Maker Pro
Maker Pro

cold fusion

N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert Morien said:
However the Official Web Site of the HMS
Association does not mention
this as a possibility.

Perhaps you could post a link to this theory.

Pretty well vox pop. Been on many TV documentaries. Only 3 men survived
from the Hood, and I don't think they knew either.
NOt likely. The subs had a better chance
of destroying the fleet and couldn't do it.

U boats could only hit slow ships, or if they got a fast one at the right
angle. The Wolf packs attacked on the "surface" at night. Against fast
men-o-war, they had little chance. 5 British carriers were sunk by U boats.
2 converted slow WW1 cruisers, 2 slow escort carriers (converted
merchantmen) and the only decent one being the Ark Royal in a smooth
Mediterranean.

The German capital ships were "very" fast and had big guns - they were state
of the art. The British had virtually suspended new ship building and
development: Versailles and all that. If the the Germans ran amok amongst
US capital ships left in the Atlantic they would have made mincemeat of them
..they had numbers on their side. In any event the
British Fleet would have joined the hunt in the
western atlantic, just as they did in the eastern atlantic.

Not to mention the Germans would never have
operated so far from reliable support.

Bismark was 2/3 into the Atlantic.
Of course it was only in 30 or so feet of water as it had been "docked"
by pumping dredge tailings under the ship.

And there were several air attacks prior to
the lancasters by carrier based planes that
caused some damage.

Tirpitz was an obsession. The fact was, as the war went on and carrier
aircraft improved, together with radar, Tirpitz was a sitting duck. Only
in ship to ship engagements would it be of any use.
The X-class subs caused about 9 months of repairs

Seems like Hood was pretty much of a hollow threat also. Inferior armor
to protect it from Bismarck...the captain knew this.

The Hood was. The Hood was old, commissioned in WW1, with advantage to the
Bismark. The manoeuvrability and rapid and more accurate fire of the Bismark
was enough to at least shake the Hood off. The Hood did have big guns that
could smash the Bismark to bits, but it was catching her and getting her
into a position that the guns could be of any real use. Bismark had
superior modern armour, which Hood never. Hood was still a design not too
far removed from the original Dreadnought class - the first modern
battleships.

In hindsight, the German capital ships were not of much use - I suppose all
of them in all countries were too. The sub and carrier - mainly the advances
in planes - made all these ships obsolete. Yet, the US was still using them
into the 1990s. Tirpiz and Bismark were sunk on their first voyages - none
made it back to Germany. The rest were bombed and mined continuously. The
Scharnhorst came out a fjord and was chased by a pose of RN ships and sunk -
surprisingly no carriers were involved, and the UK finished WW2 with 59 flat
tops with 17 still being built. Graf Spree, on her first war tour was sunk
too, the Gneisenau was crippled and decommissioned. British fighting ships
could roam the Atlantic, German ships could not.
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
News said:
Pretty well vox pop. Been on many TV documentaries. Only 3 men survived
from the Hood, and I don't think they knew either.

Aboard Prince of Wales, Captain Leach happened to be looking at Hood:
"...at the moment when a salvo arrived and it appeared to be across the
ship somewhere about the mainmast. In that salvo there were, I think,
two shots short and one over, but it may have been the other way round.
But I formed the impression at the time that something had arrived on
board Hood in a position just before the mainmast and slightly
starboard. It was not a very definite impression that I had, but it was
sufficiently definite to make me look at Hood for a further period. In
fact I wondered what the result was going to be, and between one and two
seconds after I formed that impression, an explosion took place in the
Hood, which appeared to me to come from very much the same position in
the ship. There was a very fierce upward rush of flame the shape of a
funnel, rather a thin funnel, and almost instantaneously the ship was
enveloped in smoke from one end to the other.'

