General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

doveton sturdee
Historigraph
comments

Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Battle of the River Plate 1939: Minute-by-Minute DOCUMENTARY" video.

Quite true. Bismarck & Scharnhorst weren't sunk either, the Western Allies were repelled in Normandy, Stalingrad & Kursk were smashing German victories, and Rommel triumphantly captured the oil fields of the Middle East. Alternatively, the events following Langsdorff's triumph at the Plate must be the only time in naval history when the 'victorious' commander, instead of returning home a hero, blew up his ship, apologised to his Head of State, and then shot himself. Should you really wish to know who won, read the comments in the newspapers of the world's neutral states after the battle.
6
In December, 1943, two British light cruisers engaged ten German destroyers in the Bay of Biscay. Not to put too fine a point on it, they wiped the floor with them, sinking three and forcing the rest to flee for their bases. Only one hit was scored on one of the British cruisers, HMS Glasgow. The Graf Spee should have been able to do the same to the three small, lightly armoured, cruisers she encountered in December, 1939. In the event, bits of her hull still pollute a sandbank off Montevideo. 'Germany always better' I beg to differ.
5
It wasn't Langsdorff's decision, the RN ships were faster.
5
@Tostotoktedasij Do you even understand what light cruisers were? Forcing a much more powerful warship to seek refuge in a neutral port, where she was subsequently scuttled, sounds rather like stopping her to me.
5
Greater weight of shells per minute is hardly relevant. Would you argue that, for example, a Tiger tank would be disabled if hit by enough Bren gun bullets? Having lost, it is hardly surprising that other officers queued up to criticise the failings of their (dead) commander. At the time, Harwood's squadron was wrongly identified as a light cruiser & two destroyers, which might have been the escort for a convoy. At the time, by the way, Graf Spee's armour was believed to be impervious to 8 inch shellfire. Isn't it easy to be wise after the event?
4
Not in the case of Graf Spee. The design dated from Weimar Republic days, and Spee herself was laid down before Hitler became Chancellor.
4
The Deutschlands had been called 'pocket battleships' since the first one appeared ten years earlier. The term was not invented at the time of the battle, and it probably was a good way of describing a ship with eleven inch guns.
4
Perhaps it is a German belief that destroying your own ship means that she is not quite so sunk? I doubt the US, British, or Japanese, navies would agree with the idea, however eagerly the Germans embrace it. 'PS: " the first great defeat for the Kriegsmarine and a humiliating blow for the German Prestige" ' Wasn't it? A heavily armed warship unable to fend off three much less well armed warships, then, having expended some 75% of her ammunition, fleeing to the sanctuary of a neutral country in order to self immolate herself? In your world, Stalingrad must have been a major German victory!
4
Actually, no he didn't. The crews were taken off before the ships were sunk, and later most were transferred to a support ship, Altmark.
4
@balker8973 Basically, because the Deutchlands were believed to be capable of resisting eight inch shellfire, and thus capable of outfighting or outrunning every other allied warship except the five British & French battlecruisers. Exeter was able to demonstrate that the Deutchlands were vulnerable also to 8 inch fire, which suddenly left them at risk from a further fifteen British and seven French eight inch cruisers as well.
3
Presumably, naval warfare isn't your strong point. Firstly, when an 11 inch gunned ship encounters an eight inch gunned ship, supported by two 6 inch gunned ships whose guns cannot penetrate the armour anyway, there should really only be one winner. Secondly, the Graf Spee used up so much ammunition that she would have been unable to fight a successful surface action against Cumberland had she left Montevideo. Thirdly, her fuel purification had been disabled, and she had only enough fuel available for 24 hours in any case. All in all, the first of a series of failures by the German surface fleet in WW2. In this case, a ship supposedly armoured well enough to resist 8 inch shellfire proved herself to be nothing of the kind. You are, however, correct about Exeter. Langsdorff should have completed her sinking. Not because of your immature comment about body count, but because of the problem this would have given Harwood concerning whether to disengage and pick up survivors, or continue his pursuit of Greaf Spee.
