No scuttle at Scapa
ohar...@mindspring.com
What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
nik Simpson
Most likely it get's scrapped in the early 20s. None of the major allied
naval powers were in a position all their own Dreadnoughts going, so a
bunch of spare ones isn't going to be of much interest. Equally though,
they are not going to want them to fall into the hands of smaller powers
because of the potential destabilizing effect. So they all go the
breakers or are sunk as targets.
--
Nik Simpson
Raymond O'Hara
<ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0d7dc782-8214-4882...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
> What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
> steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
the german fleet was being handed over to the brits when they scuttled them.
if they had refrained from that england would have just taken them over.
kept the good ones and scrapped the rest.
it wouldn't have changed anything else,
guy
Yes, check them out for anything interesting (as they did when
Hindenberg was raised) , then chop them into tiny little bits.
Guy
guy
Thinking further, favoured allies might have got something, maybe a
Konig for Chile, and other powers may have been allowed to buy
something - Nassaus for France? ;-)
Guy
Andrew Chaplin
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:9628c86a-a46e-4ebb...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On 29 Jul, 03:27, nik Simpson <ni...@knology.net> wrote:
> ohara...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
> > What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
> > steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
>
> Most likely it get's scrapped in the early 20s. None of the major allied
> naval powers were in a position all their own Dreadnoughts going, so a
> bunch of spare ones isn't going to be of much interest. Equally though,
> they are not going to want them to fall into the hands of smaller powers
> because of the potential destabilizing effect. So they all go the
> breakers or are sunk as targets.
Yes, check them out for anything interesting (as they did when
Hindenberg was raised) , then chop them into tiny little bits.
UNQUOTE
I think the most important consequence would have been more favourable terms
for Germany at Versailles, since the fleet could have defrayed some of the
reparations Germany was to provide.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
dott.Piergiorgio
In this case, Harding will have proposed the Naval Conference ?
and even in the case of an more or less even partition of the former HSF
BB & BC between Entente powers the Wash Conference will be surely *very*
different, and I can't get a good WI on his result, I'm not so expert in
Diplomatic history.....
The destabilizing factor of the HSF ships in a Washington conference
context is, paradoxically, their short legs: they will be useless to US
of A, but gives RN & IJN a second defense line nearer home isles and are
perfect for the two Med powers (aside that Italy will have insisted for
having BC instead of BB)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
William Hamblen
wrote:
>Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
>What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
>steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
There would have been a bit of diplomatic hoo-ha about sharing out the
spoils of war, but the final result would have been that the ships
would have been sold as scrap because the ships were obsolescent by
1919. France and Italy might have operated their share for a few
years. The political effect in Germany could have been worse, from
seeing the symbols of the nation in the hands of the hated enemy,
although not as great as it already was from losing so much territory.
Bud
nik Simpson
The pick of the bunch would have been the Baden and Bayern, plust
Derfflinger and Lutzow.
The big problem is whether any of the potential targets of such largesse
would have been able to afford them, particularly when you look at
infrastructure requirements (i.e. spares, shells, new guns...). France
was all but bankrupt and canceled a bunch of dreadnoughts at the end of
WW1, Chile was already getting Canada back and had been more than happy
to sell her incomplete sister to the RN for conversion to HMS Eagle, so
it doesn't sound like she'd want them.
The other problem is the competing strategic needs of different powers,
perhaps the UK is willing to deal with a particular navy, but how will
Italy, Japan, USA, France feel about that power receiving modern
Dreadnoughts.
--
Nik Simpson
nik Simpson
> Raymond O'Hara ha scritto:
>> <ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:0d7dc782-8214-4882...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
>>> What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
>>> steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
>>
>>
>> the german fleet was being handed over to the brits when they scuttled
>> them.
>> if they had refrained from that england would have just taken them
>> over. kept the good ones and scrapped the rest.
>> it wouldn't have changed anything else,
>
> In this case, Harding will have proposed the Naval Conference ?
>
> and even in the case of an more or less even partition of the former HSF
> BB & BC between Entente powers the Wash Conference will be surely *very*
> different, and I can't get a good WI on his result, I'm not so expert in
> Diplomatic history.....
Not really, with the exception of Baden and Bayern, most of the HSF
consisted of exactly the types of ships that the major powers were
already scrapping, i.e. 1st and 2nd generation ships with 12" or less guns.
>
> The destabilizing factor of the HSF ships in a Washington conference
> context is, paradoxically, their short legs: they will be useless to US
> of A, but gives RN & IJN a second defense line nearer home isles and are
> perfect for the two Med powers (aside that Italy will have insisted for
> having BC instead of BB)
Again, is Italy in a position to use them, she's already cancelled her
wartime building program of 15" dreadnoughts because she can't afford
them, and France would veto anything that would improve the Italian navy
to any degree.
--
Nik Simpson
Keith Willshaw
> What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
> steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
Well no, they were hardly going to be handed back to the Germans
after all. All that happens is they go to the scrap yard anyway.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:lSDjk.7189$0N....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Not really. The RN already had more ships than they could afford in peace
time and the IJN has just as much need for range as the USN.
Keith
dott.Piergiorgio
>> Thinking further, favoured allies might have got something, maybe a
>> Konig for Chile, and other powers may have been allowed to buy
>> something - Nassaus for France? ;-)
>>
>> Guy
>
> The pick of the bunch would have been the Baden and Bayern, plust
> Derfflinger and Lutzow.
mmm.... if the Lutzow is a good pick ;)
dott.Piergiorgio
> dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
>> Raymond O'Hara ha scritto:
>>> <ohar...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> news:0d7dc782-8214-4882...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
>>>> What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
>>>> steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
>>>
>>>
>>> the german fleet was being handed over to the brits when they
>>> scuttled them.
>>> if they had refrained from that england would have just taken them
>>> over. kept the good ones and scrapped the rest.
>>> it wouldn't have changed anything else,
>>
>> In this case, Harding will have proposed the Naval Conference ?
>>
>> and even in the case of an more or less even partition of the former
>> HSF BB & BC between Entente powers the Wash Conference will be surely
>> *very* different, and I can't get a good WI on his result, I'm not so
>> expert in Diplomatic history.....
>
> Not really, with the exception of Baden and Bayern, most of the HSF
> consisted of exactly the types of ships that the major powers were
> already scrapping, i.e. 1st and 2nd generation ships with 12" or less guns.
Trouble is, that the German 12", esp. that of the Konigs, are more
comparable with the 13.5 than the stock 12".....