Although there was naturally some variation in the reports that
witnesses gave, most agree that a tall, slim geyser of flame, similar in
appearance to a welding torch, shot up from the area around the main
mast (possibly venting flame/gas shooting up from the engine room
vents). At the same time, a gigantic, strangely quiet, explosion or
conflagration wracked the entire aft end of the ship. Large pieces of
debris were observed in the air. As the flames turned into a mushroom
cloud, the entire ship became wreathed in heavy smoke. She slowed to a
stop and heeled heavily to starboard.


or

"During the approach 'Hood' made 'G.I.C.' - followed by - 'G.O.B.I.' -
just before opening fire at 0552. Range approx 25,000 yards. 'Prince
of Wales' opened fire at 0553. 'Bismarck' replied with extreme accuracy
on 'Hood.' 2nd or 3rd salvo straddled and fire broke out in 'Hood' in
the vicinity of the port after 4-in gun mounting. Lighter ship engaged
'Prince of Wales.' 'Prince of Wales' opening salvo was observed over,
6th was seen to straddle. At this time 'Prince of Wales' had five 14-in
guns in action. 'Y' turret would not bear. Fire in 'Hood' spread
rapidly to the mainmast. A turn of 2 blue [indicating a course change
of 20º to port] at 0555 opened 'A' arcs at 'Prince of Wales' ninth
salvo.11 'Hood' had a further 2 blue flying when, at 0600, just after
'Bismarck's fifth salvo, a huge explosion occurred12 between 'Hood's'
after funnel and mainmast and she sank in three or four minutes. 'Hood'
had fired five or six salvos, but fall of shot was not seen, possibly
because this coincided with firing of 'Prince of Wales' guns."

or

To what can we ascribe this unusual performance? Could Hood have been
encountering internal difficulties with her supply of powder and shell?
Could some failure have disrupted the notoriously complex and often
unreliable sequence of anti-flash mechanisms installed after British
experience at Jutland?89 In the urgency of combat, might someone in the
turret have over-ridden a balky anti-flash interlock in order to bring
the turret back into operation? Might there have been something wrong
with Hood's propellant? Could a failure of her gas ejection system have
caused a flare back into 'Y' turret which thence blew up the ship? Are
these scenarios all merely wild speculation? These possibilities,
though unlikely, cannot be positively excluded.





U boats could only hit slow ships, or if they got a fast one at the right
angle. The Wolf packs attacked on the "surface" at night. Against fast
men-o-war, they had little chance. 5 British carriers were sunk by U boats.
2 converted slow WW1 cruisers, 2 slow escort carriers (converted
merchantmen) and the only decent one being the Ark Royal in a smooth
Mediterranean.


Japanese submarine sinks the Indianapolis.
American submarine sinks the Shinano (largest aircraft carrier of the
war)
U.S. Submarines sank eight Japanese aircraft carriers.
200 U.S. subs sank 201 Jap warships
The German capital ships were "very" fast and had big guns - they were state
of the art. The British had virtually suspended new ship building and
development: Versailles and all that. If the the Germans ran amok amongst
US capital ships left in the Atlantic they would have made mincemeat of them


Bismark was 2/3 into the Atlantic.

And could not have safely operated there for any length of time. In fact
further down you state German ships couldn't roam the atlantic.

Tirpitz was an obsession. The fact was, as the war went on and carrier
aircraft improved, together with radar, Tirpitz was a sitting duck. Only
in ship to ship engagements would it be of any use.


The Hood was. The Hood was old, commissioned in WW1, with advantage to the
Bismark. The manoeuvrability and rapid and more accurate fire of the Bismark
was enough to at least shake the Hood off. The Hood did have big guns that
could smash the Bismark to bits, but it was catching her and getting her
into a position that the guns could be of any real use. Bismark had
superior modern armour, which Hood never. Hood was still a design not too
far removed from the original Dreadnought class - the first modern
battleships.