3
@WorshipinIdols 1). Hardly a wild success. A nuisance, in that the Allies needed to send Hunting Groups to seek & destroy her. But, there again, that is what the British & French fleets existed for anyway, and the inconvenience was short-lived. 2). An armoured cruiser which couldn't handle the attentions of three smaller cruisers can hardly be considered to have 'outperformed' them. Neither light cruiser was badly damaged, both remained operational, and were willing to continue the action, which was more than Graf Spee was, by the way. Certainly, Exeter was badly damaged, but during the course of the action, Graf Spee expended most of her ammunition, and could not have continued the action after the better armed (than Exeter) Cumberland arrived. In cold military terms, the Germans had three armoured cruisers, the British & French navies had 83 cruisers. The Allies would have happily have exchanged all three of Harwood's ships in exchange for Spee. In the event, they lost none. 3). Casualties are less significant than the attainment of objectives. Do you think that Stalingrad was a Russian defeat, for example? In any case, the point is irrelevant. Langsdorff didn't sink Exeter but, at least in your mind, flushed with the exhilaration of his triumph, he promptly took refuge in Montevideo, destroyed his ship, and shot himself. What do you think he would have done had he been defeated!? You posted something exactly similar to this drivel a day or two ago. Had you forgotten?
3
@tomk3732 So you think 'displacement' is the deciding factor in naval engagements? Oh well. Perhaps you believe Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth should have been sent to hunt down Bismarck?
3
You are correct. At the time Achilles was part of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy.
3
@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
Yes. Stalingrad was a triumph as well.
3
@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
Trouble is, by the time the film was made, nothing else did either.
2
Just for the record, the battle has been known as the 'Battle of the River Plate' since 1939. The 'Battle of the Rio de la Plata' would mean nothing to most people.
2
@WorshipinIdols 'Ships are judged by displacement not guns.' Please don't be silly. Colorado displaced 33600 tons, Scharnhorst 38900 tons. I know who I would back in a straight fight, although Scharnhorst could at least run away, I suppose. Droning on tediously about what guns should have been on Graf Spee is beside the point. It is what guns were on Graf Spee that mattered. Infantile 'would haves' count for nothing. Actually on the morning of the battle, Graf Spee could have got back to Germany. Only after losing her purification plant was this no longer possible. No wonder your 'victorious' captain promptly shot himself.
2
@WorshipinIdols Except that, as a result of the battle, Bismarck, listing, down by the bows, and short of fuel, promptly abandoned her commerce raiding mission and made an unsuccessful, slow speed, run for St. Nazaire. As none of the hits on Prince of Wales actually exploded, because none hit her all-or-nothing belt, she was only lightly damaged, and actually re-engaged later in the day. To judge who were the strategic victors, ask yourself: 1). What was Bismarck's strategic objective? 2). How much of it did she achieve? Incidentally, I said 'a series of failures,' I did not say that there were no successes, even though they were few and far between.
2
@WorshipinIdols What is wrong & what is missing? Enlighten me.
2
@WorshipinIdols Why are strategic objectives outside the scope of this conversation? Because you don't like the outcome? The British used Force Concentration to defeat Bismarck. If you have the largest navy on earth, shouldn't you take advantage of the fact? Hood was over 20 years old. Prince of Wales was not worked up. They were sent to the Denmark Strait (not Straights, by the way) to prevent Bismarck and Prinz Eugen breaking out into the wider Atlantic, where they would have been harder to hunt down, and might have disrupted the convoy network at a time when the Royal Navy was stretched. Therefore, the Battle of the Denmark Strait was a tactical defeat, but a strategic success, for the Royal Navy. You may consider yourself fortunate. Usually I get paid for giving lectures or talks on 20th Century Naval History. You are receiving the benefit of my knowledge for free.
2
@WorshipinIdols Stop taking those oddly coloured tablets. They must be giving you hallucinations.
2
@WorshipinIdols None of which alters the fact that none of the German shells exploded, and the fact that Prince of Wales re-engaged at 1847 on 24 May. Certainly, there were problems with the quadruple 14 inch turrets at the time, but these were largely resolved within six months. Look at Duke of York's gunnery performance at North Cape if you doubt me. As to the Prinz Eugen, clearly you haven't heard of the Mk. 12s aboard the American 'Baltimore' class.
2
@WorshipinIdols Wake-Walker's DUTY was to shadow Bismarck & Prinz Eugen until other British heavy units could be brought into contact. That had been the purpose of the cruiser, or the frigate, since before the French Revolutionary & Napoleonic wars. As I said at the outset, naval history clearly isn't your strong point.
2
@WorshipinIdols No. The strategic victory was at the Denmark Strait itself. Lutjens, following damage and loss of access to the forward fuel supply, had already abandoned his commerce-raiding mission and was making for St. Nazaire, at reduced speed because he had failed to top up Bismarck's tanks in Norway, an amateurish mistake no American, British, or Japanese commander would have made.
