Here is what I believe is an interesting report. It is a USN ONI's report on the German Air Force at Normandy. Covers April through July 1944.
It's not clear when it was declassified.
I see in http://www.amazon.com/review/R36RJKTELE9LUM (about similar / search Walter Gaul) "----struggle for control ---- from the point of view of the German offices - Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe - that fought it. The contributing authors were involved in all aspects of German attempts to control the seas, from the use of Ju-87 Stuka dive-bombers in the invasion of Norway to the missions of ---
These reports were either written as secret reports during the war for the benefit of the Oberkommando der Luftwaffe - the Air Force General Staff - or were written immediately after the war when most of the authors were prisoners of war or working for the US military."
This is one part I found interesting: "8 This decline was a clear warning. It showed that the fighting potential of Luftflotte 3 was being sacrificed to retaliation propaganda at a time when the Allies might any day spring the decisive operation of the war. In the place of a planned economy of forces in, attacks on the allied invasion fleet, ----"
> This is one part I found interesting: "8 This decline was a clear > warning. It showed that the fighting potential of Luftflotte 3 was > being sacrificed to retaliation propaganda at a time when the Allies > might any day spring the decisive operation of the war. In the place > of a planned economy of forces in, attacks on the allied invasion > fleet, ----"
Hitler firmly believed that offensive action could win a war, defense could only prolong the defeat.
> > This is one part I found interesting: "8 This decline was a clear > > warning. It showed that the fighting potential of Luftflotte 3 was > > being sacrificed to retaliation propaganda at a time when the Allies > > might any day spring the decisive operation of the war. In the place > > of a planned economy of forces in, attacks on the allied invasion > > fleet, ----"
> Hitler firmly believed that offensive action could win a war, defense > could only prolong the defeat.
.... and he and his henchmen never did have a clear picture of strategic offensive airpower.
Again, adding support to my hypothesis that Hitler was one of our most valuable assets in sabotaging the German war effort.
Another IMHO, interesting (surprising fact or distortion?)
"CHAPTER II --
11. But by 5 June all the signs pointed to a coming major operation: ---
Also about 2300 ---
Shortly before midnight, London radio announced that the invasion was to begin within the next 48 hours from 6 June 0000.*"
>> This is one part I found interesting: "8 This decline was a clear >> warning. It showed that the fighting potential of Luftflotte 3 was >> being sacrificed to retaliation propaganda at a time when the Allies >> might any day spring the decisive operation of the war. In the place >> of a planned economy of forces in, attacks on the allied invasion >> fleet, ----"
> Hitler firmly believed that offensive action could win a war, defense > could only prolong the defeat.
I think he was right about this. In the long term the allies would
overwhelm him. He had to win quickly.
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:20:32 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> Hitler firmly believed that offensive action could win a war, >> defense
>> could only prolong the defeat.
> I think he was right about this. In the long term the allies would
> overwhelm him. He had to win quickly.
I was looking through "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" for a reference and noted repeated hopes that the Allied bombing campaign could be halted once Russia collapsed and removed the enormous drain on resources. In early 1944 when Me-109 production exceeded 1000 per month, only a few hundred were left over to oppose the bombers after supplying other more critical fronts. The clumsy and vulnerable Me-109G bomber destroyer shows how badly they misjudged the immediate future of the air war.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9v109g.html
In contrast to the Allies who had the resources to attack multiple fronts in parallel, the German hope was pinned on a serial chain of stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the Red Army, not one of which was achievable.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:56:12 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> German hope was pinned on a serial chain of > stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the Red > Army, not one of which was achievable.
A better description would be Nazi Germany hope was that it could knock the
USSR out of the conflict, then hope that the British and US would not be
prepared to lose enough men required to defeat Germany.
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:56:12 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> German hope was pinned on a serial chain of
>> stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the >> Red
>> Army, not one of which was achievable.
> A better description would be Nazi Germany hope was that it could > knock the
> USSR out of the conflict, then hope that the British and US would > not be
> prepared to lose enough men required to defeat Germany.
I based that on remarks in German memoirs, which weren't necessarily official policy.
They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk supply convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire new field army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18
On May 15, 4:46 am, "Jim Wilkins" <muratla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk supply
> convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire
> new field army.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18
What does "BL" mean in the phrase "BL 14-inch (360 mm) Mark VII"? I
haven't been able to find the answer.