In hindsight, the German capital ships were not of much use - I suppose all
of them in all countries were too. The sub and carrier - mainly the advances
in planes - made all these ships obsolete. Yet, the US was still using them
into the 1990s. Tirpiz and Bismark were sunk on their first voyages - none
made it back to Germany. The rest were bombed and mined continuously. The
Scharnhorst came out a fjord and was chased by a pose of RN ships and sunk -
surprisingly no carriers were involved, and the UK finished WW2 with 59 flat
tops with 17 still being built. Graf Spree, on her first war tour was sunk

Graf Spree was not sunk. She was scuttled by her captain.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Aboard Prince of Wales, Captain Leach
happened to be looking at Hood:

The point is that no one knows for sure. The German shell hit a weak point
pretty early on.
Japanese submarine sinks the Indianapolis.
American submarine sinks the Shinano
(largest aircraft carrier of the war)

It wasn't the largest as it never ever carried any aircraft. She was sunk
sailing between ports for fitting out, still not finished. She was not
operational. Watertight compartmentation was not yet installed, which would
have made her much more survivable. She was a converted battleship. She is
not the best example.
U.S. Submarines sank eight Japanese aircraft carriers.
200 U.S. subs sank 201 Jap warships

Usually these ships were slow and/or US subs were plentiful and were having
pot shots. And as I said "or if they got a fast one at the right angle".
US subs also had superior radar. US subs in the Pacific was a vastly
underrated achievement as were the British subs in the Med. Popular history
has it that only German U boats were successful.

The Queen Mary and Elizabeth liners were so fast they did not sail in
convoy. U boats couldn't catch them.

One almost forgotten anti-U boat innovation was the Leigh Light. A radar
controlled searchlight hanging from under a bomber. As U boats travelled on
the surface at night they were detected by long range radar. The plane
would circle to approach upwind to avoid noise. The searchlight radar would
lock on to the sub and the bomb aimers and gunners would hit the sub as the
plane circled with sub always lit up. The gunners just fired down the beam.
The subs were taken by surprise. Many were taken out in the bay of Biscay
travelling home.

It was so successful that German submarines were forced to switch to daytime
battery charging when they could at least see aircraft approaching. After
its introduction allied shipping losses from U boats dropped from 600,000 to
200,000 tons per month.
And could not have safely operated
there for any length of time. In fact
further down you state German ships
couldn't roam the atlantic.

Because of the RN. The shear number of British ships negated the state of
the art German surface ships. As the Soviets said "quantity has a quality
all of its own".
Graf Spree was not sunk. She was
scuttled by her captain.

While a number of British ships were waiting for her outside Montevideo
harbour to sink her.
 
D

Dave Hinz

Jan 1, 1970
0
I'd like to point out to News, at this point, that this is exactly
the problem with the aircar and the other scams you've been sucked
into over the years.
" The Atanasoff-Berry Computer, said colleague Allen R. Mackintosh, is
comparable to the Wright brothers' aircraft.
"The ABC first demonstrated in 1939 may not have been much of a
computer, just as the Wrights' model was not much of an airplane, but
it opened the way."

Exactly. Not modern, just first. That's all it takes.
It was built and it worked better than any existing machine.

There you go.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
The Bismarck was not "very" fast by
the standards of the 1940´s, they
managed 29 kts, the British King George
V did 29,5 kts and the later US
battleships (Iowa class) exceeded 33 kts.

Bismark was fast. Not only that she could maintain top speed for long
periods. Its armaments, gunnery control, rapid firing, etc were
state-of-the-art and far ahead of most of the British fleet, which was
mainly older.
Bismark was 2/3 into the Atlantic.
Bismarck was in the Atlantic from the
moment they left the coast of Norway.

The point was operating over the whole of the ocean. The Germans could not.
No, Ark Royal was a vessel from
the Force H at Gibraltar, not the
Mediterranean fleet (at Alexandria)
and the planes from the Ark were
fired upon by another Force H ship, the Sheffield.

Planes from the Ark Royal crippled the Bismark using torpedo's, and the big
ships finished her off.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave Hinz said:
I'd like to point out to News, at this point,
that this is exactly the problem with the
aircar and the other scams you've been sucked
into over the years.

Computing was a scam? You believe the moon landings were in the Arizona
desert don't you?
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
News said:
The point is that no one knows for sure. The German shell hit a weak point
pretty early on.

As no one knows for sure, it's also entirely possible that one or more
of the safeguards to prevent flashback when firing the guns was
over-ridden and the Hood destroyed itself.

It wasn't the largest as it never ever carried any aircraft. She was sunk
sailing between ports for fitting out, still not finished. She was not
operational. Watertight compartmentation was not yet installed, which would
have made her much more survivable. She was a converted battleship. She is
not the best example.