2
@WorshipinIdols To quote from a WW2 naval signal in Jackie Broome's book. 'Try sending the message again, using the other foot.'
2
@WorshipinIdols What makes you say that? Especially coming from someone who thinks that the River Plate was a German victory, and the fighting capability of a warship depends upon displacement, not armament. On dear!
2
@WorshipinIdols Congratulations. Clearly not naval history, however.
2
@WorshipinIdols I have no idea what you are talking about here. Do you?
2
@WorshipinIdols Three days after the battle of the Denmark Strait, Bismarck was in the process of being comprehensively sunk.
2
@WorshipinIdols Where have I lied/ 1. If you can't be bother checking your own posts, why expect me to guess at their meaning? 2. I don't think I have mentioned ranges or gunnery, but I do know the details of the action, clearly better than you do. Bismarck opened fire at 22,000 yards, and scored the decisive hit or hits at around 18,000 yards. What is a 'state-of-the-years' 380mm rifle, by the way? Do tell. 3. I did in fact refer to the hit which caused 600 tons of water to enter Prince of Wales amidships. As I also said, I have read Leach's full damage report. The hit caused a temporary two knot speed reduction, although this appears to have been restored quickly. Leach withdrew following the loss of Hood because he was aware that his half worked-up ship should not attempt to challenge Bismarck unsupported, and because one of the troublesome quadruple turrets had jammed. He did precisely the right thing, joining the senior officer present, Wake-Walker, and helping to shadow the Bismarck as she made for St. Nazaire. Tovey later agreed that this action was the correct one. Again, where have I lied?
2
@WorshipinIdols Sorry, but I have been concerning myself with what actually happened, rather than what you fantasise about what might possibly have done. There is nothing to suggest that Prinz Eugen ever intended to attack with torpedoes.
2
 @WorshipinIdols What in heaven's name does 'corrections, 113 Gross tonnage, mean?'
2
@WorshipinIdols I have read the books, and seen the reports by Harwood and others. I know all I need to know.
2
@WorshipinIdols Isn't it obvious? 20th Century Naval history.
2
@WorshipinIdols 'I said the Graf Spee sank 133 grt before river plate' Which is gibberish. 133 grt is a small canal barge.
2
@WorshipinIdols There are lots of things I didn't mention, mainly because they weren't relevant. My fully detailed accounts of the Plate & the Bismarck action both run to over 40 pages.
2
Well, if you believe the Plate was a German moral victory, then you must be profoundly ignorant of the way warfare at sea works. By the way, although Exeter was badly damaged, neither light cruiser needed to leave station after the action.
2
Without a working fuel purification plant, Graf Spee had only about 24 hours' worth of usable fuel in any case.
2
@Tostotoktedasij The difference here being that, unlike you, I haven't claimed as a victory something which manifestly wasn't.
2
@Tostotoktedasij It isn't 'like thinking that British Navy was superior to Germans.' That is a simple fact.
2
Cumberland arrived at 2200 on 14 December. She was positioned between Rouen Bank & English Bank, with Achilles to her north and Ajax to her south. At night, Achilles was sent in close to see if movement could be detected in the entrance channel silhouetted against the shore lights. This was outside the three mile limit which was all the British accepted, although Harwood was aware that Argentina & Uruguay claimed the whole of the Plate estuary. It seems probable that, in the event of Graf Spee sailing, even should this be in breach of International Law, Harwood intended to shadow her until she had cleared the estuary, and then re-engage. He wrote :- 'Should Graf Spee come out, she was to be shadowed and all ships were to concentrate sufficiently far to seaward to enable a concentrated attack to be carried out.'
1
She was a nuisance, but in late 1939 nothing more than that. The allied navies were able to hunt her down quickly because there was little else to attract their attention at the time.
1
@historigraph Stap me! Concerning this WorshipinIdols chap. Can you recommend a convenient brick wall against which I might bang my head repeatedly?!
1
The scenes are from the movie. Exeter had been sunk in 1942, and there was no other warship around at the time which looked like her. The only ships which represented themselves were Achilles (in her post war configuration when she was INS Delhi) and Cumberland (again, in her post war configuration as a training & trials cruiser, with her main armament removed).
1
Two of them. Delhi (formerly Achilles) & Cumberland.
