Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Britain's Pearl Harbor - Indian Ocean Raid 1942 Animated" video.

  1. More likely, the Allies saw the attack on India as actual, and one on Australia as possible, though improbable.
    4
  2. Actually, there was a reason, of sorts, for the seemingly pointless raid. As I recall reading quite recently :- 'The Japanese struck again on 9 April, sinking 23 ships in the Bay of Bengal. However, Japan did not want to invade Ceylon; the offensive was a defensive manoeuvre to raid the British forces and provide cover for their own troop reinforcements being sent to Rangoon by sea. As a result, the Japanese then withdrew and, for the most part, left India and the Indian Ocean alone for the rest of the war.' So, the Japanese weren't going to invade Ceylon, but, in your mind, were going to invade Madagascar? Could you explain how, logistically, the Japanese could have executed and maintained such an operation? Again, I await with eager anticipation.
    4
  3.  @colinhunt4057 . 'Radar: there was no onboard aircraft radar in 1942 anywhere on strike aircraft.' If you believe that, it must be perplexing to you that, on 9 March, 1942, radar equipped Albacores of 817 & 832 Squadron, operating from HMS Victorious, led an attack on the Tirpitz. It is a matter of fact that Somerville's carriers had radar equipped aircraft. If you exclude the 'Rs' that leaves Somerville with one modernised battleship and two modern carriers. You propose that he should have attacked with such a force?
    3
  4. The Japanese never did discover Addu Atoll.
    3
  5.  @senakaweeraratna741  'There are so many ' Nanking' type massacres on the side of the Allies.' Really? You are clearly very selective in you admiration of the Japanese. Aside from the German extermination of certain selected groups, there is no other example in recent history of the treatment of innocent people in this manner. You could, by the way, add to it the mass murder of Chinese slave labourers on the Burma railway. Your comment is so immature that it is barely even worth comment. 'The British Empire in Asia collapsed after the Royal Navy was defeated in the Indian Ocean by the Imperial Japanese Navy.' Nonsense. The realisation that the Empire was ending pre-dated WW2. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, & South Africa were independent Dominions, and similar moves were being proposed for India. If you don't actually know history, you really shouldn't post as if you think you do. 'No other country was able to sink so many British Ships as Japan did in WW2' Have you never even heard of the Battle of the Atlantic? The RN lost nine ships of destroyer size or larger to Japan in the whole of the war. Read up on the war in the Mediterranean, or the Arctic convoys, or, as I wrote, the battle of the Atlantic.
    3
  6.  @BA-gn3qb  I'm not sure what you are talking about. Bismarck had no air cover at all. The Japanese Task Force had five carriers with 116 A6Ms aboard. Somerville's radar equipped Albacores might perhaps have achieved something with a night attack, but do you seriously believe 814 Squadron's Swordfish could possibly have survived in daylight?
    3
  7. I wonder how many of them had previously honed their bayonet skills on Chinese women and children in Nanking?
    3
  8. What makes you think that this was a Japanese 'offensive?' It wasn't. As the title suggests, it was a 'raid,' intended to ensure the safety of a large Japanese troop convoy from Singapore. There was no wider ambition on the Japanese part, no large landing force intended to occupy Ceylon or Madagascar. You apparently feel able to talk glibly about the destruction of the Eastern Fleet as being acceptable if in exchange a Japanese warship or two might have been damaged. How would this have been acceptable? What strategic benefit to the Allied cause would have been accrued if Somerville had sought a surface action, when only one of his battleships and two of his carriers were modern or modernised, whilst his four old 'R' class ships, although marvels of WW1 technology, were utterly obsolete, and fit for nothing except Atlantic convoy escort duty, acting as a Fleet in Being, or, as they later demonstrated, use as naval artillery in support of assault landings? How could the Eastern Fleet have made any significant contribution to defence of Colombo from bombing? Perhaps you feel able to make such damning judgements from a comfortable chair 80 years after the event. Perhaps you might answer the questions I asked above without waxing lyrical about 'cowardice?' Oh, and it seems you are in ignorance about Dunkirk as well. Perhaps you might explain what a BEF of 13 divisions was supposed to do after the Belgian army had capitulated, and most of the French army had begun to collapse? Perhaps you would recommend the same action as you require Somerville to have taken, charging blindly into certain disaster? In point of fact, Dynamo was far from panic. Ramsay's plan brought out 336,000 troops, of which around 120,000 were French, and the British had begun landing new divisions in Cherbourg until told by General Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance. The French and Belgian armies, by the way, totalled just over 100 divisions. As I said, the BEF consisted of 13. Still, well done for making a comment about the Indian Ocean raid. Even if it was a facile and ill-reasoned one.