It was the largest. It was sunk by an american submarine. The fact that
it wasn't "fully operational" has no bearing on the issue. If that has
any bearing then the Tirpitz was not operational and the sinking counts
for nothing.


Usually these ships were slow and/or US subs were plentiful and were having
pot shots. And as I said "or if they got a fast one at the right angle".
US subs also had superior radar. US subs in the Pacific was a vastly
underrated achievement as were the British subs in the Med. Popular history
has it that only German U boats were successful.

These conditions describe the german u-boat vs american fleet in the
atlantic...how many american fleet ships did german u-boats sink in the
atlantic?

The Queen Mary and Elizabeth liners were so fast they did not sail in
convoy. U boats couldn't catch them.

U-boats did not chase ships. They waited for them.

One almost forgotten anti-U boat innovation was the Leigh Light. A radar
controlled searchlight hanging from under a bomber. As U boats travelled on
the surface at night they were detected by long range radar. The plane
would circle to approach upwind to avoid noise. The searchlight radar would
lock on to the sub and the bomb aimers and gunners would hit the sub as the
plane circled with sub always lit up. The gunners just fired down the beam.
The subs were taken by surprise. Many were taken out in the bay of Biscay
travelling home.

It was so successful that German submarines were forced to switch to daytime
battery charging when they could at least see aircraft approaching. After
its introduction allied shipping losses from U boats dropped from 600,000 to
200,000 tons per month.
So?



Because of the RN. The shear number of British ships negated the state of
the art German surface ships. As the Soviets said "quantity has a quality
all of its own".

Bismarck et al could not have survived for any length of time against
the atlantic fleet...long supply lines, no nearby ports, etc.

While a number of British ships were waiting for her outside Montevideo
harbour to sink her.

And your vox popular posits that the Spree might have made a credible
escape attempt even under these circumstances...the captain had too much
respect for his crew to take a chance with all of their lives.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert Morien said:
As no one knows for sure, it's also
entirely possible that one or more
of the safeguards to prevent flashback
when firing the guns was
over-ridden and the Hood destroyed itself.

Could have, no one knows. But! Safeguards were ignored in the Battle of
Jutland in 1916. Some British ships literally exploded from what would
normally be insignificant hits. Procedures were very tight after.
It was the largest.

Potentially the largest. It wasn't finish or commissioned. Sinking an
incomplete shell is not the same as sinking a fully operational carrier with
aircraft and escorts. I'm not saying it should not have been sunk as this
would have been a formidable threat with a full aircraft and escort
compliment.
It was sunk by an american submarine.
The fact that it wasn't "fully operational"
has no bearing on the issue.

What strange logic. Of course it does. It was just a shell even with
shipyard workers on board.
If that has any bearing then the Tirpitz
was not operational and the sinking counts
for nothing.

More strange logic. Tirpiz was fully operational, with a full crew and out
to sink enemy shipping.
These conditions describe the german u-boat vs american fleet in the
atlantic...how many american fleet ships did german u-boats sink in the
atlantic?

U-boats did not chase ships.
They waited for them.

True to an extent. Some Wolf packs at night on the surface using the diesel
engines for power could move as fast as a slow convoy.

Read above, that tells you.
Bismarck et al could not have
survived for any length of time against
the atlantic fleet...long supply lines,
no nearby ports, etc.

The Germans used supply ships protected by U boats. The Bismark and the
Prinz Eugen were supplied by one.
And your vox popular posits that the
Spree might have made a credible
escape attempt even under these
circumstances...the captain had too much
respect for his crew to take a chance with
all of their lives.

If he could have he would have got out. When a number of ships are outside
the harbour waiting to pound you from many angles, you have little choice.
Large ship had called to the area to back up the RN ships there. The RN
could have allowed Graf Spree out and tailed her until the big guns had
caught up. The problem was her getting back to a German, or German friendly
port when the RN had so many ships in the Atlantic and a massive reserve to
fall back on. The Uruguayans told him to get out of the harbour when the
time was up. If it was a British ship the Nelson sprit would have taken
hold and they would have gone out.