1
Probably because there was a danger that the shallow channel to Buenos Aires might have clogged the water intakes for his engines. Whilst the Argentinians and Uruguayans claimed the whole of the estuary as territorial waters, the British did not recognise the claim. Graf Spee could have ended up an immobile sitting duck.
1
@stevetheduck1425 Like Schleswig-Holstein or Schlesien, you mean? In point of fact, the Kreigsmarine didn't have many ships of any kind.
1
@WorshipinIdols I simply pointed out that the loss of the fuel, and the fact she was down by the bows, meant that Bismarck was no longer able to steam at her maximum, but had been obliged to slow down. I did not say that 28 knots was slow. However, by mid afternoon on 25 May, Bismarck had been forced to reduce to 20 knots. That IS slow. Read Robert Winklareth's account if you don't believe me (or anyone else, I suppose). You clearly haven't read Captain Leach's damage report concerning Prince of Wales (not Whales, by the way. Didn't your interest in history tell you that?) 7 hits, all on the unarmoured part of the ship. None penetrated the armoured deck. She did take on around 600 tons of water amidships, but was able to renew the action, and maintain her position as a shadower, until she detached short of fuel. It wouldn't have been a trade acceptable to Raeder, still less to Hitler. Bismarck was supposed to seek out and attack convoys, and to avoid a major encounter with the Royal Navy. Inevitably, she failed.
1
@WorshipinIdols If I had been posting about the Mk. 16s, I would have said so. Not that it really matters anyway.
1
@WorshipinIdols Coming from someone as ill-informed as you, I take that as a compliment.
1
@WorshipinIdols Yes, what?
1
@WorshipinIdols No. If I meant 'belt,' I would have said 'belt.' I check my posts for accuracy, whereas accuracy doesn't seem to interest you much at all. What you recall is what I told you, but, just to try once again. There were seven hits. None pierced the 6 inch armoured deck (1.3 inches thicker than Bismarck's, by the way). One ( 8 inch) partially detonated on the armoured deck, and one (15 inch) passed through the bridge, without exploding. The remainder hit the unarmoured parts of the ship's side, and one caused flooding, although none actually exploded. Unlike Bismarck, by the way, with her outdated WW1 type incremental armour, the KGVs (and the Nelsons) had all-or-nothing armour copied from the US Navy.
1
@WorshipinIdols You really should buy a book. I thought you claimed to study history? Exeter was around 10, 000 tons deep load. Not that this is even vaguely relevant to anything at all. How was Graf Spee's mission successful? What is this gibberish reference you keep making to 113 Tons? Graf Spee was merely a nuisance, causing, with Deutschland, a larger number of Allied ships to search for them. Having said that, in 1939, what else were these ships needed for anyway? There was no German battlefleet able to sortie out into the North Sea, still less the Atlantic, and the only other potential threat, Italy, was still neutral. Harwood did precisely what any other cruiser admiral of the day would have done. He shadowed Graf Spee, seeking to remain in contact with her until Cumberland, Ark Royal, & Renown arrived. Langsdorff, in the event, saved him the trouble. Harwoods' cruisers did not suffer 'multiple hits.' Both, after the action, remained on station. 'Oh and Btw. I’ll trade a 13,000+ standard weight cruiser over 113,00 tons of cargo sunk any day.' As I said, you don't know an awful lot about the subject. Do you really think that, losing one of only three armoured cruisers in exchange for nine merchantmen (your frequent references to 113 tons are meaningless, of course) was a cause for celebration in Berlin, especially since the nuisance Graf Spee had caused lasted for three months only but, more importantly, the German belief that the armoured cruisers could cope with 8 inch hits proved ill-founded? From now on, the Germans knew that the remaining two were vulnerable not only to the five faster British & French capital ships, but also to every British & French heavy cruiser. No wonder Scheer only carried out one raiding operation, before being decommissioned in January, 1943, and Deutschland did, after sinking three merchantmen in the North Atlantic, virtually nothing at all.
1
@WorshipinIdols What hit which destroyed which seaplanes?
1
@WorshipinIdols What clip? Whatever strange spin you try to impart, during the course of her cruise Graf Spee sank nine ships, and was nothing more than a short-lived inconvenience.
