Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Winning WW2's Most Important Battle - Battle of the Atlantic Full Documentary" video.

In the words of Nakita Khrushchev after the war: "...some remarks Stalin made ... stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war." The Lend Lease provided to the USSR continued well after Germany capitulated and would not be terminated until September 20th, more than a full month after V-J Day. Of the nearly 18,000,000 tons of aid send to Russia, about 23% would be supplied via the Arctic Convoys. Escorted almost totally by the Royal and Royal Canadian Navy warships, of course.
18
@leonidfro8302 Really? Which facts are 'alternative?'
7
Like Ernie King & Dugout Doug? Think again.
4
Unfair. Ernie apparently was generous with his hate. Aside from the British, of course, he apparently had similar feelings for the USAAF, the US Army, the US Marines, and many sections of the US Navy. He, allegedly, did not hate the wives of certain other US Navy officers, however.
3
Most people in Great Britain, or at least those who know anything, are fully aware of the importance of the role played by the United States and the Soviet Union in the victory in WW2, and thy also are quite willing to acknowledge the importance of the Commonwealth & Empire. Some people, it appears, lack the ability to reciprocate this appreciation.
2
@jonathanwilliams1065 HMS Belfast, HMS Cavalier.
2
@nickdanger3802 How is one Troop Convoy relevant to the Battle of the Atlantic?
2
Seven in total, though some were by shore batteries.
1
@leonidfro8302 Oh? For a delusional individual, he seemed to do quite well for himself, I suggest. Oh, and as Clement Attlee stated in the House of Commons in April, 1946, 'In the period from 1st October, 1941, to 31st March, 1946, we supplied to the Soviet Union 5,218 tanks, of which 1,388 were from Canada. We supplied 7,411 aircraft, including 3,129 aircraft sent from the United States of America. As previously explained on the 10th May, 1944, the aircraft from the United States of America were sent on United States Lend Lease to the Soviet Union as part of the British commitment to the U.S.S.R. in exchange for the supply of British aircraft to United States Forces in the European Theatre. The total value of military supplies despatched amounts to approximately £308 million. We have also sent about £120 million of raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies and hospital equipment.' Was old Clem delusional as well? In fact, is everyone who questions your opinion equally delusion?
1
It probably also fails to appreciate the numbers of U-Boat losses inflicted, at sea, by the various allies. By which I mean the US, and the RN/RCN/RAF :- US :- 134.5. RAF/RN/RCN :- 453.5.
1
@nickdanger3802 No one has ever claimed that the United States was not the 'arsenal of democracy' but it was not actually the weapons themselves, but the men who crewed and flew them, which achieved the victory? When a player hits a Home Run in Baseball, or a Century in Cricket, isn't it the player, not the bat, which gets the credit? Certainly, my (small) number of tons in cricket resulted in my team mates buying me drinks all night, not heaping praise on my Gunn & Moore Maestro.
1
@nickdanger3802 As I wrote, no-one would deny that the United States was the Arsenal of Democracy. What many would question is the obsessive manner in which many Americans, you being a case in point, have sought to denigrate the efforts of other allied nations in more recent times. As to the bat, had a Gunn & Moore not been available, I would have obtained one from an alternative source, such as Stuart Surridge or even Kookaburra
1
@nickdanger3802 You don't recall your comments recently about comparing the performance of the Royal Navy in 1917 to that of the United States Navy during Paukenschlag, then? Oh dear. Loss of short term memory is a very sad thing. H2X was simply a development of H2S radar, by the way. H2S was a British radar. Without access to it, the US could not have developed H2X. Furthermore, If you can demonstrate how H2X, or come to that H2S, was relevant to the Battle of the Atlantic, feel free to try. Similarly, FIDO arrived too late to affect the Battle of the Atlantic. Of 808 German U-boats lost, how many were sunk by FIDO? 32.
1
@nickdanger3802 I am glad that you agree. I really don't feel any obligation to trawl through your myriad of comments claiming that any non-American successes were down to the American - supplied equipment rather than to any merit on the part of the victors. You can recall them yourself, I expect. More interestingly, when I did compare the RN in 1917 with the US Navy off the eastern seaboard in 1942, you rushed to move the goalposts. You did not actually challenge any of my facts.
1
Hasn't it occurred to you that the Royal Navy of 1917 learned fairly quickly? Von Holtzendorff managed to get unrestricted submarine warfare introduced in February, 1917, and the Royal Navy began operating a convoy system from 24 May. As a result, ship losses were reduced from 413 in April to 285 in May, 286 in June, 224 in July, 186 in August, 158 in September, 159 in October, & 126 in November, despite the number of U-boats at sea actually increasing, from 40 in March, to 56 in October. This at a time when many of the refinements in anti-submarine techniques had not yet been created, asdic/sonar being the obvious one. Although depth charges did exist, the early ones were far more ineffective than those available by 1939. Nor, of course, was there anything like an HF/DF to warn of the locations of boats, or, of course, radar. This explains why the British introduced the convoy system from the first day of WW2. It does not explain why King, with all this evidence in front of him, and knowing from the British about the impending Operation Paukenschlag, chose not to allocate US Atlantic Fleet destroyers to convoy escort duties along the US East Coast in early 1942, despite Adolphus Andrews almost begging him for help. You really cannot compare the performance of the US Navy on the Eastern Seaboard in 1942, with that of the Royal Navy in 1917. For an obvious reason. As Shakespeare wrote of Hamlet, in the words of Fortinbras 'For he was likely, had he been put on, to have proved most royally.' The US Navy would, almost certainly, also have proved most royally against Paukenschlag. Had not Ernie King prevented it from so doing.