And there's also the option of forcing Germany to complete the last two
Bayerns and the Mackensens under entente control & ownership... And also
there are also the Greek Salamis.
>> The destabilizing factor of the HSF ships in a Washington conference
>> context is, paradoxically, their short legs: they will be useless to
>> US of A, but gives RN & IJN a second defense line nearer home isles
>> and are perfect for the two Med powers (aside that Italy will have
>> insisted for having BC instead of BB)
>
> Again, is Italy in a position to use them, she's already cancelled her
> wartime building program of 15" dreadnoughts because she can't afford
> them, and France would veto anything that would improve the Italian navy
> to any degree.
I agree that France will point their foots on BC to Italy, even the
little Von der Tann, but I dissent on economics; a completed and
operational BC is much more easy to acquire than completing an
incomplete hull and *restarting* the building of the other three (was a
situation similiar to the Admiral class) And a German BC is the perfect
tool for the Italian mindset on warship: fast& well protected at the
price of an relatively light armament.
John Dallman
ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com (Andrew Chaplin) wrote:
> I think the most important consequence would have been more
> favourable terms for Germany at Versailles, since the fleet could
> have defrayed some of the reparations Germany was to provide.
Its scrap value wasn't that huge. And I can't see the victors valuing it
at much above scrap. They might have been willing to buy the
infrastructure, or they might have called it "tools of agression", and
demanded it be handed over.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
nik Simpson
Not when the 13.5" had a working AP shell, anyway, even the first two
classes of RN 13.5" gun ships were high on the list of candidates for
retirement. And the navy receiving the ships will need supplies of
shells, new barrel linings, spares for everything etc.
>
> And there's also the option of forcing Germany to complete the last two
> Bayerns and the Mackensens under entente control & ownership... And also
> there are also the Greek Salamis.
None of these ships are that close to completion, and how do you force
their completion? And when you've completed them, you've still got the
problem of spares. Also who is going to get them, non of the major
powers would have wanted them, as they were more interested in building
new classes of ships that contained the lessons of WW1 with respect to
armor etc. And I can't the see the major powers allowing them to go to
any of the smaller powers because of the potential to upset the balance
of power.
>
>>> The destabilizing factor of the HSF ships in a Washington conference
>>> context is, paradoxically, their short legs: they will be useless to
>>> US of A, but gives RN & IJN a second defense line nearer home isles
>>> and are perfect for the two Med powers (aside that Italy will have
>>> insisted for having BC instead of BB)
>>
>> Again, is Italy in a position to use them, she's already cancelled her
>> wartime building program of 15" dreadnoughts because she can't afford
>> them, and France would veto anything that would improve the Italian
>> navy to any degree.
>
> I agree that France will point their foots on BC to Italy, even the
> little Von der Tann, but I dissent on economics; a completed and
> operational BC is much more easy to acquire than completing an
> incomplete hull and *restarting* the building of the other three (was a
> situation similiar to the Admiral class) And a German BC is the perfect
> tool for the Italian mindset on warship: fast& well protected at the
> price of an relatively light armament.
>
But it's moot since neither the RN or the French would have allowed the
transfer of such powerful ships to a potential future enemy in the Med.
--
Nik Simpson
nik Simpson
> nik Simpson ha scritto:
>
>>> Thinking further, favoured allies might have got something, maybe a
>>> Konig for Chile, and other powers may have been allowed to buy
>>> something - Nassaus for France? ;-)
>>>
>>> Guy
>>
>> The pick of the bunch would have been the Baden and Bayern, plust
>> Derfflinger and Lutzow.
>
> mmm.... if the Lutzow is a good pick ;)
>
I meant to say Hindenburg ;-)
--
Nik Simpson
Raymond O'Hara
"John Dallman" <j...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.2008072...@jgd.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <SNGdnQ7h9MljZBPV...@giganews.com>,
> ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com (Andrew Chaplin) wrote:
>
>> I think the most important consequence would have been more
>> favourable terms for Germany at Versailles, since the fleet could
>> have defrayed some of the reparations Germany was to provide.
>
> Its scrap value wasn't that huge. And I can't see the victors valuing it
> at much above scrap. They might have been willing to buy the
> infrastructure, or they might have called it "tools of agression", and
> demanded it be handed over.
the victors took possession as a result of the armistice germany no longer
owned the ships so thescrap value was nil for them
one need only look to the fate of the ostfriesland to see the value of the
ship.
Raymond O'Hara
"nik Simpson" <ni...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:3fed4$488f83f6$18d62c2d$10...@KNOLOGY.NET...
italy was an allied power in WWI, not some uninterested 3rd party. thay say
on the winners side of the table
nik Simpson
>
> italy was an allied power in WWI, not some uninterested 3rd party. thay say
> on the winners side of the table
>
>
them at Versailles. Neither Britain or France would have tolerated a
major increase in Italian naval strength as part of the final
settlement, because with Austria/Hungary gone as counter-balance to
Italy, the only likely conflict in the Med will involve Italy against
Britain and/or France.
--
Nik Simpson
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(nik Simpson) wrote:
> Most likely it get's scrapped in the early 20s.
Germany was allowed a minimal navy by Versailes. The KM might be
allowed to keep some of the earlier dreadnoughts instead of the OTL
pre-dreadnoughts. The rest were going to be split among the Allies.
Italy and France might keep theirs, Italy at least kept some of the
German ships it got OTL.
Ken Young
guy
> In article <a2f7$488e7f95$18d62c2d$7...@KNOLOGY.NET>, ni...@knology.net
AFAIK the HSF ships at Scapa were allocated to the RN, France, Italy
were not going top get any. Italy for a while considered comissioning
a Teghetoff but that (clearly) never happened.
Guy
dott.Piergiorgio
>>> The pick of the bunch would have been the Baden and Bayern, plust
>>> Derfflinger and Lutzow.
>>
>> mmm.... if the Lutzow is a good pick ;)
>>
>
> I meant to say Hindenburg ;-)
Indeed ;)
dott.Piergiorgio
Yes, but in same time we dismantle the A-U BB taken in the Armistice
(Tegetthoff and the raised Viribus Unitis, plus the various
quasi-dreadnoughts & pre-dreadnoughts) keeping the guns & turrets, later
used as coast defence artillery.
In 1918 the serious defects of the Viribus Unitis class was well known,
and OTOH the excellent qualities of the Kaisers & Koenigs and the German
BC was understand enough.