    3
  9. Operation U-Go, probably the largest single Japanese land defeat of the war, with 55,000 casualties, must not be known to you.
    3
  10.  @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
  11. True, but the British torpedo bombers had airborne radar, and Somerville was planning a night attack on the Japanese carrier force.
    3
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15. The Americans did not 'intervene.' They responded after being attacked.
    2
  16.  @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
  17. Hardly. They might make a bombing raid, as they did on Colombo. But the logistics of anything more would have been insurmountable.
    2
  18. Of course not. A brief raid by the Japanese, to ensure that a large troop convoy to Rangoon was not threatened. As there was never any Japanese plan to invade Ceylon, let along Madagascar, the importance of the raid has been much exaggerated in later legend.
    2
  19. What arrogance? The RN was almost fully committed in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, & the Arctic.
    2
  20. Had she stayed in port, she would certainly have been sunk. An intercepted Japanese naval communication had indicated that an air raid on Trincomalee was imminent, so Hermes set off with her escort destroyer HMAS Vampire, following a course due south along the coast, hoping to avoid being caught like sitting ducks in port as the US Pacific Fleet had been in Pearl Harbor. Hermes had, by the way, already landed her aircraft, a single squadron of Swordfish.
    2
  21. The British had an Eastern Fleet, based mainly on Ceylon, of older capital ships and escort carriers, which co-operated with XIV army. The British Pacific Fleet, of fleet carriers and more modern capital ships, was based on Sydney, with a forward base at Manus. India was the base for the main British land campaign in Burma, but there was never any suggestion from anyone that the BPF should be based anywhere than where it actually was.
    2
  22.  @senakaweeraratna741  Read for yourself how the Japanese 'liberated' the people of Nanking in January, 1938, when they were used for bayonet & sword practice.
    2
  23.  @senakaweeraratna741  You mean like the defeat that was the Battle of Britain, or the defeat that was the Battle of the Atlantic, or the defeat that was the Mediterranean naval campaign, or the defeat that was the Arctic naval campaign? 'Would haves' are so useful, as alternatives to reasoned debate for lazy or prejudiced people, or those of limited understanding.
    2
  24.  @senakaweeraratna741  Of course they were. Are you entirely ignorant of allied naval strategy? Clearly you are. The Royal Navy concentrated in the west, and defensively in the Indian Ocean, thus leaving the US navy to operate almost exclusively in the Pacific. The British lost, in terms of significant warships, two cruisers and one small carrier in the Indian Ocean. If you think that represents 'The pride of the Royal Navy' then you are very ill-informed. 'The Imperial Japanese Army defeated the British Army in Burma, Hong Kong, Malaya and Singapore, Papua new guinea among others.' I urge you to read up on Operation U-Go. 55,000 Japanese casualties, greater than the massive US victories in the Pacific. The British were never in New Guinea. The Japanese there were defeated there by Australian & American troops. 'Japan had support throughout Asia as a fellow Asian country.' Yes, it must have been delightful to be beheaded by a fellow Asian. Are you aware of the fact that 2.5 million Indians volunteered to serve with the allies in WW2? Indeed, are you actually aware of much at all?
    2
  25. You think that 12 Swordfish aircraft operating in daylight would have been able to do much?
    2
  26. As expected, a post containing 'lol' is usually from either an ignoramus or a half-wit. You haven't read about the Battle of the Atlantic, the Arctic Convoys, the war in the Mediterranean, or the campaign in Burma, I assume? Or of the assault landings in the west, almost exclusively planned & executed by the Royal Navy? It doesn't surprise me.
    2
  27. Because the R class were too slow. Somerville hoped to use his faster ships, Warspite and the carriers, in order to attempt a night torpedo attack on the Japanese task force, as some of his Albacore aircraft were radar-equipped.