Graf Spree had a limited sort of radar on board. After the scuttling the
British bought it off the Uruguyans.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave said:
You're distracting him again. Now he has a perfect excuse for never
responding to my post. Seems like every time things look hopeless for
him he finds a reason not to respond.

Hopeless? Where? When?
 
D

Dave Hinz

Jan 1, 1970
0
You're distracting him again. Now he has a perfect excuse for never
responding to my post. Seems like every time things look hopeless for
him he finds a reason not to respond.

Oh, don't worry, he'd find a way to sidestep the point without me hammering
on him. He still owes us pictures of his aircar factory, but I'm not
holding my breath. (wish he would, though...)
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
More strange logic. Tirpiz was fully operational, with a full crew and out
to sink enemy shipping.


Tirpitz was not fully operational. She was effectively dry docked.
Purposefully placed in shallows so she couldn't sink to far and dredge
tailings moved under her to even out the "bed".


True to an extent. Some Wolf packs at night on the surface using the diesel
engines for power could move as fast as a slow convoy.

Not to an extent. They had to surface to charge batteries, but they
didn't attack shipping from behind. They out manuevered the zig-zags to
place them where the ships would come by. Chasing was futile.


Read above, that tells you.

Nothing about their ability to interdict naval ships, just merchant
ships.

The Germans used supply ships protected by U boats. The Bismark and the
Prinz Eugen were supplied by one.

And yet ultimately Bismarck was sunk due to lack of friendly
port/support ships. You seem to think their were no American Aircraft
Carriers in the atlantic.

If he could have he would have got out. When a number of ships are outside
the harbour waiting to pound you from many angles, you have little choice.
Large ship had called to the area to back up the RN ships there. The RN
could have allowed Graf Spree out and tailed her until the big guns had
caught up. The problem was her getting back to a German, or German friendly
port when the RN had so many ships in the Atlantic and a massive reserve to
fall back on. The Uruguayans told him to get out of the harbour when the
time was up. If it was a British ship the Nelson sprit would have taken
hold and they would have gone out.

Actually the Spree was allowed extra time because the British kept a
ship in harbor also which forced the extension. This was done because
the British were too far away to interdict Spree. Spree didn't know this.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert Morien said:
Tirpitz was not fully operational. She was
effectively dry docked. Purposefully placed
in shallows so she couldn't sink to far and dredge
tailings moved under her to even out the "bed".

Tirpitz was "fully" operational with full crew and on active service. She
had been out on patrol.
Not to an extent. They had to surface to
charge batteries, but they didn't attack
shipping from behind. They out manuevered
the zig-zags to place them where the ships
would come by. Chasing was futile.

The point was:- that they could be as fast a slow convoy.
And yet ultimately Bismarck was sunk due
to lack of friendly port/support ships.

No. Bismak was sunk because she was chased by a pose of British ships who
hit her from two angles, not because of supply.
You seem to think their were no American Aircraft
Carriers in the atlantic.

The U.S. Atlantic Fleet in 1941 comprised four old battleships, one division
of 4 heavy cruisers, the aircraft carrier Ranger and a destroyer squadron.
If Bismark had engaged any of those ships without the carrier there was a
high probability that they would have been sunk.

About the carnage the U boats creating on the US eastern seaboard.....
`When the British "found it extremely difficult to be polite about it" they
cabled King firmly suggesting that he set up a convoy system, adding that
the British would even give the United States 24 of its own much needed
anti-submarine ships. "King's reply was frosty. He detested the British,
distrusted their motives, and believed them to be haughty and arrogant. The
British Admirals, in turn, had little love for Admiral Ernest J. King. . . .
.. Even General Dwight D. Eisenhower would say of his fellow American
officer: `He is an arbitrary stubborn type, with not too much brains and a
tendency toward bullying his juniors. One thing that might help win this war
is to shoot King'."`
Actually the Spree was allowed extra
time because the British kept a
ship in harbor also which forced the
extension. This was done because
the British were too far away to interdict
Spree. Spree didn't know this.