This will led to heavy quarreling at Versailles and Washington, IMHO.
dott.Piergiorgio
> AFAIK the HSF ships at Scapa were allocated to the RN, France, Italy
> were not going top get any. Italy for a while considered comissioning
> a Teghetoff but that (clearly) never happened.
as I have pointed above, the Viribus Unitis class's serious defects was
well known & understanded, No sane admiral will include in their fleet
ships whose sunk at the first hit underwater.
dott.Piergiorgio
And indeed the Versailles treaty put the background & basis of the Med
conflict...
A bit of wisdom, some more land in the Julian alps, two or three
untenable pieces of land overseas and a comprehensive system of
international balances (partially created already too late with the
Washington treaty) centered on more defensive advantages to Italy will
have avoided the late 1910s and early 1920s unrests in Italy and the
rise of the ham.
mike
<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it>
> as I have pointed above, the Viribus Unitis class's serious defects was
> well known & understanded, No sane admiral will include in their fleet
> ships whose sunk at the first hit underwater.
Well, in that classes defence, Repulse didn't do so well either,
sinking in 20 minutes, and I'd say the Repulse probably had better
watertight integrity/damage control with a trained crew than V.U.'s
new crew.
That, and V.U., while not ideal, did far better than say, Bouvet when
hit by a much smaller Turkish mine than the well placed limpet mine
**
mike
**
nik Simpson
> On Jul 30, 8:18 am, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> <dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it>
>> as I have pointed above, the Viribus Unitis class's serious defects was
>> well known & understanded, No sane admiral will include in their fleet
>> ships whose sunk at the first hit underwater.
>
> Well, in that classes defence, Repulse didn't do so well either,
> sinking in 20 minutes, and I'd say the Repulse probably had better
> watertight integrity/damage control with a trained crew than V.U.'s
> new crew.
IIRC, Repulse took multiple simultaneous hits on both sides of the ship,
which would probably have accounted for just about any BB or BC afloat.
That's rather different to the V.U. situation.
--
Nik Simpson
Raymond O'Hara
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote in
message news:%1_jk.8187$0N....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
land swaps are always tricky,
italy getting trieste after WWII shows that.
the city drew its wealth and value from beig the port to land that italy
didn't get and the city lost its importance
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<1bfc459e-f825-4b16...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
guyswe...@googlemail.com (guy) wrote:
> AFAIK the HSF ships at Scapa were allocated to the RN,
The ships had not been allocated. They were interned under the
Armistice agreement. German concerns about what was being decided in
negotiations meant they were scuttled before any final arrangement had
been made. They were of course all the operational capital ships in the
KM and it was unlikely the RN would be given all of them.
Ken Young
guy
Bouvet was an antiquated ship in poor condition, so comparison with VU
is not really valid.
Guy
mike
>
> IIRC, Repulse took multiple simultaneous hits on both sides of the ship,
> which would probably have accounted for just about any BB or BC afloat.
from http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/sinking2.html
" I waited in anticipation of the worst as the torpedoes disappeared
under our port side, It seemed to take an eternity for anything to
happen.
At one point I thought they'd somehow missed or failed to detonate.
But it wasn't to be. Suddenly there was a massive explosion. I
immediately knew we'd lost Repulse. For within seconds she took
on a frightening list to port so rapid no amount of counter flooding
would save her. I didn' t hear the "Abandon Ship" but there again
I wasn't going to hang around as I could see her quickly
disappearing beneath me"
from http://www.warship.org/no11986.htm
"While on the catapult deck, I spoke to the Senior Engineer, and
we both watched two torpedo tracks approaching the ship. The
first of these struck the ship abreast "Y" turret on the port side
and the other just before the mainmast, also on the port side.
The ship immediately commenced to develop a list to port and
the order was passed, "Cast off Carley Floats."
<snip>
Number 4 torpedo now struck the ship on the port side abreast
the mainmast, and the column of water was thrown over the
men who had started to congregate near No.5 Oerlikon, having
come on deck through the door leading into the Captain's lobby.
<snip>
The list was gradually increasing, and men had now started leaving
the ship.
The fourth torpedo was followed almost immediately by a fifth,
which struck the starboard side amidships"
--
From my reading above, writing was on the wall that the ship was done
after the first hit, the other just speeded the process
> That's rather different to the V.U. situation.
True.
How about Valiant and Queen Elizabeth then?
**
mike
**
Keith Willshaw
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7KSdnXmCGaQssg3V...@pipex.net...
I dont buy that. The RN brass were absolutely intent on ensuring that the
KM be defanged. The requirement for the HSF to sail to Scapa was
the key British demand at Compiegnes.
Keith
nik Simpson
> On Jul 30, 10:27 am, nik Simpson <ni...@knology.net> wrote:
>
> How about Valiant and Queen Elizabeth then?
>
Somewhat agree, however, damage from charges exploding under the keel,
particularly in shallow water (like Alex harbor) where the blast gets
reflected back up from below is always going to be extremely serious. No
country's battleships of any period were well protected against it
(Tirpitz didn't do so well either)
--
Nik Simpson
mike
>
> Somewhat agree, however, damage from charges exploding under the keel,
> particularly in shallow water (like Alex harbor) where the blast gets
> reflected back up from below is always going to be extremely serious. No
> country's battleships of any period were well protected against it
> (Tirpitz didn't do so well either)
So with water being near incompressible, how is a limpet mine
attached to the Hull make Viribus Unitis a worse ship than
Valiant, when both sank in similar time? Had Alexandria been
deeper like Pola, V and QE would have also been total losses
**
mike
**
nik Simpson
I wasn't suggesting it was worse or better, my point was that the type
of damage sustained from charges placed under the ship (whether
QE/Valiant, or VU) is always going to be severe because it bypasses the
type of protection that is put in place to deal with contact fused
torpedoes. Magnetically fused torpedoes that explode under the ship
present a similar problem.
--
Nik Simpson
Ken Chaddock
> On 29 Jul, 09:10, guy <guyswetten...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Jul, 03:27, nik Simpson <ni...@knology.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ohara...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
>>>>What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
>>>>steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
>>
>>>naval powers were in a position all their own Dreadnoughts going, so a
>>>bunch of spare ones isn't going to be of much interest. Equally though,
>>>they are not going to want them to fall into the hands of smaller powers
>>>because of the potential destabilizing effect. So they all go the
>>>breakers or are sunk as targets.
>>
>>>--
>>>Nik Simpson
>>
>>Yes, check them out for anything interesting (as they did when
>>Hindenberg was raised) , then chop them into tiny little bits.