    2
  28. Not really. The ABDA fleet was lost off Java, and there was a raid into the Indian Ocean. After that the British held the Indian Ocean with defensive forces. The RN concentrated the bulk of their forces in the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Mediterranean, leaving the US Navy to operate more or less exclusively in the Pacific.
    2
  29.  @micahistory  Overall, they won every campaign they fought in WW2. As they were the dominant allied naval force in the Atlantic, the Arctic, the Mediterranean, & the Indian Ocean, that hardly suggests 'bad' performance.
    2
  30. By 'run' I assume you refer to the victories in the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Mediterranean. How do you think the Japanese could have 'routed' the British in East Africa, when the Indian Ocean raid lasted for ten days, and ended on 10 April, 1942? Midway was almost two months later. They were not connected.
    2
  31.  @krackerman3628  Odd how people use insults when they aren't really sure of their argument, but thank you for proving the point. Do you really not understand the naval strategy of WW2? The Royal Navy took responsibility for the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Mediterranean, leaving the US Navy to concentrate almost entire on the Pacific. Moreover, after Midway, the Japanese navy was a busted flush. Japanese naval successes seem to have consisted of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, sinking a few scattered allies cruisers off Java, a brief raid into the Indian Ocean (with no obvious objective in mind) and a pyrric victory at Savo Island. Ask the German U-boat arm, or the crews of the German destroyers at Narvik, or of Bismarck, or of Scharnhorst, how poor the Royal Navy was.
    2
  32. Indeed. The same biplanes which sank more tonnage of enemy shipping than any other type, and which in early 1942 were the only naval aircraft in the world fitted with radar, and able to carry out night attacks.
    1
  33. Indeed, apart from winning the naval campaigns in the Atlantic, Indian, & Arctic oceans, and the Mediterranean sea, whilst planning and executing almost every successful assault landing in the west from Torch to Neptune, what did it actually achieve?
    1
  34.  @澳贼  Have there been any serious naval engagements since WW2? Other, of course, than the British victory over the Argentinians in 1982.
    1
  35. Nonsense. The British defeats in the east came about precisely because British resources, Naval, Air, & Land, were concentrated in the west, against Germany & Italy.
    1
  36.  @00billharris  Firstly, your first paragraph contradicts itself. First you say that 'The Brits did not suffer from an inferiority of manpower or quatitative material on either front.' Then you say 'they were out fought, out thought and suffered a qualatative lack in material.' Well, which is it? Secondly, the Allies were out thought in 1940? The British contributed 13 divisions to the Allied forces in France & Belgium, the French and Belgians a hundred. The planning for the defence against a German attack was largely the responsibility of General Gamelin and the French High Command. The Belgians capitulated, and the French collapsed. What alternatives do you suggest the British had? Churchill did not become Prime Minister until the day of Blitzkrieg. I assume you actually know that? The failure in France was not of his making. Moreover, Britain's ability to defend herself was not compromised. The Royal Navy was never challenged for control of Home Waters, and the Germans failed in the Battle of Britain. Indeed, as early as August, 1940, the British were sending substantial troop reinforcements to Egypt to oppose the Italian invasion. What '2 front' war? There wasn't one until December, 1941. When it began, the British had withdrawn their naval forces, other than a small number of old destroyers and a few cruisers, to Home Waters or the Mediterranean, and Far Eastern forces consisted mainly of infantry. If anything, the British sent too few resources to Malaya. Certainly, tanks were noticeable only by their absence. A belated attempt to remedy this by sending Force Z, intended, by the way, to deter Japanese aggression, failed, but are you seriously suggesting that the British should simply have abandoned Singapore & Malaya without attempting to defend them?
    1
  37. Not really. The raid was never more than that. A raid. It was intended as cover for a large Japanese troop convoy out of Singapore. The Japanese force had no troopships attached, and, obviously, no landings to establish a permanent Japanese in the Indian Ocean were intended.
    1
  38. Not really. The Japanese Indian Ocean operation was actually defensive in intention, as it was intended to cover a large scale troops movement to Rangoon.
