Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Historigraph" channel.

  1. Operation U-Go, probably the largest single Japanese land defeat of the war, with 55,000 casualties, must not be known to you.
    3
  2. Sorry, but simply not true. Ohio arrived in the Clyde on 21 June, 1942. On the same day, the US War Shipping Administration informed Texaco that she was being requisitioned. After waiting in the Clyde for two weeks, she was visited by Texaco's London agent, accompanied by a representative of the (British) Ministry of War Shipping, and her captain informed that his ship was to be handed over to British ownership, and his crew replaced by a British one. Captain Petersen and his crew disembarked, and were, understandably, unhappy at the way they had been treated. Perhaps high-handed, but niceties were few and far between in mid-1942. Therefore, contrary to what you might claim, no 'attack' by savage Limey thugs. The original order for the requisition of the Ohio, by the way, came from Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In no way was there any 'act of piracy.' A sister of Ohio, by the way, Kentucky, had previously been transferred in a similar manner, and lost earlier in June, 1942. She wasn't seized by pirates either. As to reading 'Guns of August' presumably by Barbara Tuchman, and 'No Man's Land' by John Toland, both are about the First World War, in which The Netherlands was a neutral country. How exactly did the Limeys bring about the fall of Amsterdam, exactly, and which ships were 'hijacked?'
    3
  3. To learn how much of a plan it actually was, from the German perspective, read Peter Schenk 'Invasion of England 1940.'
    3
  4. Really? It doesn't occur to you that, had Germany begun a policy of U-Boat construction, the British (and Canadians) would have responded by accelerating their own escort vessel building programme even more rapidly than they historically did? After all, even we British might have been able to deduce that a U-boat fleet was not intended for use against the Soviet Union, don't you think?
    3
  5. Except of course the British were not intending to order their military and their civilians to undertake massed suicide attacks, as the Japanese were. You might take Okinawa as an example. The US landing forces suffered 6,821 killed and 19,217 wounded. Although most in the 20,000-strong Japanese garrison were draftees, they refused to surrender, fighting tenaciously until only a few hundred remained alive to be taken prisoner. By contrast, the British had a more credible approach, which involved the use of their overwhelming naval supremacy to intercept and destroy the towed barges which the Germans intended to use to transport their troops. Put simply, the British knew that they could defeat Sealion. The Japanese hope was that mass slaughter would so sicken the US leaders that they would eventually choose to come to a negotiated peace. As to the 'bloodbath' idea, look at the casualty levels that the planners of 'Olympic' expected. Oh, and as to 'They had no interest in occupying Britain, and their real goals were always eastwards.' Certainly the Germans would have preferred the British to come to terms, but the fact that they requisitioned and converted around 200 transport ships, 2000 barges, 400 tugs, and over 1100 motor boats, and were willing to accept the loss of over 1700 aircraft and 2500 experienced aircrew in pursuit of air superiority over the Channel & the English south east coast, tells a rather different story about German intentions, I suggest.
    3
  6. The German air force was not active in the Med. in November, 1940.
    3
  7. You have a source confirming this German generosity, I assume?
    3
  8. What arms race were they winning? The British were outbuilding the Germans in aircraft production from as early as mid 1940, and comparisons between Anglo-Canadian and German naval production are simply absurd.
    3
  9. The laughable scene in 'A Bridge Too Far' upon which you seem to base you comment is fictional. Pound was very concerned about Allied lives. He just made an error in judgement, at a time when he was already dying of a brain tumour.
    3
  10. I suppose it would be useless to point out that, whilst Churchill proposed Gallipoli as an alternative to what was unfolding on the Western Front, he neither authorised the operation (Herbert Asquith did) nor planned it.
    3
  11.  @micahistory  Indeed. Just as the US had help from the British. Isn't that what allies do? Did the use of the word 'dominant' in my earlier post escape you?
    3
  12.  @Spiderfisch  The idea that if you scuttle your own ship it is, in some mystical manner, slightly less sunk, seems to be pecularly Germanic. The German navy had a habit of this.
