Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Historigraph"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 How would theoretical air superiority have meant that 'they' could get over without much trouble? Purely imagination on your part, in defiance of the actual performance of the Luftwaffe in 1940.
The difference between Sealion and D-Day should be obvious. The US troops involved were already in Britain, and the Allies had overwhelming naval and air superiority. Your idea of using the Italian navy to support Sealion is simply fantasy. You are grasping at non existent straws to support your obsessive delusions.
I agree that you cannot analyse a battle which didn't happen, but you can make deductions based on things which did. In this case, the heavy losses by the German fleet off Norway, the lack of training the Luftwaffe had received in anti-shipping operations, the poor performance of the Luftwaffe at Dunkirk, the vast resources of the RN in home waters, and the manner in which the RN subsequently prevented Crete being reinforced by sea, even when the Luftwaffe's earlier lack of training had been remedied. You can add to the the utter impossibility of your foolish suggestion that the Italian fleet could support anything.
What is this bizarre reference to Harry Potter, by the way?
2
-
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 The British had been the dominant naval power for over 200 years. If anyone had an understanding of the issue, going back to the Seven Years' War and earlier, the British did.
Delay the invasion by a year? Aren't you aware that, from June 1940 onwards, the British were outproducing Germany in aircraft? For example, by May, 1941, the RAF had 56 fighter and fighter-bomber squadrons carrying out regular sweeps over Northern France. If you are going to continue to fantasise about air cover, then how would delaying the invasion by a year possibly have helped? As to the production of warships, the comparison would be ludicrous. Between September 1940 and May 1941, the Germans had brought into service one battleship, one heavy cruiser, and four destroyers. Would you like me to list British & Canadian production during the same period?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 Your ignorance astonishes me. During the Battle of Britain, Fighter Command rotated the squadrons in 11 & 12 Groups on a regular basis. After a period in the Front Line, a squadron would be sent to 13 Group, in the North of England & Scotland, to rest & recuperate, and a rested squadron would replace it. Similarly, experienced fighter pilots would be sent to training units to teach new pilots the tricks of the trade. Furthermore, many qualified pilots were actually in administrative positions, and not in the front line at all.
The Luftwaffe had no such policy. Their aircrew remained with their units throughout. As to your imaginary British 'shortage of pilots,' you obviously haven't heard of the 'British Commonwealth Air Training Plan,' which trained over 130,000 Allied pilots & aircrew in Canada alone.
Do you actually know anything at all about Sealion or the Battle of Britain?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 You really shouldn't regard Wikipedia as the fount of all knowledge. Of the 'sea craft' lost, 162 were small motor boats or barges, of which 150 were not sunk but simply abandoned at the conclusion of the operation. Of the damaged destroyers, all except three were back in service by 18 June.
I would recommend the official Naval Staff History, 'Operation Dynamo, 26 May - 4 June, 1940' but it is out of print, and probably too complicated for you to grasp anyway. What you describe as 'stats' are more correctly described as 'facts.'
One fact in particular being that the Luftwaffe attempted to prevent the evacuation of 40,000 troops, yet in the end failed to prevent the evacuation of over 338,000.
2
-
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 'whats wrong with that.' Apart from it being in no known language, you mean? You have been posting things about Sealion (and the Battle of Britain) which show a stunning lack of knowledge and, as I have plenty of spare time, I am more than happy to amuse myself pointing out your almost inexhaustible store of mistakes and factual errors.
Incidentally, I notice that one or two of your comments are not actually reaching this site. Perhaps it is finding you too preposterous to stomach? However, in response to:-
1). 'wikipedia isn't knowlegde ?:) you jsut stated everything they said was true but when used against you not true ty for making me see your as you are, a guy from britain who woulnd't believe britain could lose nothing more.' I actually said that 'Wikipedia isn't the fount of all knowledge.' Largely because it isn't.
2). 'google it, if they wasn't short on pilots why did the polish and americans join the eagle squadron freely.' The Poles didn't join the Eagle Squadron, but seven Americans did take part in the Battle of Britain. Similarly, 147 Polish pilots also took part.
You appear to have some sort of idea that Fighter Command was some sort of exclusive club for English Gentlemen. It wasn't. The Poles ( and by the way, pilots from other non-English speaking countries such as Czechoslovakia, Belgium, & France) had arrived in Britain after enduring many privations. They were experienced & capable pilots, who wished to continue the fight against Nazi Germany. Once they had demonstrated sufficient command of English to work within the constraints of Fighter Command's control systems, why shouldn't they be given the opportunity?