>>
>>Guy
>
>
> Thinking further, favoured allies might have got something, maybe a
> Konig for Chile, and other powers may have been allowed to buy
> something - Nassaus for France? ;-)
More likely to have stayed within the Empire. Australia could have
traded in HMAS Australia for a Deflinger or a Konig, Britain would
likely have kept Bayern and Baden and the rest of the Deflingers and
Konigs but realistically, other than the Deflingers, Konigs and Bayerns,
the rest (less than 35 or 38cm main battery) were just as obsolite as
most of the older RN BBs when the USN and Japanese were building 16"
ships...so they would have likely been scrapped.
...Ken
J
> Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
This ignorant civilian would like to know if any of the German ships
(or anybody else's) could have been converted to aircraft carriers?
Thanks . . . Scourge
Peter Skelton
wrote:
The answer is yes, of course, but whether it would have been
worthwhile is very questionable. The only large warships
converted to carriers after completion were the weird sisters,
but they were lightly armoured ships with only two turrets
(Furious had one), little service, amd modern engineering plants.
None of the German capital ships met any of these criteria
(Hidenberg was low usage) and few that were large enough for
conversion had good speed.
Peter Skelton
Gernot Hassenpflug
I would hazard a guess that at the end of the day the German BBs would
all be too short to make anything but the most rudimentary aircraft
carriers. That said, in the 1920's nobody knew anything about the
requirements for a carrier like those finally operated in mid- to
late-WW2! For something along the lines of Eagle, I guess the Koenigs
and even Kaisers would have done OK.
On the other hand, the BC's like Derfflinger had long hulls, perhaps
enough draught to make useful starter carriers?
--
BOFH excuse #65:
system needs to be rebooted
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> the victors took possession as a result of the armistice germany no
> longer owned the ships
The ships were owned and manned by Germans. The terms of the Armistice
involved interning the ships until a treaty was signed. The ships were
scuttled before that happened.
Ken Young
BF Lake
<ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hpadnSiEsOj5HgzV...@pipex.net...
ISTR one of the US's concerns in 1919 was the notion that Perfidious Albion
would give the IJN a bunch of those German capital ships under the
Anglo-Japanese Treaty and as reward for the IJN holding the fort in the
Pacific during WW1 while the RN was busy in the North Sea. All part of the
USN/RN naval Battle of Paris in 1919.
Regards,
Barry
Raymond O'Hara
the reason they were in scapa was to be turened over. thats all
lose the anal "the gerries were still aboard" germany was forced to turn
them over.
people like you are the bain of the usenet.
dott.Piergiorgio
do you have seen a photo of the hole on the V.U ? i'ts a less than 20"
circular hole, whose could have done little damage and flooding even on
an early pre-dread, but the combination of literally blind design and
unreadiness has led to the eventual capsizing and sinking.
Same for the Szent Istvan, ISTR that the wreck was found sometime prior
of the Balkan wars and was assessed that only one of Rizzo's torpedoes
have actually exploded, confirmig what was suspected from the reports
and the finding of the dents caused by the Aonzo' s two dud torpedoes
when Tegetthoff was captured by Regia Marina.
As side note, this, and other, duds led to the excellent WWII Italian
torpedo pistols.
dott.Piergiorgio
On the Valiant case, because of various difficulties and the separation
between D.d.La Penne and Bianchi the maiale was laid on the bottom some
meters from the bow of the ship, and the damage was relatively minor.
OTOH, the mining of the QE was the "Perfect Mining" and the explosion of
the charge under the hull, amplified by the reflex shockwave from the
bottom (like a double charge) literally rip apart the QE's back; the
ship was saved by the armoured deck above the engineering spaces, whose
has simply gone, the keel splayed on the armoured deck.
The QE was so mauled that after the repairs he can't fire more than half
broadsides.
dott.Piergiorgio
I can confirm; I have given in my previous post some graphic detail of
the QE's demise.
dott.Piergiorgio
ehm... the Rossetti & Paolucci's limpet mine was attached on the *side*
of the ship, the WWII Maiale charges was intended to be placed where can
do their worst on a ship in port, that is, under the hull, between hull
and port/harbour bottom.
dott.Piergiorgio
again:
the VU limpet charge was placed on the side of the hull
REPEAT:
THE VU LIMPET CHARGE WAS PLACED ON THE SIDE OF THE HULL.
best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
>
> land swaps are always tricky,
> italy getting trieste after WWII shows that.
> the city drew its wealth and value from beig the port to land that italy
> didn't get and the city lost its importance
this is why we make maximum care to sink (in the colloqual sense) every
plan to develop Capodistria port and fuel the mistrust between slovenia
an kroatia ;)
best regards from Italy,
Dott. piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
> J <eme...@excite.com> writes:
> On the other hand, the BC's like Derfflinger had long hulls, perhaps
> enough draught to make useful starter carriers?
Interesting thought.... With hindsight an pair of ex-Derfflinger was a
better deal than the gloriouses as CV, provided that RN don't make too
meddling with the excellent W/T comparimentation of said ships.
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Peter Skelton
<dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>Gernot Hassenpflug ha scritto:
>> J <eme...@excite.com> writes:
>
>> On the other hand, the BC's like Derfflinger had long hulls, perhaps
>> enough draught to make useful starter carriers?
>
>Interesting thought.... With hindsight an pair of ex-Derfflinger was a
>better deal than the gloriouses as CV, provided that RN don't make too
>meddling with the excellent W/T comparimentation of said ships.
>
The Derflingers had direct drive turbines, they aren't going to
be anywhere near as useful as the Weird Sisters unless
re-engined. (They're also 100 feet shorter.)
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> mike ha scritto:
>
> > On Jul 30, 10:27 am, nik Simpson <ni...@knology.net> wrote:
> >> IIRC, Repulse took multiple simultaneous hits on both sides of the ship,
> >> which would probably have accounted for just about any BB or BC afloat.
>
>
> > " I waited in anticipation of the worst as the torpedoes disappeared
> > under our port side, It seemed to take an eternity for anything to
> > happen.
> > At one point I thought they'd somehow missed or failed to detonate.
> > But it wasn't to be. Suddenly there was a massive explosion. I
> > immediately knew we'd lost Repulse. For within seconds she took
> > on a frightening list to port so rapid no amount of counter flooding
> > would save her. I didn' t hear the "Abandon Ship" but there again
> > I wasn't going to hang around as I could see her quickly
> > disappearing beneath me"
>
Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
British
ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be taken as
more
authoritative than a UK one.
Andre
Peter Skelton
I think it depends on which repairs one is talking about, the
concrete patch job to get her to the US or the full refit she got
there. One thing for quite certain is that personnel losses were
eleven, this is not compatible with the really massive damage up
to the armoured deck. Even at harbour stations some steam was
kept on, one would expect from that and other duties more like
tow hundred than one to be below that deck.