    3
  13. True, but the British torpedo bombers had airborne radar, and Somerville was planning a night attack on the Japanese carrier force.
    3
  14.  @ionionescu6777  The Blockade continued until the war ended. What, by the way, had Churchill to do with it? David Lloyd George was Prime Minister at the time. Are you one of these strange people who feel the need to blame Churchill for everything for everything since the Thirty Years' War?
    3
  15.  @Mondo762  Ohio had a British crew. Almeria Lykes had an American crew (all 105 of whom were rescued by HMS Somali when she sank) Santa Elisa had an American crew, supplemented by British AA gunners. 28 of her 83 crew were rescued by HMS Penn.
    3
  16.  @Mondo762  Ohio unloaded in the Clyde in June 1942. She was transferred to the British Eagle Oil and Shipping Co., and her American crew disembarked on 10 July. She was re-fitted with extra bofors and oerlikon AA guns, and had special bearings fitted to her engines, and extra protection added to her steam pipes, because comparatively minor damage to Kentucky had resulted in her loss. Kentucky, by the way, also swapped crews. The transfer of these two tankers to the British was a generous act by the US Maritime Commission as fast (16 Knot) tankers were like gold dust at the time and the US Navy were requisitioning them for use in the Pacific. Incidentally, Santa Elisa was a last minute addition to the convoy. She was actually loading in South Wales for the US when she was ordered to discharge her cargo. I have no idea why, although, without Santa Elisa, there would have been 13 merchantmen in the convoy. Perhaps someone was superstitious?
    3
  17. Absolutely. Of course the noble Japanese were neither imperialist nor racist. I am sure the good citizens of Nanking will concur with this opinion.
    3
  18. There seems to be a strange belief among these folk that, if a ship is scuttled, it is in some mystical manner not quite so sunk!
    3
  19. Quite a number were raised for scrap between the wars, but a number are still there and popular with divers. A mate of mine was there a few years ago, and said that the water is very cloudy and it is difficult to see much.
    3
  20.  @domenicozagari2443  'The Germans had fast torpedo boats and destroyers.' The Germans started the war with 22 destroyers.After Norway, they had 10 left. By mid September, 1940, they had six operational destroyers. They also had some 13 S Boats. In Mid September, by contrast, the RN had around 70 destroyers and light cruisers within 4-5 hours steaming of Dover, and a further 40 or so destroyers within 24 hours of the Channel. You don't actually know anything, do you?
    3
  21.  @domenicozagari2443  'i know you tell a lot of bullshit.' Thank you for your closely reasoned and impressive response. Precisely as I had expected, and much of a level with your earlier posts.
    3
  22. Yes. Stalingrad was a triumph as well.
    3
  23.  @Tostotoktedasij  Lets see, then. One third of the total number of German Panzerships is brought to action by three much smaller warships. It runs for a neutral port, where it is scuttled. Two of the three British warships remain on station and operational. The third is repaired and put back into service. How is that a defeat?
    3
  24. Are you claiming it didn't happen? You would be hard pressed to make that claim stick.
    3
  25.  @lightinggameozo2402  You still haven't explained why you consider Taranto to have been 'propaganda.'
    3
  26.  @thedreadpiratewesley2301  The difference being that a large number of transport & supply ships, not to mention the American landing forces themselves, had been imperilled by Halsey's impetuous acts. In the Indian Ocean, the Japanese had no such targets. Their raid was defensive in intention, in order to screen a large troop convoy for Rangoon. The British had a fair idea of the composition of the Japanese force, knew that no transports were involved, and that the probability was that of a limited air attack on targets in Ceylon. Unlike the gallant American action at Samar, there was no major strategic threat involved which demanded a quixotic action by Somerville. The maintenance of his Fleet in Being was of greater importance at that time in the war. Incidentally, Somerville did attempt to use the one positive asset in his armoury, his radar-equipped torpedo bombers, to carry out a night attack, but failed to locate his target, just as Nagumo's aircraft failed to locate Somerville.