Similarly, the American pilots, and a further ten from another non-Commonwealth country, Ireland, made the effort to get to Britain to fight against Fascism. Doubtless, had Fighter Command not accommodated them, someone as ignorant as you would have accused the British of being prejudiced, I assume.
Not, of course, that this is in any way relevant to your fantasy about an (imaginary) British shortage of pilots. For that, you need to look at the Luftwaffe records, old chap.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 Very good. Now do you know how wide the Straits of Gibraltar are, and what there is there? Seriously, this is rather like pulling teeth, but fortunately not mine.
Mussolini went to war so that he could put, in his words, a few thousand Italian dead on the Peace Table. Like Hitler, he assumed that Britain would come to terms after France. When this didn't happen, like Hitler, he had few options, especially when his Armies in Africa were annihilated. Far from supporting Hitler in an attempted invasion of Britain, his surface fleet spent much of the war avoiding action, and by early 1941 he was begging for German support to shore up his troops in Libya.
'They shoulnd't meet britain there before the atlantic if they had some out there, would be very risky for britain to sail between gilraltar and marokko.'
Really? Odd then, that the RN and later USN sailed through the Straits will impunity throughout the war, wouldn't you say?
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 1). These perhaps?
Alexander Battery: (South Mole, sea level) Pom-pom and one Bofors to protect the south side of the harbour.
Bombproof Battery: (North side of the Rock part of 18th Century defence lines) 17 Pounder anti-tank gun, 25 Pounder Gun. Also had many Vickers emplacements, will show a photo later in the thread, and rifle ports.
Breakneck Battery: (Upper Ridge, top of the Rock) 1 9.2 inch gun.
Buena Vista Battery: (West Side, commanding views of entrance to anchorage) 4 inch naval gun.
Buffadero Battery: (South facing, field of fire to east (med), west (atlantic) and south (straits). 9.2 inch Battery and 2 Bofors.
Catalan Batteries: (North West Facing, covering harbour, airfield and landward approaches) 3-pdr QF Gun.
Couvre Port Battery: (Covering Landport Gate, only land entrance to Gibraltar at the time) 1940: One 4 inch naval gun and 6-pdr 7 cwt both in an anti-tank role.
Crutchett’s and Castle Batteries: (North facing running down the slope from castle) Searchlight emplacements still there.
Detached Mole Battery: (Mole running S-N at harbour mouth) One twin mounted 6-pdr at either end, 2 3inch 20-cwt and 2 Bofors.
Devil’s Gap Battery (Half way up the Rock, west facing covering harbour and Spanish hinterland) 2 6 inch Mk VII guns (guns still there).
Edward VII’s Battery ( 85 feet above sea level, south/west facing) 2 9.2 inch Mark X guns.
Engineer Battery: (Beside Alexander Battery) Searchlight emplacements.
Europa Advance Batteries: (Southern most point of Gibraltar) Two 4-inch BL Mark IX QF guns on CP Mk I mountings. 1 Bofors.
Farringdon’s Battery: (North Face, commanding views of Spain and airport) Fixed searchlight emplacement.
Forbe’s Battery: (North face, part of landport defences) 40mm Mark 3 gun on a mobile mounting.
Genista Battery: (South Facing) Two 6 inch Mark VII guns.
Half Way Battery: (East Facing) DEL equipped with a 90 cm Mark V Projector.
Harding’s Battery: (South Facing) 1 Bofors.
Hutment Battery: (South facing) 1 Bofors.
King’s Lines: (Part of Landport Defences covering land approaches. Most of these are cut into the Rock itself and you need to go through the Tunnels to get there) Many Vickers MG emplacements, two 6-pdr. 6cwt Hotchkiss anti-tank guns.
Levant Battery: (East/West Facing) Two 9.2 inch guns, one facing east the other west.
Lewis Battery: (West Facing) 1 DEL emplacement, 1 Bofors.
Lighthouse Battery: (South facing, beside lighthouse) 4 heavy 3.7 inch anti-aircraft guns.
Lord Airye’s Battery: (1,358 feet above sea level, south/west facing) One 9.2 inch Mk X gun.
Mediterranean Battery: (Just below Lord Airey’s. North/east facing) Two 4 inch naval guns.
Middle Hill Battery: (West facing) One Bofors.
Montagu Bastion (West facing covering northern side of anchorage) Two 3.7 inch AA guns.
Napier of Madgala Battery: (Beside Engineer/Alexander Batteries, west facing) Four 3.7 inch AA guns.
New Mole: (Southern side of harbour, west facing) 2 Bofors, one 4 inch QF gun, two twin mounted 6 inch guns.
