Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "How Scharnhorst was Sunk: Battle of the North Cape 1943" video.

  1. Perhaps you haven't grasped that the rules of tennis do not apply in war? If you have superior forces, you use them. Put simply, if you don't want to face these superior forces, don't make war on the British Empire, the Soviet Union, & The United States.
    4
  2.  @wolfwolf3355  'no one said I was in the Military back then.' Oh dear! Another one incapable of understanding the concept of sarcasm. 'I really don't care what you think' Really? Then why have you bothered to reply with a badly spelt rant?
    2
  3.  @kristelvidhi5038  Compared to what the US Navy did to them, not much.
    2
  4. Really, little chap? I believe both spoke highly of you, and your opinions.
    2
  5. There weren't much use in darkness.
    1
  6. With a thicker belt than Bismarck, Iowa, South Dakota, or North Carolina, or Queen Elizabeth? Try again.
    1
  7. There was an intention to refit the ships in this manner. Gneisenau's turrets were even removed, but it was not carried out.
    1
  8. What similar tactics do you mean?
    1
  9.  @iroscoe  Precisely. People who fantasise about accelerated U-boat production never seem able to consider the probable British reaction. Newton's Third Law seems relevant.
    1
  10.  @wolfwolf3355  I question whether you were really in 'the Military' for 20 years, as the Waffen SS did not exist for that long. Of course, German Intelligence was brilliant. It provided Goering with exact details of British methods during the Battle of Britain, it ensured that large numbers of troops and equipment remained in Norway after determining that the Allies intended to land there, it discovered that the British had given the Soviets full details of the German Order of Battle at Kursk, and it was able to pre-warn Von Rundstedt and Rommel about the landing beaches for Operation Overlord. Among other things. Didn't it?
    1
  11. Sharnhorst was not a 'pocket battleship.' She was a real battleship with a belt thicker than that of Bismarck. Why do you consider sinking a battleship which was attempting to attack a supply convoy a demonstrate of 'hate?'
    1
  12.  @johnpublic168  So? She was still seeking to attack and sink a supply convoy. If you want a sporting contest, you should stick to tennis.
    1
  13. Just a pity about the outmoded, early 1930s, design and the hopelessly unsuitable intended air group. Seriously, Bf109s trying to land on the decks of a carrier in the Atlantic! Good luck with that. Had Graf Zeppelin seen action, I doubt it would have been of long duration.
    1
  14.  @kristelvidhi5038  The Japanese did not do 'great work' with their carriers. They crippled the US Pacific Fleet with a surprise attack on a neutral country, but the first time they faced a prepared US force at Midway they were heavily defeated, and their carrier force was permanently in retreat thereafter, They did, however, operate aircraft specifically designed for carrier operations, and operated the carriers as part of a larger Task Group with a number of supporting battleships, cruisers, & destroyers. The Germans knew nothing about carrier aviation, intended to use aircraft designed for land operations, such as the Bf109 and the Ju87, and lacked the essential support warships. As for intellectual prowess, what sort of genius deliberately picks a war with the three greatest industrial powers on the planet?
    1
  15. 'Unfair battle?' You think that war is fair?
    1
  16. Well, anyone of any nationality is free to make a video about the action. However, a German one saying 'our ship sailed and was sunk' would probably be a short one.
    1
  17. That is why games and reality have little in common.
    1