A British merchantman left port, and had to be given 24 hrs to get away.
Ajax, Exeter and Achilles were waiting outside. They had inflicted damage to
Graf Spree who limped into Montevideo for repairs.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
News said:
Robert Morien said:
Tirpitz was "fully" operational with full crew and on active service. She
had been out on patrol.


The point was:- that they could be as fast a slow convoy.


No. Bismak was sunk because she was chased by a pose of British ships who
hit her from two angles, not because of supply.


The U.S. Atlantic Fleet in 1941 comprised four old battleships, one division
of 4 heavy cruisers, the aircraft carrier Ranger and a destroyer squadron.
If Bismark had engaged any of those ships without the carrier there was a
high probability that they would have been sunk.

About the carnage the U boats creating on the US eastern seaboard.....
`When the British "found it extremely difficult to be polite about it" they
cabled King firmly suggesting that he set up a convoy system, adding that
the British would even give the United States 24 of its own much needed
anti-submarine ships. "King's reply was frosty. He detested the British,
distrusted their motives, and believed them to be haughty and arrogant. The
British Admirals, in turn, had little love for Admiral Ernest J. King. . . ..
. Even General Dwight D. Eisenhower would say of his fellow American
officer: `He is an arbitrary stubborn type, with not too much brains and a
tendency toward bullying his juniors. One thing that might help win this war
is to shoot King'."`
reserve

A British merchantman left port, and had to
be given 24 hrs to get away.
Ajax, Exeter and Achilles were waiting
outside. They had inflicted damage to
Graf Spree who limped into Montevideo for repairs.

Sorry Cumberland was waiting not Exeter, who had sailed south to the
Falklands damaged - the captain of the Graf Spee may not have known this and
thought 4 ships were waiting. The battleship Renown and carrier Ark Royal
were at Rio. Keeping Graf Spee in port was an advantage as the carrier could
catch up. Also the greater range of fire the carrier planes gave shortened
the distance too.
 
M

Me

Jan 1, 1970
0
News said:
No. Bismak was sunk because she was chased by a pose of British ships who
hit her from two angles, not because of supply.

News is again rewriting History........Bismark was sunk simply because a
torpedo from a Kingfisher off the Arc Royal, disabled her steering gear,
which did not allow her to manuver at a speed greater than 12 Knots.
Had this not happened, Bismark would have run away from the pursuing
British Fleet, easily, and would have been under German air cover from
France, within 18 hours. She was headed for Brest, where another large
German Navel force was provisioning. Bismark and the two heavy crusers
in Brest then could have given the Brits a giant problem in the atlantic
had this come to pass.

Me
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Me said:
News is again rewriting History........
Bismark was sunk simply because a
torpedo from a Kingfisher off the Arc
Royal, disabled her steering gear,
which did not allow her to manuver
at a speed greater than 12 Knots.

It was a Swordfish plane - nicknamed the stringbag,
Had this not happened, Bismark would
have run away from the pursuing
British Fleet, easily, and would have been
under German air cover from
France, within 18 hours.

Bismarck was hit by three 14" shells from The Prince of Wales while engaging
the Hood holing here fuel tanks - the Prince of Wales was not fully
operational still with shipyard workers on board from Camel Laid,
Birkenhead. Later she was hit by a torpedo launched by Swordfish planes
from the carrier Victorious. These hits slowed her down. Later she was
caught by Sheffield with the battleships behind. The carrier Ark Royal
launched planes against her, who aimed the torpedoes at Sheffield by
mistake. The magnetic firing mechanism were either faulty or not set
correctly and no damage done exploding on impact into the water. The next
wave of planes, with contact fuses fitted, hit the Bismarck reducing her
speed and manoeuvrability - three hit. The hull by now was loose and
leaking and fuel tanks pieced. She was being harassed by destroyers until
the big guns caught up. The KGV and the Rodney caught up with the carrier
Victorious just behind. They hit her with heavy guns reducing her to a
wreck. Ark Royal again launched torpedo planes. The Dorsetshire fired on
the planes telling them to keep away as the home fleet wanted to finish her
off. No more waves of planes came after. Dorsetshire fired torpedoes which
all hit, while the big guns were taking pot shots.