    3
  27.  @thedreadpiratewesley2301  How could 'a million lives' have been saved? What did Nagumo's carrier force achieve after leaving the Indian Ocean? Ceylon did not fall, Madagascar was not attacked. Britain did not have 'copious amounts of' aging capital ships. There were only four 'R' class ships then in existence, all part of Somerville's fleet. Warspite had been modernised in the late thirties, and his two carriers were brand new. This was not a 'Sealion' situation. No strategic threat existed. If anything Somerville took too many risks, at a time when maintaining a defensive presence in the area of Madagascar, protecting the Round the Cape convoy route, was more critical. 'I disagree that it would have been a suicide run.' I doubt many people would agree with that assessment.
    3
  28.  @krackerman3628  I suppose you can quote a reputable source for your claim that the Japanese intended to return? I await it with eager anticipation. Lots more 'would haves' I notice. 'Would haves' of course, count for nothing. 'Madagascar?' I suppose I shouldn't mention Operation Ironclad. 'The US were not too happy with them either.' Odd, then, that the Royal Navy planned and executed every assault landing in the west, British & Commonwealth troops outnumbered US ones in the West until the last six or seven months of the war, and all three services at D-Day were commanded by British officers?
    3
  29. Dreadnought 'I entered service in October 1906, & could manage 21 knots. I could fire 8 guns on a broadside, six forward, and six aft.' South Carolina 'I entered service in March, 1910, & could manage 18.5 knots. I could fire 8 guns on a broadside, four forward, and four aft.'
    3
  30. The submarine did not use her Tigerfish. She used Mark VIIIs, the design of which actually dated back to 1927.
    3
  31. The officer received the decoration because it was his decisions which brought about the action and thus contributed to the survival of much of the convoy. When an officer makes a decision judged to be wrong, it is he who suffers, not his crew. I refer you to Admiral Byng.
    3
  32.  @sotabaka  Nonsense. They didn't at Dunkirk, when they had a much better opportunity. In 1940 the Luftwaffe had little experience in attacking warships at sea, and it took them six months to train up to a reasonable standard, which was too late for Sealion. In any case, the Luftwaffe couldn't operate effectively at night, whereas the Royal Navy could, and barges don't take much sinking.
    3
  33. In the 20s and early 30s no-one was investing in military equipment. After the horror of the Great War, any such actions among the victorious allied powers was likely to have been political suicide for the government who attempted it.
    3
  34. There isn't really much to know about the ships of Plan Z. Other than a badly designed aircraft carrier, they only existed on paper.
    3
  35.  @justaplayer94  I am simply saying that imaginary 'what ifs' count for precisely nothing.
    3
  36. Except of course if the Germans had built 300 boats by 1940 then the resources to expand the army & air force wouldn't have been available, France would not have fallen, and therefore the bases from which to operate these boats would not have existed. Oh, and as soon as the British learn that, by building U-boats, Hitler considers them to be his main enemy (which, historically, they weren't) they would commence construction of large numbers of atlantic escorts. The British had much larger shipbuilding resources than did the Germans, and would win any warship building race, exactly as had happened before WW1.
    2
  37. How many battleships were sunk by aircraft in western waters?
    2
  38.  @padurarulcriticsicinic4846  That is because there weren't any others. In point of fact, the largest British warship sunk by air attack was a light cruiser.
    2
  39. To follow that argument, there should not be anyone of European origin living in any part of the New World.
    2
  40. Because the invasions of Denmark and Poland did not require the use of towed barges, and that of Norway was possible because Norway had declined British naval support until too late, in an optimistic bid to remain neutral. German naval forces were able to transport troops there largely unchallenged. But, by the end of the operation, the Kriegsmarine had suffered losses from which it never recovered. By September, 1940, the RAF did not need to be in two places at the same time. Freighters carrying troops might have been a good idea. At least from the British point of view. Greater numbers of troops to be killed on each of the freighters, once the British destroyer florillas and cruiser squadrons met up with them, especially since such freighters (and the Germans actually requisitioned almost 200 of them) could not land troops on beaches.
