I have also seen your earlier question, but unfortunately to adequately answer your question I would need quite a lot more time than I have available right now. Each of your seven questions needs an entire essay (which is exactly what I will make my students write this semester), and unfortunately there are no simple handbooks available on this stuff. I do, however, can guide you to some interesting reading that would make up the main sources of an answer:

1. Guy Halsalls World of Arthur from this year gives a good view on the whole Saxon ethnicity question, as well as a good idea on what archaeologists mean by 'culture' and 'ethnicity'. His idea, that the different ethnicities from Bede are constructed, contextual identities rather than 19th century 'nationalities' in our sense, is quite popular amongst archaeologists, but has not really taken hold with historians and geneticists, for example. If you do insist on maintaining Bede's classification system as fact, then the Anglosaxon migrants would be ethnically quite similar to the later Vikings, though the latter group would also incorporate more eastern and northern groups (from modern Norway and Poland), while the Anglosaxons took a slightly more coastal route picking up Dutchmen as well. This is mostly based on the artistic styles of material pottery, mostly fibulas (brooches) and ceramics.

2. Weapons were quite comparable, both would have used round shields and spear primarily, with secondarily and individually some swords and axes. Both groups did use bows, but rarely, particularly the Anglosaxons. Vikings used them slightly more often, but only in a skirmishing/ad hoc fashion. The throwing spear is the more common ranged weapon. The use of cavalry is the same, with neither group using them systematically or on any significant scale (except right at the end of the Viking age).

3. The ship issue is a bit tricky. People are divided on whether the sail was already widespread by the 6th century, or whether that was an innovation of the 8th century. This is mainly because we have very few boats from the period in between, with the Nydam and Sutton Hoo boats being the primary sources for the earlier period. These lack sails. However, most of the other innovations (steering oar, clinker build) were already developed and did not change much between the 6th and 8th century (though shipbuilding innovation did explode during the Viking age). However, this focus on the sail might be less significant than one would think, as also Viking ships (warships) were rowing ships first, with the sail only providing assistance in favourable conditions.

4. The jury is also still out on Saxon social organisation, as it looks like it went through significant rapid change over the 5th and 6th centuries. We know about the structure of the later Christian kingdoms, but little about the period right after 410. Beowulf provides the best idea of the organisation of the warband, but it is unclear how much of the ideas in there are filtered through an 8th century lense.

5. Ring-giving was certainly practiced, though all kinds of organised value systems were used. It is actually best known as sword-rings, with swords from this period having usually a gold ring on the pommel symbolising this transfer (and also fixing the reward to the instrument of the service, the sword itself). All kinds of valuables could be transferred to followers, though gold objects (and the material of gold itself) was of special (perhaps even exclusively royal, whatever that may mean) significance.

6. The historical naming of the groups is an artefact of both the limited availability of historical written sources, and 19th century ideas about national identities. Piracy across the North Sea occurred continuously (though with varying intensity) from the Roman period to the Renaissance, often with crews with very diverse backgrounds.

7. Religion in the first millennium is also extremely hard to make any firm statements about. We know that the cult of Odin/Wodan already existed by the 6th century, having replaced the later Tyr as the primary deity and Nerthus/Frey in other regions. However, even by the Viking period religious practices were extremely diverse (even if a general idea of a shared pantheon existed), and local gods were just as significant as the Big Names. Just as their Roman predecessors before them, the Saxons claimed divine descent for their kings, something that also exists up to the end of the Viking age (and continues as royal ancestors are sanctified by the Church). Worship would thus be also tied to tribal identity, just as much as personal preference. A marked difference would probably be that by the Viking age, temples existed, where during the 6th century, there existed only groves and open places. The priesthood was also more structured and more integrated with wordly powerful personalities, whereas it seems as if the sphere of the priest and that of the warrior are slightly more detached during the earlier period. The bundle 'Old Norse religion in a long-term perspective' gives a good idea of this.

A follow up: I've read some great books by Bernard Cornwell about a Saxon warlord named Uthred who battled the Danes all over England. It was great for getting a sense about the time period. I recommend them to OP if he's interested. http://www.bernardcornwell.net/series/the-saxon-stories/

Do any historians here know them, and could someone give a short answer regarding the writers historical accuracy?