Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "When 1 Ship Saved 30 others - The Sacrifice of Jervis Bay" video.

@wolfbyte3171 Captain Krancke, commander of Admiral Scheer, paid generous tribute to the gallantry of Fegan & Jervis Bay in his account. He also referred to a small freighter, already on fire, which fired at his ship before she sank. This is believed to have been Kenbane Head. He made no reference to any gun battle with Beaverford, only referring to a ship carrying a deck cargo of timber that Scheer caught up with as it fled at speed far to the south of the main action. The captain's log from Fresno City, another of Scheer's victims, reported "The Beaverford, bearing 110 degrees East South East was attacked and set on fire, distant about 10 miles". It seems Beaverford was attacked around 50 minutes after Kenbane Head, and about an hour before the sinking of Fresno City. There does not seem to have been, therefore, any time for a four hour engagement. The account of the Beaverford action first appeared in 1944, in the magazine Canada's Weekly, and it was republished in the Evening Standard in London. Quite how, when the convoy was scattering in all directions, a four hour engagement could have been witnessed in entirety, is not made clear.
82
@ArcticTemper Not really. The Deutschlands had belts of 2.4 to 3.1 inches, and deck armour of 1.6 - 1.8 inches. Cruiser standard at best, as was demonstrated at the Plate when Exeter's 8 inch shells were able to penetrate. A roughly comparable type might be the RN's Courageous, Glorious, and Furious from WW1. In their original configuration they had 3 inch belts and 3 inch decks. The first two had 4 x 15 inch guns, and the third, even more bizarrely, was intended to carry 2 x 18 inch guns. These were around 5 knots faster than the Deutchlands. The RN, which really did not know quite what use to make of these white elephants, called them 'large light cruisers' for want of a better term.
8
The whole purpose of the Scatter concept was to minimise loss. A ship with a maximum speed of 27 knots could not hope to catch 30 or more ships all steaming in different directions. Jervis Bay's gallant action delayed Scheer long enough further to reduce the number of losses.
5
Perhaps you are unaware that, at the time, Pound was suffering from a brain tumour which killed him less than 18 months later, and which almost certainly warped his judgement? Certainly, Cunningham would have left the decision to Hamilton and Broome, ther men on the spot, but for the actual response of the Royal Navy to Arctic Convoy defence, perhaps you should read about JW51B? Or consider the statistics? Of 78 Arctic convoys, involving just over 1,400 merchantmen, 85 were lost. Or, in % terms, 6%. Perhaps the Royal Navy was getting something right?
4
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
During Operation Berlin, Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had the opportunity to attack HX106, protected by HMS Ramillies, an old 'R' class battleship. Later, they encountered SL 67, escorted by HMS Malaya, an unmodernised Queen Elizabeth class battleship. On neither occasion did Lutjens, the fleet commander, risk action. German warships in WW2 generally sought to avoid action, as comparatively minor damage would inevitably lead to their destruction, Bismarck being the obvious example. By the way, the Deutchlands were very poorly armoured, up to heavy cruiser standard at best, as was demonstrated at the Plate, when Spee's armour was penetrated by Exeter's eight inch shells. I doubt that a Deutchland would have coped with an engagement with two Counties, let alone any of the five British & French battlecruisers capable of catching her. As to two PBs and a battlecruiser (I assume you mean a Scharnhorst, actually a fast, lightly gunned, battleship) the Germans had their opportunity when both Scharnhorsts encountered Renown off Norway in April, 1940. Once again, after Gneisenau was damaged, the Germans refused action. The reality is that the Deutschlands were planned in Weimar Republic days as a means of attacking French troop convoys in the event of a war with France, or France & Poland. The French produced the Strasbourgs in response. Once the Germans found themselves trying to deal with the Royal Navy as well, the Deutchlands became, in reality, largely irrelevant. Hence their lack of employment after early 1941.
2
@nelsblair2667 I dn't agree that Scheer's captain was particularly stupid. A single raider could never expect to sink many ships from a convoy scattering in all directions. That is why the scatter concept was conceived. Jervis Bay's heroic self-sacrifice further reduced the number of losses ther convoy experienced.
2
Coincidentally, in his naval career, Edward Fegen was seconded to the Royal Australian Navy, and during 1928–29, served as executive officer in the Royal Australian Naval College, which was located on Jervis Bay on the south coast of New South Wales.