    2
  41. What possible non-aggressive solution? Gensoul had rejected the ultimatum, failed to give full details to his government, and had ordered his ships to raise steam and prepare for sea.
    2
  42.  @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684  If you are in the mood for a little amusement, visit 'What if Germany Executed Sealion?' and admire the musings of one @confederatenationalist7283. I have been having a wonderful series of conversations with this erudite academic.
    2
  43. Not really. German battleships could not survive for long at sea? How would heavy cruisers or destroyers have fared any better?
    2
  44. How would he have done that?
    2
  45. The Java Sea was hardly an action fought on level terms. The Japanese were a coherent force of organised fleet units, well used to working together. The Allies were a hotchpotch of separate individual, tired, units, with no established command system, no common signals system, and no common tactical philosophy. There were even the obvious problems of different languages. Only basic orders could even be passed from one unit to another.
    2
  46.  @SennaAugustus  But Warspite had been fully modernised, and rejoined the Fleet in 1937. As the most modern capital ship in the fleet, she would certainly nave been missed. The decision to commit her was made not by the Admiralty, but by Vice Admiral Whitworth, who flew his flag aboard her during the action. Oh, and Jutland was in 1916. Even the media knew that.
    2
  47.  @nikolajkristensen5960  It appears that revealing your errors and lack of knowledge has annoyed you. Indeed, the Kriegsmarine had a heavy cruiser. They also had three operational light cruisers. At the same time, the British had 1 battlecruiser, 1 carrier, 2 heavy cruisers and 2 light cruisers at Scapa Flow, 2 battleships, 1 battlecruiser, 3 light cruisers at Rosyth, 3 light cruisers in the Humber, 2 light cruisers at Chatham, 1 light cruiser in Portsmouth, 1 battleship, 2 light cruisers in Plymouth, and 1 light cruiser in the Firth of Clyde. The British would not be under air attack 24/7 as you elegantly put it, because, whilst the RN could indeed operate 24/7, the Luftwaffe could only operate in daylight. This, by the way, is presumably the same Luftwaffe which had failed so badly to disrupt the Dunkirk evacuation, which had received no training whatsoever in anti-shipping operations, which didn't even develop a high performance torpedo bomber until early 1942, and which in the whole of the war sank 31 RN destroyers, and no RN vessel of any kind bigger than a light cruiser. That Luftwaffe? The rest of your post is barely coherent gibberish, by the way. I don't feel inclined even to attempt to decipher it.
    2
  48.  @nikolajkristensen5960  Tirpitz? Crew training? She hadn't even finished being built! Knickebein could guide an aircraft to a large, static, target such as a city, but was useless for targeting ships at sea. Surely you know that? D- day was far from 'a bad idea.' It involved 4217 landing craft, 1213 warships, and 11,600 aircraft. The Germans in 1940 had no landing craft, about 30 warships, and around 2000 aircraft of all types. You clearly haven't grasped the length of time needed to extricate large numbers of barges from ports and form them into so sort of order; still less have you grasped how many warships the British had within close range of the Channel, so I won't bother repeating the details. In fact, I won't bother replying to you again, as there are numerous other people, with much greater knowledge and much more intelligent opinions, who make more interesting correspondents. In the time that you could save by not replying to me, why not buy a book on the subject of Operation Sealion?
    2
  49.  @nikolajkristensen5960  No. Tirpitz was LAUNCHED on 1 April, 1939. Don't you understand that, when a ship is launched, it is far from complete?
    2
  50.  @nikolajkristensen5960  At sea, Britain was vastly superior to Germany. The British had the largest navy on earth, and the German navy, especially after Norway, was tiny. If you intend to invade Britain, can you really not grasp how difficult that would be without either assault ships or a strong surface fleet?
    2