No luck in it. Too many ships to fight - radar and radio range finding. A
carrier or two that could launch planes at will, with the capability and
range to stop her was there.
She was headed for Brest, where another large
German Navel force was provisioning. Bismark
and the two heavy crusers in Brest then could
have given the Brits a giant problem in the atlantic
had this come to pass.

They had to face carrier torpedo aircraft which had proven the better and
more effective weapon against battleships. As time went on more advanced
dive bombing plane were used making the German ships vitually usless in an
ocean strewn with British and US ships and planes. Meeting carrier planes
made the Tirpitz run for a Norwegian fjord - the Germans even considered
taking her guns off and using them as shore batteries. The Germans never
again let their ships loose in the open ocean. The exception was the
Scharnhorst, in a futile gensture, came out of a Norwegian fjord to engage a
convoy bound for the USSR, then it was to retreat back. It was sunk.
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tirpitz was "fully" operational with full crew and on active service. She
had been out on patrol.

Tirpitz was not fully operational. She was docked in shallow water (with
dredge tailings placed under her to minimize how far she could sink)
because of the danger of being sunk...because she could not properly
manuever.

And now you are saying that she had been out on patrol whereas
previously you claimed she only stayed in the fjord. Which is it?


The point was:- that they could be as fast a slow convoy.


Which they didn't chase. They almost always attacked from the beam,
something you can't effectively do while chasing.

No. Bismak was sunk because she was chased by a pose of British ships who
hit her from two angles, not because of supply.

Actually she was sunk because she was damaged and unable to reach either
safe port of air cover.

The U.S. Atlantic Fleet in 1941 comprised four old battleships, one division
of 4 heavy cruisers, the aircraft carrier Ranger and a destroyer squadron.
If Bismark had engaged any of those ships without the carrier there was a
high probability that they would have been sunk.

If the japanese had not attacked midway with 4 fleet carriers, they
would not have been sunk. The fact of the matter is the Atlantic fleet
had Ranger and Bismarck would have suffered near identical fate.

Subs didn't do much to the Atlantic Fleet and they had the advantage of
numbers. What could Bismarck have done that the subs couldn't do?

About the carnage the U boats creating on the US eastern seaboard.....
`When the British "found it extremely difficult to be polite about it" they
cabled King firmly suggesting that he set up a convoy system, adding that
the British would even give the United States 24 of its own much needed
anti-submarine ships. "King's reply was frosty. He detested the British,
distrusted their motives, and believed them to be haughty and arrogant. The
British Admirals, in turn, had little love for Admiral Ernest J. King. . . .
. Even General Dwight D. Eisenhower would say of his fellow American
officer: `He is an arbitrary stubborn type, with not too much brains and a
tendency toward bullying his juniors. One thing that might help win this war
is to shoot King'."`
So?



A British merchantman left port, and had to be given 24 hrs to get away.
Ajax, Exeter and Achilles were waiting outside. They had inflicted damage to
Graf Spree who limped into Montevideo for repairs.

Spree was scuttled.
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert Morien said:
Tirpitz was not fully operational. She
was docked in shallow water (with
dredge tailings placed under her to
minimize how far she could sink)
because of the danger of being sunk...
because she could not properly
manuever.

And now you are saying that she
had been out on patrol whereas
previously you claimed she only
stayed in the fjord. Which is it?

She went on patrol, beat it into the fjord when seeing carrier aircraft.
Went out once again for a few hours and beat it back.
Which they didn't chase. They almost
always attacked from the beam,
something you can't effectively do
while chasing.

They could chase overtake and setup. My mother will tell you, as her
brother was killed by a U boat that did exactly that. The ship was old and
slow - it was to be scrapped in 1939, but kept on as the war broke out.
Actually she was sunk because she was
damaged and unable to reach either
safe port of air cover.

Actually she was sunk because British ships fired on and sunk her. It
wasn't a mistake, they got her. They it was the Bismarck.
If the japanese had not attacked
midway with 4 fleet carriers, they
would not have been sunk. The fact
of the matter is the Atlantic fleet
had Ranger and Bismarck would have
suffered near identical fate.

