WW II Historical Thread, Discussion, Pics, Videos

[Lezt]

Actually I think the sub's would be able to ship the 11.1 inch ammunition. The shell is 302 kg a peice and can be shipped on the outside of the hull as per tin... It just needs to be properly waxxed n protected from the salt. The propellent charge and the silk bags can be stowed within the hull seperatly and... The graf spee can reuse her brass casings of the main charges.

Basically thegraf Spree's crew just need to set up a work shot on land to prepare the shells when they arrive.

The 2500 ton i52 can carry 300 ton cargo.. Let's approximate the u-vii at 750 ton to be able to carry 100 tons of cargo... That's 331 shells. Graf spee carried 100 rounds per gun. They fired off 414 rounds and still had 186 rounds on board. It is entirely feasible with 2 boats to resupply all ammunition to the graf spre

 

[Jura The idiot]

Actually I think the sub's would be able to ship the 11.1 inch ammunition. The shell is 302 kg a peice and can be shipped on the outside of the hull as per tin... It just needs to be properly waxxed n protected from the salt. The propellent charge and the silk bags can be stowed within the hull seperatly and... The graf spee can reuse her brass casings of the main charges.

Basically thegraf Spree's crew just need to set up a work shot on land to prepare the shells when they arrive.

The 2500 ton i52 can carry 300 ton cargo.. Let's approximate the u-vii at 750 ton to be able to carry 100 tons of cargo... That's 331 shells. Graf spee carried 100 rounds per gun. They fired off 414 rounds and still had 186 rounds on board. It is entirely feasible with 2 boats to resupply all ammunition to the graf spre

now it's getting adventurous LOL
I'll have to check Campbell's Naval Weapons of WW2 though ... interestingly for me, Central European books which I've read repeatedly when I was young quote the bore to be either 280 mm (this I can understand: "adding zero to 28 cm") or 281 mm (mix-up of 28 and 11.14" maybe?), and until this week I'd quarrel the bore wasn't 283 mm

 

[Lezt]

now it's getting adventurous LOL
I'll have to check Campbell's Naval Weapons of WW2 though ... interestingly for me, Central European books which I've read repeatedly when I was young quote the bore to be either 280 mm (this I can understand: "adding zero to 28 cm") or 281 mm (mix-up of 28 and 11.14" maybe?), and until this week I'd quarrel the bore wasn't 283 mm

LOL, don't fight over the 1mm, you will gain or lose it after firing off 100+ rounds

The interesting thing is, the Graf Spee fired off 418 rounds, of which"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2) This is the design figure. "German Warships 1815-1945" says that the actual outfit ranged from 105 to 120 rounds. Admiral Graf Spee carried 100 rounds per gun during her war cruise. Her outfit consisted of 200 AP, 200 HE Nose Fuze and 200 HE Base Fuze rounds. Of these, 414 were fired during the Plate River battle - all 200 HE Nose Fuze rounds, 184 HE Base Fuze and 30 AP rounds, leaving her with 170 AP and 16 HE Base Fuze rounds at the close of the action. She scored seven hits and one damaging near miss on HMS Exeter while HMS Ajax received one hit and one glancing blow and HMNZS Achilles escaped with a single damaging near-miss, a total of about 2.7 percent. Although this hit percentage was better than that recorded by the British and New Zealander crews, it was disappointing to the Germans, who blamed Capt. "Langsdorff's torpedo officer's tendency to over zigzag" - Eric Grove.

Is the graf spee saving the AP rounds for the battle cruisers? TBH 2.7% is pretty good, ww2 major warships have around 2% hit rate. Bismark being the exception at around 5% and washington vs Kirishima had around 20% because it sneaked up on the latter at around 8000 yrds while the others were shooting at around 20,000-30,000 yards

 

[Miragedriver]

These are Kodachrome photos from the LIFE photo archive, there're thousands of color and B&W photographs in that archive.

Here's an example of a token LIFE gallery by Carl Mydans, taken in Italy in May of 1944:

Column of American medical vehicles during the drive towards Rome. Location: Italy Date taken: May 23, 1944 Photographer: Carl Mydans

American jeeps travelling through completely bombed out town during the drive towards Rome, WII. Location: Italy Date taken: May 1944 Photographer: Carl Mydans

Group of American soldiers standing in front of bombed out building during the drive towards Rome, WWII. Location: Italy Date taken: May 1944 Photographer: Carl Mydans

American soldier trying to spot German positions during the drive towards Rome, WWII. Location: Italy Date taken: May 1944 Photographer: Carl Mydans

American soldiers looking over German armor destroyed during the drive towards Rome. Location: Italy Date taken: May 23, 1944 Photographer: Carl Mydans

German cemetary along the Esperia Pico Road during the drive towards Rome, WWII. Location: Italy Date taken: May 23, 1944 Photographer: Carl Mydans



I will now get back to bottling my Malbec

 

[Jura The idiot]

LOL, don't fight over the 1mm, ...

also LOL, that's me ... you might recall me trying to count every shell fired during the Capo Spada battle:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mil...-startegy-discussions-11-6728.html#post266925