O’Hara’s Battery: (1,400 feet above sea level, west/east facing) One 9.2 inch Mk X gun that last fired in 1976 (my father-in-law was part of the gun crew).
Orange Bastion: (Sea Level, west facing) One 40mm Bofors.
Orillion Battery: (Part of Landport defences cut into the Rock) 1940, one 6-pdr. 6 cwt anti-tank gun, replaced by a 17-pdr gun in 1943.
Parson’s Lodge Battery: (West facing covering Camp Bay) Disguised pill boxes and MG positions as well as DEL emplacements and one 40mm Bofors.
Princess Anne’s Battery: (West/north facing.) Four 5.25 inch high angle guns.
Queen Charlotte’s Battery: (NW facing) One 75mm anti-tank gun.
Rock Battery: (1,360 feet above sea level. 360 degree arc of fire. ‘Rock Gun’.) One 9.2 inch Mk IX gun.
Rooke Battery (West facing) DEL emplacements and location of Fire Command HQ.
Royal Battery: (1,256 feet above sea level) One 40mm Bofors.
Signal Hill Battery: (1,200 feet above sea level) Two 3 inch 30-cwt. AA guns and one 40mm Bofors.
South Batteries: (South Facing) Four 3.7 inch AA guns.
Spur Battery: (Just below O’Hara’s) One 9.2 inch.
Tovey Battery: (West Facing) Two six inch BL MK VII guns, one is still there.
Waterport Battery: (North facing and covering northern part of harbour and airfield) Two 3.7 inch AA guns.
West Battery: (West facing) Two 9.2 inch Mk X guns.
White Rock Batteries: (East facing covering possible invasion beaches) Two 3.7 inch mobile AA guns.
Windmill Hill Batteries: (West/South facing) Four 3.7 inch AA guns, two 9.2 inch guns.
Woodford’s Battery: (South facing) DEL emplacement.
Did you really not know that Gibraltar was the main British naval base in the Western Mediterranean. The above are 'only' the shore guns. You can add the warships of Force H & North Atlantic Command ( 1 battleship, 1 battlecruiser, one carrier, and 15 destroyers of the 8th & 15 destroyer flotillas, and probably a fair proportion of the Mediterranean Fleet itself. At the time, 4 battleships, 2 aircraft carriers, 3 heavy & 5 light cruisers, 22 destroyers, & 13 submarines. You can also add the aircraft based on Gibraltar, and the air groups of the carriers, whose torpedo bombers crews had had considerable training in anti-shipping operations. Gibraltar was, of course, out of range of all but a tiny number of Italian shore based aircraft.
The Straits, by the way, are 8 miles wide.
Actually, that was precisely the reason Mussolini went to war. He even said as much to Count Ciano, his Foreign Minister and Son in Law.
'His support to north african has nothing to do with sea lion, and yes they did sail trough there later it was a none battlefield so if they could italy could to.' Don't be obtuse, of course it does. The British would have unopposed freedom to attack the Italian army in North Africa, and to shell any Italian port, from the sea.
The difference between the British using the Straits, which they did right from the start of the war, and the Italians using them, is that the British coast defences would not be shelling British ships. Are you really this clueless?
2
-
@nikolajkristensen5960 You have demonstrated your cluelessness in a whole series of posts, culminating in your apparent ignorance of Gibraltar as a major British naval base. 'Clueless?' Of course you are. I am simply calling a spade a spade.
I notice that another post from you hasn't appeared on here. This one :-
'how do you figure they would have unopposed attack in north africa? how does sea lion make a diffents to italy war in north africa? I do know they have all that but they will have to launch some operations against that base first yes kinda says itself ty for information me I'm just information you about italy thats all nothing more you asked yourself I answer hard to get?, you really like calling me clueless when you have writen to me for over 100 messages xD I don't care what you think will stop it I said some of my plan quess the rest on the way because im done typing to you.'
As I derive considerable entertainment from replying to you, then, as a gift, here is my reply to that:
1). If a large proportion of the Italian navy was no longer in the Mediterranean, or at least above the surface in the Mediterranean, then Cunningham can use his ships to shell Italian positions all along the coast, to disrupt Italian supply lines along the coast, and to transport supplies to British forces near the front without the need to use valuable trucks and fuel carrying these supplies along the coast road.
2). The same answer. You wish to send most of the Italian fleet to the Channel. Ignoring the sheer impossibility of this, surely you can grasp that, if the bulk of the Italian fleet vanishes, point 1). above applies, and every Italian mainland port becomes a juicy target for an aggressive commander like Andrew Cunningham.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2