2
@rttrttyan Indeed, because that was simply true. But where in it was any suggestion that the deaths of the crew were any less important? Just as, had Fegan chosen instead to abandon his convoy and leave it to destruction, he would probably have been court-martialled, whereas no-one from his crew would have been.
2
Captain Krancke, commander of Admiral Scheer, paid generous tribute to the gallantry of Fegan & Jervis Bay in his account. He also referred to a small freighter, already on fire, which fired at his ship before she sank. This is believed to have been Kenbane Head. He made no reference to any gun battle with Beaverford, only referring to a ship carrying a deck cargo of timber that Scheer caught up with as it fled at speed far to the south of the main action. The captain's log from Fresno City, another of Scheer's victims, reported "The Beaverford, bearing 110 degrees East South East was attacked and set on fire, distant about 10 miles". It seems Beaverford was attacked around 50 minutes after Kenbane Head, and about an hour before the sinking of Fresno City. There does not seem to have been, therefore, any time for a four hour engagement. The account of the Beaverford action first appeared in 1944, in the magazine Canada's Weekly, and it was republished in the Evening Standard in London. Quite how, when the convoy was scattering in all directions, a four hour engagement could have been witnessed in entirety, is not made clear.
2
The captains of both Jervis Bay and Rawalpindi were regulars. Both received the Victoria Cross.
2
Captain Krancke, commander of Admiral Scheer, paid generous tribute to the gallantry of Fegan & Jervis Bay in his account. He also referred to a small freighter, already on fire, which fired at his ship before she sank. This is believed to have been Kenbane Head. He made no reference to any gun battle with Beaverford, only referring to a ship carrying a deck cargo of timber that Scheer caught up with as it fled at speed far to the south of the main action. The captain's log from Fresno City, another of Scheer's victims, reported "The Beaverford, bearing 110 degrees East South East was attacked and set on fire, distant about 10 miles". It seems Beaverford was attacked around 50 minutes after Kenbane Head, and about an hour before the sinking of Fresno City. There does not seem to have been, therefore, any time for a four hour engagement. The account of the Beaverford action first appeared in 1944, in the magazine Canada's Weekly, and it was republished in the Evening Standard in London. Quite how, when the convoy was scattering in all directions, a four hour engagement could have been witnessed in entirety, is not made clear.
1
No. HMS Ulysses was based on an Arctic Convoy, Ulysses herself being a Dido class cruiser.
1
@nelsblair2667 No, the whole raison d'etre of a 'Deutchland' was to be a commerce raider. Attacking a weakly escorted convoy was why she was where she was. Captain Krancke found that Jervis Bay placed herself between HX 84 and his ship.l He could not simply ignore her. I don't even understand what you mean by 'soft underbelly'.
1
It is uncertain whether it actually happened. Certainly, Admiral Scheer's War Diary does not seem to mention these 'events.'
1
No. HMS Ulysses was a fictionalised account of an Arctric Convoy, and Ulysses herself was a Dido class cruiser. The book was written by Alistair Maclean. Forester did write a book about a mediterranean convoy, 'The Ship' in which HMS Artemis is based on HMS Penelope at the Battle of Sirte.
1
The maximum range of a typical British 21 inch torpedo was 5000 yards at 40 knots, in the case of the Mark VIII. A typical cruiser or capital ship from WW2 had a gun range well over twice that.
1
@orusandornots1915 Of course range matters. Jervis Bay was an unarmoured merchant ship. At the Battle of the River Plate, Sheer's sister ship opened fire on HMS Exeter at a range of 19,000 yards, and disabled her quite quickly. Exeter was a comparatively modern heavy cruiser. 'I am not sure what those guns where meant to defend against?' They were intended to defend against German ships of a similar type to Jervis Bay, by which I mean merchantmen converted into raiders. Of course they were not expected to engage U-Boats. At that time in the war, U-boats were not expected to be encountered in the area Jervis Bay was operating. A number of other convoys had had a similar excort, and this was the only occasion one encountered a regular warship.
1
No Commander (Acting Captain) Edward Fegan was a regular, not RNR.