The interesting thing is, the Graf Spee fired off 418 rounds, of which"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Is the graf spee saving the AP rounds for the battle cruisers? ...

thanks, will look at it, plus into Campbell's book

 

[Scratch]

Scratch, do you have a link (preferably in Russian) to what has Mr. Putin exactly said when, according to your source,
? I suggest you to post it to the thread 'World War II Historical/Startegy Discussions' though (I even like commemorated the R.-M. Pact there: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mil...-startegy-discussions-22-6728.html#post306573) and reason is historical remarks were not allowed in the Ukraine thread(s) so here I won't comment on that article (I found several inaccuracies when reading it a moment ago, but that's me

On the original comment, since I don't understand or read russian at all, I'm pretty much unable to even look for it, I'm afraid.
What I can offer is the following:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russia: Putin Defends Soviet-Nazi Pact

By NEIL MacFARQUHARNOV. 6, 2014

President Vladimir V. Putin has revised his opinion of an important piece of Soviet history, calling the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that Moscow signed with Nazi Germany to divide up Eastern Europe not so bad. “The Soviet Union signed a nonaggression treaty with Germany,” Mr. Putin said during a meeting with historians on Wednesday, according to a Russian transcript of the meeting that the Kremlin released Thursday. “People say: ‘Ach, that’s bad.’ But what’s bad about that if the Soviet Union didn’t want to fight? What’s bad about it?” While the Soviet Union is accused of dividing Poland, he said, Poland actually seized part of Czechoslovakia when Germany attacked that country. “Serious research should show that those were the methods of foreign policy then,” Mr. Putin said. Five years ago he had called the very same pact “immoral.” The statement is likely to increase security concerns in Eastern European states, which have been jittery about Russia’s intentions ever since it seized Crimea in March. Mr. Putin signed a law in May mandating five years imprisonment for anyone convicted of trying to rehabilitate Nazism.

In an older version of Timothy Snyder's articel, he explains:

Putin’s New Nostalgia
Timothy Snyder

As Russian military convoys continue the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin has chosen to rehabilitate the alliance between Hitler and Stalin that began World War II. Speaking before an audience of Russian historians at the Museum of Modern Russian History, Putin said: “The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression agreement with Germany. They say, ‘Oh, how bad.’ But what is so bad about it, if the Soviet Union did not want to fight? What is so bad?”

In fact, Stalin did want to fight. The August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had a secret protocol that divided Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin. It led directly to the German-Soviet invasion of Poland the following month that began World War II. In speaking of this agreement, known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, as good foreign policy, Putin has violated both a long Soviet taboo and revised his own prior position that the agreement was “immoral.” What might he have in mind? What it is about rapprochement with Nazi Germany that is so appealing just at the present moment? ...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So there should be an official russian transcript of Putin's speech released by the Kremlin at the beginning of November.

I am in fact also not in full agreement with some of the oppinions expressed by Snyder. However, the overarching observation that Putin revises his oppinion on the matter and seems to pursue unlikely cooperations to make advances to his ends still stands, IMO.

 

[Jura The idiot]

On the original comment, since I don't understand or read russian at all, I'm pretty much unable to even look for it, I'm afraid.
What I can offer is the following:

...

thanks Scratch, I started to look into stuff I was able to find (not the transcript though) ... Mr. Putin

who is a keen amateur historian

according to the original article

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

showed up in front of young historians (you may click to play a short vid at

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) and indeed said something else than in Poland in 2009:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(in Russian:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) ... what should I say? in this thread let me remind you the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations because of attacking Finland:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(I happen to be Polish-Czech bilingual plus fluent in Russian (plus English), I'm saying this to help you understand my choice of links

 

[delft]

I see no difference from the way Putin tells the story of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact from the original Soviet version. This says that when Germany created the Sudeten crisis Moscow proposed that London, Paris and Moscow would together protect Czechoslovakia. Instead London and Paris cooperated with Mussolini to give Hitler what he wanted. ( In March 1939 Poland was one of the vultures, with Hungary, in the partition of Czechoslovakia ). When the Danzig crisis came in August 1939 Moscow again proposed that it would garantee together with London and Paris the security of now Poland despite the objections of Warsaw. To talk about this British and French diplomats were send by ship to Leningrad. Moscow concluded from this that the Western powers were not interested and therefore chose to try to delay the war with Germany to 1942, when it expected to have its tank and aircraft production well organized, by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

 

[Scratch]

I think a bit more important is the observation that Putin's recent comments of the pact being ok is a change, or almost reversal, from what he said 5 years ago, where he called it "immoral".
Furthermore, the simple reality that Putin is in line with Stalin on this, or pretty much anything, is troubling. Knowing that Stalin of course used this pact to his advantage in the annexation of the baltic states and the eastern half of Poland.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... ( In March 1939 Poland was one of the vultures, with Hungary, in the partition of Czechoslovakia )...

I think this (which by the way made me check

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

part could only make sense if you had said "October 1938" instead of "March 1939"