I followed Jim's link and read the article. I clicked on the HMS Anson
link in it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(1940)] out of
curiosity. In reading about this British battleship, the BL 14-inch
(360 mm) Mark VII main gun is mentioned.
> They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk > supply
> convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire
> new field army.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18
What does "BL" mean in the phrase "BL 14-inch (360 mm) Mark VII"? I
haven't been able to find the answer.
-I followed Jim's link and read the article. I clicked on the HMS Anson
-link in it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(1940)] out of
-curiosity. In reading about this British battleship, the BL 14-inch
-(360 mm) Mark VII main gun is mentioned.
-Thanks in advance.
-Cheers . . . J
BigLoud??
This says Breech Loading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL though I don't know why anyone would confuse it with muzzle-loaders in the 1930's. Then again they sized WW2 artillery in "pounders", a long-obsolete holdover from the weights of black powder cannon balls.
OIC, didn't read far enough. Breech Loading refers to guns too big for one piece cartridges, having separate shells and powder bags. The smaller ones are QF for Quick Firing.
This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm In particular the Shell Loader (Ch.9) has to pick up and move the equivalent of a bag of cement very precisely into place every 3 or 4 seconds until the Kamikazes are all gone.
> OIC, didn't read far enough. Breech Loading refers to guns too big for
> one piece cartridges, having separate shells and powder bags. The
> smaller ones are QF for Quick Firing.
> This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
> http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm In particular the
> Shell Loader (Ch.9) has to pick up and move the equivalent of a bag of
> cement very precisely into place every 3 or 4 seconds until the
> Kamikazes are all gone.
Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the powder
charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.
The Germans, never able to figure out how to make obturation (Making the breech
gas-tight) that worked over an extended period of time, used semi-fixed ammo
on everything up to the 15" guns on the Bismark and Tirpitz.
-- Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system
>> OIC, didn't read far enough. Breech Loading refers to guns too big
>> for one piece cartridges, having separate shells and powder bags. The
>> smaller ones are QF for Quick Firing.
>> This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
>> http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm In particular
>> the Shell Loader (Ch.9) has to pick up and move the equivalent of a
>> bag of cement very precisely into place every 3 or 4 seconds until
>> the Kamikazes are all gone.
> Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the
> powder charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
> The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.
> The Germans, never able to figure out how to make obturation (Making
> the breech gas-tight) that worked over an extended period of time,
> used semi-fixed ammo on everything up to the 15" guns on the Bismark
> and Tirpitz.
why would "breech loading" only refer to guns that use separate projectiles and propellant charges?
IMO,"breech loading" is any gun that loads from the end opposite of the muzzle,cartridge or separate components. Both have "breeches".
>> They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk >> supply
>> convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire
>> new field army.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18
> What does "BL" mean in the phrase "BL 14-inch (360 mm) Mark VII"? I
> haven't been able to find the answer.
> -I followed Jim's link and read the article. I clicked on the HMS > Anson
> -link in it [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(1940)] out of
> -curiosity. In reading about this British battleship, the BL 14-inch
> -(360 mm) Mark VII main gun is mentioned.
> -Thanks in advance.
> -Cheers . . . J
> BigLoud??
> This says Breech Loading
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL > though I don't know why anyone would confuse it with muzzle-loaders in > the 1930's. Then again they sized WW2 artillery in "pounders", a > long-obsolete holdover from the weights of black powder cannon balls.
BL is in fact "Breach Loading"
The alternative was usually termed "RML" or
"Rifled Muzzle Loading"
"SB" or "Smoothbore" if far enough back.
"QF" ( "Quick Firing" ) was also a term of art.
> OIC, didn't read far enough. Breech Loading refers to guns too big for > one piece cartridges, having separate shells and powder bags. The > smaller ones are QF for Quick Firing.
> This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
> http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm > In particular the Shell Loader (Ch.9) has to pick up and move the > equivalent of a bag of cement very precisely into place every 3 or 4 > seconds until the Kamikazes are all gone.
Some of the weapons dragged back into service from the Admiralty's
warehouses were long in the tooth by 1939
A friend of my dad's was gun crew on a Canadian corvette that had a
4" gun separately loaded with shell and bagged charge which by the
way would have had one of Monsieur de Bange's suet filled obturation
pads.