    1
  39. More because the Royal Navy was almost entirely concentrated in the west.
    1
  40.  @jediknight5600  No, they didn't. Somerville divided his fleet into two, hiding the old, slow R class battleships safely out of sight, and attempting to carry out a night torpedo bomber attack with his radar equipped Albacores. He never sought, nor intended, a fleet action.
    1
  41. You think so? Two capital ships, one (second line) carrier, four cruisers, and six destroyers. As the Royal Navy fought, and won, their campaigns in the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea, leaving the US navy to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific, I wouldn't be surprised if Chester Nimitz often had the same view of the Royal Navy.
    1
  42. Er? What blunder?
    1
  43. Outclassed? At sea and in the air? Think again.
    1
  44. When did they do that?
    1
  45.  @DawnOfTheDead991  That wasn't 'sending their carriers out into battle w/o any flyable aircraft.' The carrier was not sent into battle, but sent on a ferry mission. The captain was not acting on orders, but, for a number of reasons, acting foolishly on his own initiative.
    1
  46.  @DawnOfTheDead991  I think I did comment on the mistakes the captain made. However, at the time, Glorious had left her air group ashore because her mission was to land on RAF Hurricanes and Gladiators. Consequently, she only carried about 9 naval aircraft, of which only five were Swordfish.
    1
  47.  @B61Mod12  Where was the air cover to come from? At the time the British Air Ministry insisted in retaining the RAF more or less entirely in the UK. There were more than 40 fighter squadrons based in the Home Counties at the time. The real 'amateur hour' was this Air Ministry policy, which should never have been permitted, but, unaccountably, was. The hope was that, by sailing Hermes, she would escape detection completely, which was not possible had she remained in harbour. It was a policy of desperation, brought about by the circumstances.
    1
  48. The Indian Ocean raid was essentially defensive on the part of the Japanese, as it was intended to cover a large Rangoon bound troop convoy.
    1
  49.  @senakaweeraratna741  Propaganda sites are always fascinating. I know one or two which argue that the holocaust didn't happen, and that Poland attacked Germany, or even that Churchill sank the Lusitania. None of them true. You aren't able to dispute the number of Indians who fought on the allied side, are you?
    1
  50.  @senakaweeraratna741  If by 'restoring' you mean 'conquering' then Japan failed comprehensively.
    1
  51.  @senakaweeraratna741  Who would have thought that the Japanese were as ill-informed as you are?
    1
  52. They were rather busy winning the naval campaigns in the Atlantic ocean, the Arctic ocean, the Indian ocean, and the Mediterranean. Part of that involved planning almost every assault landing in the west, from Torch to Neptune. This enabled the US Navy to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific, whilst playing a minor role in the campaigns in the west.
    1
  53.  @amsfountain8792  Much as the United States' Navy was largely absent in the west for the rest of the war. It is what Allies try to do, utilising their respective strengths to mutual benefit. Perhaps you hadn't heard of the unpleasant happenings in Europe & North Africa between 1939 & 1945? They were in all the newspapers, I believe.
    1
  54. The hope was that, by sailing, she might escape detection.
    1
  55. She carried a single squadron only of Swordfish.
    1
  56. Exactly why? He planned a night torpedo aircraft attack on Nagumo's force, whilst keeping his slow elderly battleships out of harm's way. In what sense was he a coward?
    1
  57. Nonsense. You don't think that most Ceylonese might have heard of the Nanking massacre, where the 'liberating' Japanese used civilians for bayonet & sword practice, or of the more recent atrocities in Singapore and Malaya? I don't doubt that many people did hope for independence, but at the same time dreaded the thought of conquest by Japan. Even the Ceylonese Communist Party supported the British after Barbarossa.
    1
  58. The British were already fighting two enemies in Europe. Even so, they sent two modern carriers and a modernised battleship to the Indian Ocean. These were really not 'Second Rate Gear.'
    1
  59. The Japanese fleet was not actually huge. It achieved some success early on because the Royal Navy was almost entirely concentrated in the west, the French Navy was no longer in the picture, and the US navy had been pre-emptively attacked at Pearl Harbor.
    1
  60. Not correct. The Indian Ocean raid ended on 10 April, 1942, after the raid on Trincomalee on 9 April.
    1