Peter Skelton
Dean A. Markley
language source is reliable? I strongly suspect non-English researchers
and historians are just as competent.
Dean
dott.Piergiorgio
>
> Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
> British
> ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be taken as
> more
> authoritative than a UK one.
I have in an Italian source the technical drawing of said damage
(official & originally classified drawing by the RN, BTW); when I have a
scanner I'll put somewhere on the 'net
in the meantime, fuck you.
Dott. Piergiorgio.
dott.Piergiorgio
>> Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
>> British
>> ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be taken as
>> more
>> authoritative than a UK one.
>>
>> Andre
> That is an odd statement to make! Do you really believe only an English
> language source is reliable? I strongly suspect non-English researchers
> and historians are just as competent.
is it's trolling style against me, don't worry... someday it will smack
hard against the Rule of Three....
Peter Skelton
<dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>Andre Lieven ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
>> British
>> ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be taken as
>> more
>> authoritative than a UK one.
>
>I have in an Italian source the technical drawing of said damage
>(official & originally classified drawing by the RN, BTW); when I have a
>scanner I'll put somewhere on the 'net
>
Would you put it on alt.binaries.pictures.military and post here
when you do? Please?
Peter Skelton
Andre Lieven
<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Andre Lieven ha scritto:
>
> > Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
> > British ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be
> > taken as more authoritative than a UK one.
>
> I have in an Italian source the technical drawing of said damage
> (official & originally classified drawing by the RN, BTW); when I have a
> scanner I'll put somewhere on the 'net
<Yawn> Yeah, Eiytie fiction to try to cover the uselessness of their
WW2 navy isn't what anyone rational would call a verifyed source...
> in the meantime, fuck you.
No thank you, fucking your mother was enough.
She says that she has no son, BTW.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Indeed. That would strongly suggest that the inflow of water,
and the damage that let the water in, wasn't as catastrophic as
the Eiytie fool made it out to be.
Raven & Roberts, British Battleships, page 360-361 states:
"The charge below Queen Elizabeth detonated under 'B' boiler
room and blew in the double bottom structure in this area,
and, to a lesser extent under 'A' and 'X' boiler rooms,
upward into the ship. Damage to the ship's bottom covered an
area of one hundred and ninety feet X sixty feet and included
both the port and starboard bulges. 'A', 'B', and 'X' boiler
rooms, and the forward 4.5 inch magazines flooded immediately,
and 'Y' boiler room and several other compartments in the
vicinity flooded slowly up to the main-deck level. The
boilers, and the auxiliary machinery, together with its
electrical equipment were severely damaged by the explosion
and subsequent flooding. The armament was undamaged, but
all hydraulic power was lost, and the guns of the main and
secondary batteries could have been used only at greatly
reduced efficiency. The ship sank to the harbour bottom, but
was raised and temporary repairs were carried out in the
floating dock at Alexandria."
The part about the *slow* flooding mitigates against such
wild and factless claims as made by the dumb dott.
But, thats what you get when I use published and vetted
sources, and he just makes shit up...
Andre
Andre Lieven
I am re-reading Shattered Sword this day, and I find that the
historical
*inaccuracies* that lasted for far too long about Midway stemmed from
one the core sources used for so long being a quite biased and
inaccurate
Japanese account.
This strongly looks to be the case here, as well. My primary sources
all say that the account offered by the dumb dott was fictional.
Andre
Peter Skelton
I have disagreed with him in the past, but generally found that
translation explained most of the difference. He is generally
polite, rational and naval, IMO there is little reason to think
of him as an idiot and none to insult him.
Peter Skelton
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> thats all
> lose the anal "the gerries were still aboard" germany was forced to
> turn them over.
If the Germans had not been aboard the ships would not and could not
have been scuttled. The point I am making is that when the ships were
scuttled they were still under German control. Certainly Germany would
not have been allowed to keep them but that was not settled IIRC because
of disputes among the Allies about what to do with the ships.
The ships were interned at Scapa because that was the only Allied port
close to Germany that was big enough to take them all without seriously
impacting on other shipping.
Ken Young
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:26:16 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
I am not given to staying polite to lunatics who insult me.
So, feel free to offer him this advice, as hes the one who
dropped the first F Bomb, in response to a demand for a cite
for his claim, thank you very much.
And, he still offers NO citation to back up his cowshit
claim...
That tells me a lot about him, as well.
Andre
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<72f7890d-5d03-4998...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
andre...@yahoo.ca (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> The part about the *slow* flooding mitigates against such
> wild and factless claims as made by the dumb dott.
It seems to me you are twisting your sources. Three out of four boiler
rooms were flooded immediately and the ship sank. Fortunately from your
report it seems that none of the boilers were on line. The only reason
it was possible to raise her was that Alexandra harbour was shallow. Her
back may or may not have been broken but it hardly matters, QE was
clearly not able to fight. Any compartments flooding to main deck level
meant the ship was a loss. Progressive flooding of that extent indicates
that watertight integrity was destroyed. That is by the way more damage
that Warspite took from the FX1400. QE was out of service until June
1943. It is a shame from the Italian view that Italian intelligence did
not realise that.
I can't say I care about your obvious feud with Doctor Piergiorgio but
I do care about your attitude to Italian WW2 armed services. The RN
respected the human torpedoes and small boat units which were far less
constrained by Mussolini. Courage and results should be respected
regardless of politics. As for you I am surprised that someone of your
obvious intelligence and knowledge could let your posts be swayed by
personal prejudice. That is a bad fault, arguments should be considered
on their merits regardless of who posted them, though I draw the line
when it comes to Shines, mainly because they are crossposted to hell and
gone.
Ken Young
dott.Piergiorgio
meh, I hve no access to alt.binaries.* but I can surely try to
photograph the page (my camera has only 3 Mpix, but can do good short
distance detail pics (being in a family of antiquarians...) and send it
by mail to someone who has a web page.... Only issue, the time needed to
locate & dig the issue in which is the drawing.....
dott.Piergiorgio
> No thank you, fucking your mother was enough.
good Lady, you have really singular tastes.... my mother has 71 years.....
You have some serious sexual issues, I fear....
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Andre Lieven
> In article
> <72f7890d-5d03-4998-8e27-e3963f978...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> andrelie...@yahoo.ca (Andre Lieven) wrote:
> > The part about the *slow* flooding mitigates against such
> > wild and factless claims as made by the dumb dott.