1
@CityRedesigner1945 The US Pacific Fleet was the victim of a disgraceful attack at Pearl Harbor, but recovered very quickly thereafter. The ability to leave the naval war in the west largely in the hands of the Royal & Royal Canadian Navies helped, in no small measure, that recovery.
1
@nickdanger3802 "February, 1917, and the Royal Navy began operating a convoy system from 24 May." You think that is quick ? Yes, I do. Because I tend to read books, in this case 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1914 -1945' by V. E. Tarrant. Among others, of course. Perhaps you might explain how Coral Sea was relevant to the Battle of the Atlantic, or how Wasp being used to ferry aircraft to Malta applies. Then, why Buffaloes on Midway are even remotely relevant? Or why you even refer to Britain taking over an existing contract that the French had agreed with Grumman as if it was relevant to anything at all?
1
@nickdanger3802 Actually, six convoys had sailed for North Russia before Pearl Harbor, five of which had arrived. Perhaps the British simply lacked your crystal ball? Foolishly sending supplies to a country which was already at war with Germany, rather than to Malaya when there was no conflict at the time? Imagine how inspired that would have looked had the Soviet Union collapsed, and Japan not invaded Malaya? By the way, you should have done a little more reading. 151 Wing was only active in North Russia from 7 September to 22 October, 1941, after which it was withdrawn.
1
That would be an achievement. Building 200 Type XXIs by 1939, when even the idea for such a boat only emerged, in something of a panic, in 1943.
1
Doenitz actually based his 600,000 tons per month on the calculations of Admiral von Holtzendorff, the Chief of Staff of the Imperial German Navy for much of WW1.
1
The first Victory ship, however, was only launched in January, 1944, and made her first voyage two months later.
1
@nickdanger3802 Quite easily. The British learned from the events of March to July, 1917, and introduced the a convoy system, which they re-introduced at the outset of WW2. King had this information available to him, and was further aware of German intentions from January 1942 from information supplied by RN Intelligence. He also had some 70+ destroyer squadrons in the US Atlantic Fleet, according to the US Navy order of battle.
1
@nickdanger3802 Oh dear. Long Lance torpedoes were not used against Force Z.
1
@nickdanger3802 'wiki.' I see your problem. You rely on superficial sources. At the time that Force Z was sent to Singapore, the area was not a war zone. The hope was that it would act as a deterrence to any Japanese aggression. In that sense, it was a political move. Moreover, the British did not underestimate Japanese capability at sea. Their Navy was rather busy in the Atlantic, the Arctic, and the Mediterranean at the time.
1
@Cailus3542 Actually, Force Z was sent in October, 1941, in the hope that there would be a deterrent effect on potential Japanese plans. The hope proved misplaced, but Force Z was indeed in the immediate vicinity when the Japanese invaded. That was not, however, why it was there in the first place.
1
@JackNiles-hc8yz 'Those 70+ destroyers of the Atlantic Fleet weren't exactly sitting around with their thumbs up their asses.' Really? Then what were they doing? Their enemy in the Atlantic was the German U-Boat threat, about which King did precisely nothing, resulting in the loss of some 609 merchant ships, or some 3.1 million tons of shipping.
1
@JackNiles-hc8yz I assume by that flippant comment you don't actually know. When Admiral Adolphus Andrews, commander of the US Eastern Sea Frontier begged King for additional resources, and was refused, surely it was clear that something was seriously wrong. At the start of the second Happy Time, to defend the entire US Easr Coast, Andrews had seven Coast Guard cutters, four converted yachts, three 1919-vintage patrol boats, two gunboats dating back to 1905, and four wooden submarine chasers. Fortunately, from late April, the Roya and Royal Canadian Navies sent some of their own escorts from their Mid Ocean Escort Force to protect convoys, after heavy losses, including 95 tankers (73 of which were US registered) were lost, and ihis was having a seriously detrimental effect both on oil supplies to Canada & Britain, and US attempts to strengthen their Fleet Train in the Pacific. From your posts, it seems that you didn't know any of this. Perhaps you might read a book or two? I could recommend some.
1
If you actually look at the statistics, the only nations which did much in the Battle of the Atlantic were the British, the Canadians, and the United States. Plu, of course, the Germans.
1
Carrier warfare might have been critical in the Pacific, but was far less so in the West, except for the later use of Escort Carriers & Mac ships for anti-U-boat operations. Moreover, carriers functioned best as part of large Task Forces, and Germany was never able to assemble anything remotely similar.
1
Good to read that some Americans have a sense of humour, or at least of irony.
1
It has always been my argument, which constantly upsets those of the light blue persuasion, that the Air Gap could have been closed around a year earlier if a small number of Lancaster squadrons had been transferred to Coastal Command and re-equipped.
1
@nickdanger3802 Your obsessive prejudice is showing, yet again. King's intransigence about the Eastern Seaboard of the US cost over six hundred merchant ships and around 5,000 mariners. Even Ernie could and should have learned something from the British experience in 1917, and their immediate imposition of a convoy system in 1939, don't you think?
1