Could have been so. But only if Ranger was in attendance. If not then....
Only one carrier.
Subs didn't do much to the Atlantic
Fleet and they had the advantage of
numbers. What could Bismarck have
done that the subs couldn't do?

U boats were good for attacking slow moving merchantmen. Getting a fast
man-o-war in open ocean was more luck than anything - if it just happened to
be in the right place and the right angle.
Exactly.


Spree was scuttled.

Or would have been sunk. The captain knew he could not make it back home
with so many RN ships in the ocean. The engagement was a pure ship to ship
engagement. If Graf Spee had come out Ark Royal was on the way with a
battleship. Even if he evaded them he had to get back to Germany and the
approaches were covered by the masive British fleet. Remember France had
not fallen by this time.

Graf Spee and made the Germans realise that surface raiders may be outdated.
There was a little rekindling of big ships when German battle cruisers
Gneisenau and Scharnhorst sunk the old slow carrier Glorious (converted
ship) - the only occasion a surface ship sunk a carrier, which was mainly
filled with cargo being evacuated from Norway....but.. upon his return to
Trondheim, the German commander, was relieved of his command for endangering
his ships by attacking an old aircraft carrier, and expending too much
ammunition. Scharnhorst was hit and in a sinking state and while being
slowly escorted back to Germany, Gneisenau was torpedoed by a British
submarine.

Both ships subsequently spent many months in dockyards. Bismarck confirmed
that the large surface ships were an expensive liability. Tirpitz went out
once and again for a few hours. It would have been better for them to have
abandoned those battleships and assigned the crews to U boats. Probabaly
the same for the Brits and US too.
 
R

Robert Morien

Jan 1, 1970
0
She went on patrol, beat it into the fjord when seeing carrier aircraft.
Went out once again for a few hours and beat it back.


So you agree that you were wrong when you said Tirpitz spent the war in
a Norwegian fjord.

They could chase overtake and setup. My mother will tell you, as her
brother was killed by a U boat that did exactly that. The ship was old and
slow - it was to be scrapped in 1939, but kept on as the war broke out.

Well your mother was exceptionally well informed. How did she find out
which submarine sank the ship her brother was on? How did she get the
operational reports of that sub?


Actually she was sunk because British ships fired on and sunk her. It
wasn't a mistake, they got her. They it was the Bismarck.

She was sunk. Just like she would have been sunk by the US Atlantic
Fleet had the occassion arisen.


Could have been so. But only if Ranger was in attendance. If not then....
Only one carrier.

So if the Victorious or Ark Royal hadn't been in attendence, Bismarck
would have lived on?


U boats were good for attacking slow moving merchantmen. Getting a fast
man-o-war in open ocean was more luck than anything - if it just happened to
be in the right place and the right angle.

Being sunk by a u-boat is being sunk by a u-boat. American subs sank
around 200 IJN ships so it's no fluke
 
N

News

Jan 1, 1970
0
Robert Morien said:
So you agree that you were wrong
when you said Tirpitz spent the war in
a Norwegian fjord.

She didn't get out much.
Well your mother was exceptionally well
informed. How did she find out
which submarine sank the ship her
brother was on? How did she get the
operational reports of that sub?

All the German U boat reports were available after the war.
http://uboat.net/index.html
She was sunk. Just like she would
have been sunk by the US Atlantic
Fleet had the occassion arisen.

If they had the carrier involved then maybe yes. If not, and a surface to
surface battle, then I doubt it as the US fleet was rather old. Also the
British hit Bismarck from two angles. The US Atlantic fleet probably
couldn't do that.
So if the Victorious or Ark Royal
hadn't been in attendence, Bismarck
would have lived on?

Mostly likely, as she was brand new and state-of-the-art. Prince of Wales
was brand new and sent into service too early, but not as big and not a
match for match, and also fully not operational with some serious gunnery
teething problems, with her new radar range finders being jammed by other
radio signals. One turret jammed in the battle - nevertheless PoW hit
Bismarck 3 times with 14" shells dropping her bows.
Being sunk by a u-boat is being sunk
by a u-boat. American subs sank
around 200 IJN ships so it's no fluke

Doesn't say much about Japanese anti-submarine tactics.
 
Top