>
> It seems to me you are twisting your sources. Three out of four boiler
> rooms were flooded immediately and the ship sank. Fortunately from your
> report it seems that none of the boilers were on line. The only reason
> it was possible to raise her was that Alexandra harbour was shallow. Her
> back may or may not have been broken but it hardly matters, QE was
> clearly not able to fight.
So ? I did not dispute this straw woman. The point is that QE was
salvaged in no greater a time period than the PH salvages ops, and
with far fewer resources.
> Any compartments flooding to main deck level
> meant the ship was a loss.
The claim I was rebutting was about armour sections being flung
into the ship.
To witless: "OTOH, the mining of the QE was the "Perfect Mining" and
the
explosion of the charge under the hull, amplified by the reflex
shockwave
from the bottom (like a double charge) literally rip apart the QE's
back;
the ship was saved by the armoured deck above the engineering spaces,
whose has simply gone, the keel splayed on the armoured deck."
My point was that this claim needed a citation and one from a source
that had access to the ship and her reports, which would leave out any
WW2 period Italian sources.
As I said, the time frame for the salvage of the QE and her dispatch
all the way from Alex, the long way under Africa, and to the US,
suggests
that she was not as wrecked as the quoted passage stated.
> Progressive flooding of that extent indicates
> that watertight integrity was destroyed. That is by the way more damage
> that Warspite took from the FX1400. QE was out of service until June
> 1943. It is a shame from the Italian view that Italian intelligence did
> not realise that.
Well, its hardly a shame for Our Side. And, Warspite was never
restored
to full service; QE was.
> I can't say I care about your obvious feud with Doctor Piergiorgio but
> I do care about your attitude to Italian WW2 armed services. The RN
> respected the human torpedoes and small boat units which were far less
> constrained by Mussolini. Courage and results should be respected
> regardless of politics.
Disputing a factless claim offered with nary a citation is NOT
"disrespecting"
of any actual wartime achievements.
> As for you I am surprised that someone of your
> obvious intelligence and knowledge could let your posts be swayed by
> personal prejudice.
Yes, I do tend to take a very ticked view to any moron whose first
response
to a request for proof is to drop the F Bomb.
That says much about the Eiytie bastard, and nothing wrong about me,
at all.
I dare say that were I to screech the F Bomb at you for your request
of a
cite for a claim I made, you would be ticked, as well. Rightly so.
> That is a bad fault, arguments should be considered
> on their merits regardless of who posted them, though I draw the line
> when it comes to Shines, mainly because they are crossposted to hell and
> gone.
At this point, the dumb dott is in the same category with me as Hines.
Neither one offers evidence for their self aggrandising claims.
Andre
Andre Lieven
<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> Andre Lieven ha scritto:
>
> > No thank you, fucking your mother was enough.
>
> good Lady, you have really singular tastes.... my mother has 71 years.....
All of them quite horrid, once she saw what crap had crawled out of
her...
> You have some serious sexual issues, I fear....
<Massive Lunatic Moron Projection>
Yob troyia mat.
Andre
dott.Piergiorgio
> I have disagreed with him in the past, but generally found that
> translation explained most of the difference. He is generally
> polite, rational and naval, IMO there is little reason to think
> of him as an idiot and none to insult him.
thanks.
dott.Piergiorgio
> I am not given to staying polite to lunatics who insult me.
> So, feel free to offer him this advice, as hes the one who
> dropped the first F Bomb, in response to a demand for a cite
> for his claim, thank you very much.
First, the F bomb was dropped firstly by you years ago.....
Secondly, everyone who really known Italians can understand that in your
questionable words about my mother I have used the maximum
restraint... say what you have written on the face of an Italian and you
will then awake in hospital with a voice much more acute.....
>
> And, he still offers NO citation to back up his cowshit
> claim...
I have very little inclination to waste my time in digging my library,
scan/photo the "proof", because you surely start counter-arguments on
secondary matters if not mirror-climbing.
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Fred J. McCall
:On Jul 31, 9:56 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
:
Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
Fred J. McCall
:
And watching the two of you, YOU are the one that comes off as an
unmitigated dickhead.
You may be making yourself feel all warm and fuzzy, but he's kicking
your ass. It seems obvious. If you had the facts, you'd use those
and win. Instead, you, well, you do what you keep doing.
It feels like you asked him for sex and he told you you were too fat
for him...
--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing
Peter Skelton
If you send it to me, I will put it on alt......... 3 Mpix should
produce a nice result for our purposes.
(If you get a better offer, take it.)
Peter Skelton
Peter Skelton
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>:On Jul 31, 9:56 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
>:<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>:> Andre Lieven ha scritto:
>:>
>:> > Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
>:> > British ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be
>:> > taken as more authoritative than a UK one.
>:>
>:> I have in an Italian source the technical drawing of said damage
>:> (official & originally classified drawing by the RN, BTW); when I have a
>:> scanner I'll put somewhere on the 'net
>:
>:<Yawn> Yeah, Eiytie fiction to try to cover the uselessness of their
>:WW2 navy isn't what anyone rational would call a verifyed source...
>:
>:> in the meantime, fuck you.
>:
>:No thank you, fucking your mother was enough.
>:
>:She says that she has no son, BTW.
>:
>
>Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Somebody take note, Fred and I are having our annual agreement.
Peter Skelton
Raymond O'Hara
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:58s694loigai0kej5...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>
> Somebody take note, Fred and I are having our annual agreement.
>
>
> Peter Skelton
andre is usually a cotentious cranl, but he's strayed further into
looneyland lately.
dott.Piergiorgio
>
> Well, its hardly a shame for Our Side. And, Warspite was never
> restored
> to full service; QE was.
if for you "full service" meant "capable to fire half broadside" I can
agree; you known that even after the US repairs she has the keel so
compromised that she can't fire more than four of her main guns.
Dott. Piergiorgio.
Tiger
> Just for fun, assume the German fleet doesnt get scuttled at Scapa.
> What would be the implications (other than a better market for scrap
> steel). Would we have had another war in the early 20s?
??????????????? It's not like the Brits were going to give them back. If
not scraped they would wind up as live fire targets. Overall no change
in war possibility.
Andre Lieven
<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> flailed:
> Andre Lieven pointed out:
>
> > I am not given to staying polite to lunatics who insult me.
> > So, feel free to offer him this advice, as hes the one who
> > dropped the first F Bomb, in response to a demand for a cite
> > for his claim, thank you very much.
>
> First, the F bomb was dropped firstly by you years ago.....
As usual, no proof offered ? Raving ignorant loon claim fails.
