Repulse, two heavy cruisers, Berwick & Norfolk, two light cruisers, Glasgow and Curacoa, and seven destroyers.
In short, there were no large enemy surface ships in the area which might have been targetted by Swordfish.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Had Sealion been attempted, September, 1940 was the likeliest date. So, here goes:-
Bismarck 6 months away from completion.
Tirpitz 8 months away from completion.
Gneisenau Repairing torpedo damage. Estimated completion November 1940.
Scharnhorst Repairing torpedo damage. Estimated completion late October.
Lutzow Repairing torpedo damage. Estimated completion April 1941.
Scheer Preparing for commerce raiding. Sailed 23 October, 1940.
Hipper Operational with care - defective engines.
There were two light cruisers (Koln & Nurnberg) operational, as was an older, training cruiser (Emden).
The German navy had lost 12 of 22 destroyers by September, 1940. Three of the remaining 10 were refitting.
There were also a number of Torpedo Boats, which were similar to the British escort destroyer or the US DEs. By some, I mean 9.
There was also a new class of Torpedo Boat, the Elbing class, which had unreliable high pressure boilers, and were armed with a single 105mm gun, facing aft. About 7 were available.
That is it, I am afraid. A rather one-sided sea battle at best, after which it is possible to deduce what would probably happen to the canal barges towed by tugs and trawlers when the 70 or so RN destroyers and cruisers on anti-invasion duties came across them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2