>> OIC, didn't read far enough. Breech Loading refers to guns too big
>> for one piece cartridges, having separate shells and powder bags. The
>> smaller ones are QF for Quick Firing.
>> This describes all the monkey motion needed to serve them:
>> http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/fiveinch/index.htm In particular
>> the Shell Loader (Ch.9) has to pick up and move the equivalent of a
>> bag of cement very precisely into place every 3 or 4 seconds until
>> the Kamikazes are all gone.
> Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the
> powder charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
> The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.
> The Germans, never able to figure out how to make obturation (Making
> the breech gas-tight) that worked over an extended period of time,
> used semi-fixed ammo on everything up to the 15" guns on the Bismark
> and Tirpitz.
Didn't the 80cm Gustav have a stub ahell casing?
Yup, steel, 1.3m long by 960mm diameter.
> ...
> why would "breech loading" only refer to guns that use separate > projectiles
> and propellant charges?
> IMO,"breech loading" is any gun that loads from the end opposite of > the
> muzzle,cartridge or separate components. Both have "breeches".
> -- > Jim Yanik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_ordnance_terms#BL "BL" contrasts with QF guns, for which the propellant charge was loaded enclosed in a brass cartridge case which expanded on firing and sealed the breech. For instance, Britain before World War I had both QF and BL 6 inch guns. Both were "breech loading" in the general sense, but in the formal nomenclature it separated 6 inch guns with breeches designed for charges in brass cartridge cases (QF) from those designed for cloth bag charges (BL)."
My guess is that since BL came first it was retained by custom for non-QF guns.
> Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the > powder
> charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
> The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.
> -- > Pete Stickney
I posted that only because I hadn't found the owner's manual for bigger ones.
On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:46:47 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "SolomonW" <Solom...@citi.com> wrote in message > news:vi2cst6v33au.1h7jakjodu1vx$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 10:56:12 -0400, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> German hope was pinned on a serial chain of
>>> stopping the convoys, neutralizing Britain, and wearing down the >>> Red
>>> Army, not one of which was achievable.
>> A better description would be Nazi Germany hope was that it could >> knock the
>> USSR out of the conflict, then hope that the British and US would >> not be
>> prepared to lose enough men required to defeat Germany.
> I based that on remarks in German memoirs, which weren't necessarily > official policy.
> They sacrificed most of their navy trying to halt the Murmansk supply > convoys. Convoy PQ-18 for example brought enough to equip an entire > new field army.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convoy_PQ_18
> jsw
I am not sure who is "their navy" but to the British and US it was vital to
keep Russia in the war.
On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:26:38 -0700, a425couple wrote:
> "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>> "a425couple" <a425cou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message...
>>> Here is what I believe is an interesting report. >>> http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/gaf_invasionnormandy.htm
> Another IMHO, interesting (surprising fact or distortion?)
> "CHAPTER II --
> 11. > But by 5 June all the signs pointed to a coming major operation: ---
> Also about 2300 ---
> Shortly before midnight, London radio announced that the invasion was > to begin within the next 48 hours from 6 June 0000.*"
The big problem for Germany was they lacked adequate weather intelligence.
Since they thought the weather was unsuitable, they disregarded several
warning signed. The most important was the Germans knew the invasion code
for the French resistance that signified the opening of the second front.
They ignored it.
> > Another IMHO, interesting (surprising fact or distortion?)
> > "CHAPTER II --
> > 11. > > But by 5 June all the signs pointed to a coming major operation: ---
> > Also about 2300 ---
> > Shortly before midnight, London radio announced that the invasion was > > to begin within the next 48 hours from 6 June 0000.*"
> The big problem for Germany was they lacked adequate weather intelligence.
> Since they thought the weather was unsuitable, they disregarded several
> warning signed. The most important was the Germans knew the invasion code
> for the French resistance that signified the opening of the second front.
> They ignored it.
An old friend (since deceased) jumped into Normandy with the pathfinfers the night before. One of their orders was, "Do NOT contact the Maquis!" He said that several of his med did so and were promptly turned over to the Germans.
>> Almost the same - the 5"/38 used semi-fixed ammunition, with the >> powder
>> charge stored in a brass case. (Like a 105mm Howitzer)
>> The BL guns used bag charges, like the Army's 155 Hows.
>> -- >> Pete Stickney
> I posted that only because I hadn't found the owner's manual for > bigger ones.