> Secondly, everyone who really known Italians can understand that in your
> questionable words about my mother I have used the maximum
> restraint... say what you have written on the face of an Italian and you
> will then awake in hospital with a voice much more acute.....
Ah, so you wish to admit that Italians are out of control ANIMALS.
OK, I take your point. Now, fetch a stick, dog.
> > And, he still offers NO citation to back up his cowshit
> > claim...
>
> I have very little inclination to waste my time in digging my library,
> scan/photo the "proof", because you surely start counter-arguments on
> secondary matters if not mirror-climbing.
Waseling. How typical for a self admitted loon and ANIMAL...
Feh.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:41:01 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>
>
>
> >Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >:On Jul 31, 9:56 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> >:<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
> >:> Andre Lieven ha scritto:
> >:>
> >:> > Cite, please: English language sources, since QE was an English/
> >:> > British ship. It would not be credible for an Italian source to be
> >:> > taken as more authoritative than a UK one.
> >:>
> >:> I have in an Italian source the technical drawing of said damage
> >:> (official & originally classified drawing by the RN, BTW); when I have a
> >:> scanner I'll put somewhere on the 'net
> >:
> >:<Yawn> Yeah, Eiytie fiction to try to cover the uselessness of their
> >:WW2 navy isn't what anyone rational would call a verifyed source...
> >:
> >:> in the meantime, fuck you.
> >:
> >:No thank you, fucking your mother was enough.
> >:
> >:She says that she has no son, BTW.
>
> >Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>
> Somebody take note, Fred and I are having our annual agreement.
Yet, neither of you apparently can READ who dropped the F Bomb
up there... I am under NO obligation to be polite to the dickless
Eiytie dropping curses loon.
OK, that tells me something useful about you two. Fred's long
been in my KillFileHell. Deservedly so.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
<Laughs> Yes, its "loony" of me to not be pleased to get a "fuck you"
to a request for a citation for a fact free claim...
Do get a grip. And, notice that its YOU who are keeping this as an
issue of personalities, rather than ON topic FACTS.
Andre
Andre Lieven
And, once again, the dumb dott REFUSES to offer a cite to an
*extraordinary claim*.
Even for self confessed Eiytie animals, extraordinary claims STILL
require extraordinary PROOF.
I offered a cite, complete with page numbers, from Raven & Roberts,
which is a definitive book on RN battleships. Had the dumb dott's
claim a shred of truth to it, it would have been mentioned in there.
That 1) it wasn't, in such a renowned work, and 2) the dumb dott
offers, once again, AbZero proof, leads any reasonable person to
doubt the cite free claim, and to trust a verified and cited
source.
And, I didn't have to tell anyone to F off in demonstrating the
common failure of the dumb dott... <shrug>
Andre
Fred J. McCall
:
Yep. Deservedly so. Lying Lieven hates it when people point out his
abominable behaviour.
--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 1, 2:33 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
:<dott.PiergiorgioNI...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> flailed:
:> Andre Lieven pointed out:
:>
:> > I am not given to staying polite to lunatics who insult me.
:> > So, feel free to offer him this advice, as hes the one who
:> > dropped the first F Bomb, in response to a demand for a cite
:> > for his claim, thank you very much.
:>
:> First, the F bomb was dropped firstly by you years ago.....
:
:As usual, no proof offered ? Raving ignorant loon claim fails.
:
I'll just note that you didn't offer any, either. Thus your
categorization above would seem to fit your own behaviour quite
well...
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Raymond O'Hara
"Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:6694e25a-a8f2-4e46...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
i've posted once in your pissing contest andrea, yet you blame me. thaty
just backs up what dott and blackguard are claiming about you.
every thread you join you turn into a flame war.
Gernot Hassenpflug
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:24:45 +0200, "dott.Piergiorgio"
> <dott.Pierg...@KAIGUN.fastwebnet.it> wrote:
>
>>Gernot Hassenpflug ha scritto:
>>> J <eme...@excite.com> writes:
>>
>>> On the other hand, the BC's like Derfflinger had long hulls, perhaps
>>> enough draught to make useful starter carriers?
>>
>>Interesting thought.... With hindsight an pair of ex-Derfflinger was a
>>better deal than the gloriouses as CV, provided that RN don't make too
>>meddling with the excellent W/T comparimentation of said ships.
>>
>
> The Derflingers had direct drive turbines, they aren't going to
> be anywhere near as useful as the Weird Sisters unless
> re-engined. (They're also 100 feet shorter.)
Fair enough. I have both the Lutzow and Courageous as 1:700 resin kits
but did not compare the hull lengths. Interesting about the
engines---although I would have expected changes in those to be a
necessary and expensive part of a conversion (and extra bulges too I
suppose). Maybe none of the German warships was really all that great
then, given that length was of prime importance...
--
BOFH excuse #6:
global warming
Gernot Hassenpflug
writes:
If you send it to me, I can put it on a personal web server.
Thanks, Gernot
aikis...@gmail.com
--
BOFH excuse #286:
Telecommunications is downgrading.
Andre Lieven
moronised:
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:6694e25a-a8f2-4e46...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 1, 4:53 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> >>news:58s694loigai0kej5...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >>Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>
> >> > Somebody take note, Fred and I are having our annual agreement.
>
> >> > Peter Skelton
>
> >> andre is usually a cotentious cranl, but he's strayed further into
> >> looneyland lately.
>
> > <Laughs> Yes, its "loony" of me to not be pleased to get a "fuck you"
> > to a request for a citation for a fact free claim...
>
> > Do get a grip. And, notice that its YOU who are keeping this as an
> > issue of personalities, rather than ON topic FACTS.
>
> > Andre
>
> i've posted once in your pissing contest andrea, yet you blame me.
I do tend to be that way with illiterate ignorant fuck-tards such as
you, who jump in to ONLY name call... Deal with it. Die yesterday.
> thaty just backs up what dott and blackguard are claiming about you.
<Yawn> Whatever you say, mildred.
> every thread you join you turn into a flame war.
No proof EVER offered ? Idiot illiterate fuck-tard cowshit claim
always fails.
Read a book. Even once.
Fred J. McCall
:
:I do tend to be that way with illiterate ignorant fuck-tards such as
:you, who jump in to ONLY name call... Deal with it. Die yesterday.
Of course, you also tend to be 'that way' with pretty much anyone else
you disagree with.
:> thaty just backs up what dott and blackguard are claiming about you.
:
:<Yawn> Whatever you say, mildred.
:
:> every thread you join you turn into a flame war.
:
:No proof EVER offered ? Idiot illiterate fuck-tard cowshit claim
:always fails.