1
What inspires you to say that HMS Jervis Bay 'failed'? Captain Krancke, commander of Admiral Scheer, paid generous tribute to the gallantry of Fegan & Jervis Bay in his account. He also referred to a small freighter, already on fire, which fired at his ship before she sank. This is believed to have been Kenbane Head. He made no reference to any gun battle with Beaverford, only referring to a ship carrying a deck cargo of timber that Scheer caught up with as it fled at speed far to the south of the main action. The captain's log from Fresno City, another of Scheer's victims, reported "The Beaverford, bearing 110 degrees East South East was attacked and set on fire, distant about 10 miles". It seems Beaverford was attacked around 50 minutes after Kenbane Head, and about an hour before the sinking of Fresno City. There does not seem to have been, therefore, any time for a four hour engagement. The account of the Beaverford action first appeared in 1944, in the magazine Canada's Weekly, and it was republished in the Evening Standard in London. Quite how, when the convoy was scattering in all directions, a four hour engagement could have been witnessed in entirety, is not made clear.
1
Armed merchant cruisers were used as auxiliary warships, and had been successful in WW1 in that role. The expected threat to HX84 was believed to be a German merchant raider, against which Jervis Bay stood a reasonable chance of success, rather than a regular warship. Those destroyers which were available were placed with convoys where attack by U-boats might be expected.
1
Because the Captain made the decision to sacrifice himself, his crew, and his ship, in order to save a convoy.
1
@rttrttyan Feel entirely free to show me where I wrote, or even suggested, that.
1
@jpmtlhead39 I appreciate that this is long after your posts, but aren't you even aware that Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, & Prinz Eugen rushing through the Channel back to German Home Waters was both an admission that German surface warships could not survive in the Atlantic, and also a major strategic reversal. At least, that was the view of Admiral Erich Raeder, who did have some understanding of these things. Unlike you, it seems. Have you looked at the subsequent careers of these ships? Scharnhorst - Sunk in her next action. Gneisenau - Never sailed again, and hulked. Prinz Eugen - Wandered around the Baltic, before being surrendered to the Royal Navy.
1
@jpmtlhead39 Research? Well. let's see. Prinz Eugen survived the war largely because she contributed almost nothing to the German war effort, and stayed out of danger. She later acted as a floating gun battery in the Baltic, where her only achievement was that of almost sinking, by ramming ,a light cruiser. A German one, however. Being used for atomic bomb tests was, by the end of the war, about all she was fit for. Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had a single successful raid, Operation Berlin, in early 1941. After that, Sharnhorst made one attempt to attack an Allied convoy, but was sunk a a result. Gneisenau was crippled in port, and was subsequently abandoned as a hulk. Hitting Glorious from 26 miles was certainly an outstanding feat. It might stand comparison with HMS Warspite's hit on Guilio Cesare from the same distance. However, unlike Scharnhorst, the Old Lady went on to have an outstanding war record.
1
@jpmtlhead39 'the Prinz Eugen contributed almost nothing...Well,She survived the war.' Yes, she did. Having, as I wrote, contributed almost nothing to the German naval war effort, apart from a small number of minor, HE, hits on Hood & Prince of Wales. Watching Bismarck sink Hood, then being sent to operate independently as a commerce raider, but almost immediately retiring to Brest instead, is hardly the stuff of legend, is it? By the way, except in your mind, Prince of Wales was not seriously damaged. Indeed, the damaged which she inflicted upon Bismarck was far more important, in terms of 'mission kill' as Lutjens immediately abandoned his mission and headed for St. Nazaire instead. I have already told you about Cerberus, and Raeder's assessment of it as a major strategic defeat, so no need to repeat the fact. I would add, however, that at the time S, G, & PE fled through the Channel, the RN's main forces were in the North, protecting Arctic convoys from a possible attack by Tirpitz, as the possibility of an attempted invasion had long passed. Indeed 'the rest,' of Scharnhorst's sinking, Gneisenau's hulking, and Prinz Eugen's irrelevance, is history.
1
The threat was only expected to be from a German armed merchantman sent out as a raider, rather than from a regular warship.
1
Armed Merchant Cruisers were attached to convoys in order to provide protection against German Merchant Raiders. They were not expected to encounter regular warships, and in fact this was the only time this happened. The other AMC sunk by a German heavy surface warship, Rawalpindi, was not a convoy escort, but part of a cruiser patrol line.
1