1
Langsdorff, in my opinion, should have completed the sinking of Exeter. This would have given Harwood the issue of whether to continue attempting to shadow Graf Spee, or to abandon the action in order to pick up survivors. The safe harbour he chose was an odd one, in that Buenos Aires was more pro-German, although there was a risk of fouling up Graf Spee's water intakes in the shallow channel. Other than that, he had two insurmountable problems. Firstly, he had used up most of Graf Spee's ammunition in the first action, and was in no state to fight a second, but even more seriously, damage to his fuel purification plant meant that he only had around 24 hours of usable fuel left. If Langsdorff had turned away immediately upon sighting Harwood's squadron, he might just have escaped unobserved, (as Admiral Graf von Spee might just possibly have done when he arrived at the Falklands in WW1). Once he mistook the three ships for a light cruiser & two destroyers, he was committed. The other shock, of course, was discovering that Graf Spee's armour was not proof against 8 inch shellfire, as the designers of the Deutschlands had claimed.
1
None of the eyewitness accounts refer to the use of anything other than the Graf Spee's Battle Ensign.
1
Cumberland was carrying out a self-refit in the Falklands at the time. Am I allowed to refer to 'The Falklands' by the way, or will the wokes no-platform me?
1
Twenty six knots was more than adequate to outrun anything other than the British & French battlecruisers. The Alaskas were far nearer to being battlecruisers, their armour being similar to that of the British WW1 Lions & Tiger, although they could equally be called super heavy cruisers. How was the battle a 'draw?' By the end of it, Graf Spee was reduced to twenty four hours of fuel, and about 20% remaining ammunition. The British achieved their objective, which was to see the Graf Spee eliminated as a surface raider. What objective did Graf Spee achieve?
1
@stevetheduck1425 At that stage in the war, freighters in distant waters were still sailing independently. The three cruisers at the Plate were actually part of a four cruiser hunting group, one of several searching specifically for her. However 'clean' Langsdorff was, his tactics during the action were awful.
1
He didn't change his orders. To have investigated with Ajax or Achilles would have divided the two Leanders, when Harwood wished them to operate as a pair, and to launch & recover either a Seafox or a Walrus would be a time consuming operation. The first hit on Exeter was at 0626, and Graf Spee split her main armament to engage Ajax & Achilles as well at 0630, so it can hardly be argued that Exeter was alone for long.
1
Not really. It only shows how vast the oceans are.
1
The idea behind the armoured cruisers pre-dated nazi Germany. They were built by the Weimar Republic with the intention of using them to intercept French troop convoys in the event of a war between Germany & France, which Weimar considered a more realistic possibility. They were rather left behind by actual events, but they could be (and, briefly, were) used to force the British & French to use much larger forces to hunt them. That said, what benefit this was to Germany is unclear, as the allied navies were hardly under pressure anyway at the time.
1
@willkp50 Which was incorrect. The Royal New Zealand Navy only came into being in October, 1941. Technically, at the Plate, HMS Achilles was a cruiser of the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy.
1
@willkp50 Not nitpicking, just being accurate. Both Achilles & Leander had been cruisers with the NZ Division since 1936, when they replaced the old 'D' class cruisers Diomede & Dunedin. Their crews by 1939 would certainly have been almost entirely New Zealanders. If I remember correctly, the old film does make the point that Achilles was Kiwi manned.
1
@keithtonkin6959 Something similar applied to the battlecruiser Australia, which was known as HMAS. She had been ordered by the Australian government in 1909, and joined the Grand Fleet after German naval forces in the Far East had been destroyed. Austrailia, unlike New Zealand, missed Jutland because she was undergoing repairs following a collision with another battlecruiser. Ironically, HMS New Zealand.
1
@keithtonkin6959 Yes. I have seen the matches on the box. We have enough trouble with the Bloody Welsh!!
1
@MiG23ML In the movie, Exeter was represented by HMS Jamaica, Ajax by Sheffield, Achilles by INS Delhi ( i.e., herself ) Cumberland by herself, and Graf Spee by USS Salem. Sheffield & Jamaica could have re-lived their wartime triumph at the Battle of the Barents Sea.
1
World Opinion & the Geneva Convention cared. At the time, the Germans were trying to demonstrate that they intended to conduct themselves within the bounds of international law.
1
No. Exeter was sunk in 1942. Achilles was with the Royal New Zealand Navy until returning to the RN in September, 1946, and Ajax wasn't decommissioned until February, 1948. Churchill was not Prime Minister between August 1945 & October, 1951. As Leader of the Opposition, Churchill would have had no say in such decisions.
1