:
You want him to prove a negative? Jesus, Lieven, do you seriously
think everyone is blind, deaf, and stupid? Your behaviour is
*obvious*.
--
You are
What you do
When it counts.
Keith Willshaw
> On Aug 3, 2:41 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
> moronised:
>> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6694e25a-a8f2-4e46...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Aug 1, 4:53 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:58s694loigai0kej5...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> >>Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>>
>> >> > Somebody take note, Fred and I are having our annual agreement.
>>
>> >> > Peter Skelton
>>
>> >> andre is usually a cotentious cranl, but he's strayed further into
>> >> looneyland lately.
>>
>> > <Laughs> Yes, its "loony" of me to not be pleased to get a "fuck you"
>> > to a request for a citation for a fact free claim...
>>
>> > Do get a grip. And, notice that its YOU who are keeping this as an
>> > issue of personalities, rather than ON topic FACTS.
>>
>> > Andre
>>
>> i've posted once in your pissing contest andrea, yet you blame me.
>
> I do tend to be that way with illiterate ignorant fuck-tards such as
> you, who jump in to ONLY name call... Deal with it. Die yesterday.
>
Pot Kettle Black. I have yet to see a thread in which you didnt
end up bad mouthing anyone who disagreed with you. Manners
are cheap, try acquiring some.
Keith
Raymond O'Hara
"Gernot Hassenpflug" <ger...@nict.go.jp> wrote in message
news:87wsixf...@nict.go.jp...
german ships weren't designed for extensive cruises and they lacked the crew
facilities needed for a crew to remain effective during an extended cruise.
it would have been too much work to convert them
resins have so few parts but require a lot of modeling skill to get them
right.
Gernot Hassenpflug
Yes, I know. But hey, it's just messing about with ideas, the rationality or lack of which has never gotten between us and the keyboard!
> resins have so few parts but require a lot of modeling skill to get them
> right.
Which tells you something about my skills :-)
Uh, though why they are still unbuilt may tell you even more LOL
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
dott.Piergiorgio
In that case, (BB/BC to CV hull) the internal volume AWL increases
dramatically, and I guess that enough accomodation with RN standards can
be done, at least good enough for Med service (IMHO one or both
Corageouses will be decisive in the shortening the Med conflict)
dott.Piergiorgio
> Yes, I know. But hey, it's just messing about with ideas, the rationality or lack of which has never gotten between us and the keyboard!
>
>> resins have so few parts but require a lot of modeling skill to get them
>> right.
>
> Which tells you something about my skills :-)
>
> Uh, though why they are still unbuilt may tell you even more LOL
pics around the 'net ? ;)
Gernot Hassenpflug
writes:
Uh? pics of unbuilt kits?
--
BOFH excuse #182:
endothermal recalibration
Dean A. Markley
manners are cheap and quite a few people here need to acquire a set.
Dean
Dean
Andre Lieven
dumbassed:
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:3f4153ea-d0fd-4f0d...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 3, 2:41 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com>
> > moronised:
> >> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> >>news:6694e25a-a8f2-4e46...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Aug 1, 4:53 pm, "Raymond O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> "Peter Skelton" <skelt...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:58s694loigai0kej5...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> >>Jesus Christ, Andre. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>
> >> >> > Somebody take note, Fred and I are having our annual agreement.
>
> >> >> > Peter Skelton
>
> >> >> andre is usually a cotentious cranl, but he's strayed further into
> >> >> looneyland lately.
>
> >> > <Laughs> Yes, its "loony" of me to not be pleased to get a "fuck you"
> >> > to a request for a citation for a fact free claim...
>
> >> > Do get a grip. And, notice that its YOU who are keeping this as an
> >> > issue of personalities, rather than ON topic FACTS.
>
> >> > Andre
>
> >> i've posted once in your pissing contest andrea, yet you blame me.
>
> > I do tend to be that way with illiterate ignorant fuck-tards such as
> > you, who jump in to ONLY name call... Deal with it. Die yesterday.
>
> Pot Kettle Black.
<Projection>
> I have yet to see a thread in which you didnt
> end up bad mouthing anyone who disagreed with you.
No proof EVER offered ? Ad Hominem Alone fact free claim
always fails.
Slamming incorrect claims is NOT "bad mouthing" anyone.
And, I note that the whiners about my "manners" are usually
those who own command of the facts is, well... poor.
> Manners are cheap, try acquiring some.
PKB.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Yes, I can well imagine that my FACTS are "aggravating" to those
posting ignorant drivel. I'm perfectly fine with that... <Laughs>
> I agree that
> manners are cheap and quite a few people here need to acquire a set.
Not to mention those who need to acquire a set of knowledge about the
topics here. Next to that, "manners" are trivial distractions.
Andre
Keith Willshaw
> On Aug 7, 7:00 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> boobed:
>> It's pissing into the wind, Keith. Aggravating isn't he?
>
> Yes, I can well imagine that my FACTS are "aggravating" to those
> posting ignorant drivel. I'm perfectly fine with that... <Laughs>
>
Yep Andre is perfect and everybody else is stoopid
PLONK!
Keith
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 4, 3:24 am, "Keith Willshaw" <keithnos...@demon.co.uk>
:
Yes, and we all wish you'd stop.
:> I have yet to see a thread in which you didnt
:> end up bad mouthing anyone who disagreed with you.
:
:No proof EVER offered ? Ad Hominem Alone fact free claim
:always fails.
:
Except for yours, of course, right?
:
:Slamming incorrect claims is NOT "bad mouthing" anyone.
:
It is when it is "No proof EVER offered ? Ad Hominem Alone fact free
claim" and should "always fail".
And that's your stock in trade...
:
:And, I note that the whiners about my "manners" are usually
:those who own command of the facts is, well... poor.
:
As opposed to Lying Lieven, whose demonstration of his command of the
facts in his 'rebuttals' is, well... nonexistent.
:> Manners are cheap, try acquiring some.
:
:PKB.
:
I knew asking you to act like anything other than an absolute ass was
a waste of time.
--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing
Fred J. McCall
:On Aug 7, 7:00 pm, "Dean A. Markley" <deanmark...@comcast.net> boobed:
:
What facts would those be? You're so busy being a dipshit asshole
that any 'facts' you might have are totally obscured.
:> I agree that
:> manners are cheap and quite a few people here need to acquire a set.
:
:Not to mention those who need to acquire a set of knowledge about the
:topics here. Next to that, "manners" are trivial distractions.
:
But a lack of them is not. Most people disregard most of what you say
because it is unsupported by anything other than your own bile.