From Milwaukee? Vindicating Adolf Hitler & Waffen SS in one post, "Hitlers Jewish Soldiers"
LIBERATOR
Soldiers":
5 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars Still watching, almost finished. VERY GOOD!, August
27, 2008
By V S "Developed a $6 OBD1 Handheld in 1986" (Milwaukee WI) - See all
my reviews
(VINE VOICE)
This review is from: Hitler's Jewish Soldiers (DVD)
Gee, kinda puts away that old, tired stereotype that ALL jews were
herded up like cattle to be killed.
40% of the officers in the German Navy were jews, too. AND highly
respected. There is a book on that but I cant remember the title.
Sadly, almost every book on Nazis/WW2/"Holocaust" published today are
from "authors" that read 9 books on WW2 and write a tenth, or see 9
movies and make a tenth.
The research wasn't made from Soviet-captured microfiche, but it seems
to be documented as good as it can be from not-too-difficult-to-obtain
records and archives. 5* to balance out fake votes soon to come. Its a
4* book
How long will it be before this book is attacked for not following the
norm? I wonder... Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Report abuse | Permalink
Comment Comments (3)
END....
Then from a book I read partially, and part of a post of a responder
to me that is anti-Hitler regarding the Waffen SS and SS in general
being murderers "The SS:Hitlers Instrument of Terror" British officer
Lt. Col. John Frost after Allies rescued him from being prisoner under
Waffen SS soldiers he stated (not exact, from my memory) "We thought
they would treat us barbarically and we feared for the worse, we heard
the stories of beatings and mass execution and torture, even being
shot in the back, but none of this was true, I found them to be very
concerned for our well being and even comforting with a sense of
chivalry." - this on PG177 with a photo of two British prisoners, and
SS all around them, but facing away and not watching the British
prisoners. These Brits were not restrained and had everything except
their guns. They were free to walk & wander.
> SS killed prisoners, while at Cassino
Didn't happen. Are you a moron that believes Hitler died in 1945?
>surrendered Falschirmjager voluntarily assisted in recovering *Allied* casualties under fire. At least until >recently, one of their number was an active, and popular, member of a British Legion club. Note that Goebbel's >stepson who detested the Nazis) opted to serve his country in the Falschirmjager rather than the Waffen SS.
Full of allied provided history history that is total falsity. You're
proving to be a bigger moron as I read on.
> If you must watch Nazi-era movies, check out Riefenstahl's "Olympia", when the teams march into the arena -
> the German civilian competitors (and SS - and the French!) give Hitler the Nazi salute, but the Wehrmacht
> (including the Luftwaffe) give proper military salutes - no stiff right arm crap for them.
Show us your data by video or photo. I have seen many Heer soldiers do
the Nazi salute. In Olympia the Americans all gave "Sieg Heil" salute
and then they rushed Hitler for autographs, this video is online on
YouTube so yours should be too.
> There's a a bit in the "Mahabharata" where Krishna essentially advises Arjuna that the Good Guys should obey > the rules, unless this would mean the Bad Guys would win, in which case fuck the rules. That's essentially
> what happened any time we fought the Germans - eventually we had to compromise our principals, otherwise
> whatever brand of shit they were following at the time came out on top.
Along with "Hitlers Jewish Soldiers" and many free Jews within Nazi
Germany contrary to the history we've been told the false history that
you utilize for your arguments, did you know that the Jews were still
publishing a newspaper throughout Hitlers reign, and even during the
war, and these were Jews that hated Hitler, but Hitler let it go,
because they weren't part of any plot or conspiracy traceable to
Communism. The Newspaper was called
"Judisches Nachrichtenblatt", http://www2.library.yale.edu/judaica/micjud2001.html
and I discovered this in a book called "The Holocaust Chronicles" - a
book that fully supports the holocaust as being true, yet went &
admitted that Hitler allowed a Jewish newspaper to continue in German
society, operated fully by Jews for Jews, and remain un-threatened by
him. Now how on earth would Jews be allowed to continue a newspaper in
Germany, if they're all being exterminated and have been gathered up
at night under an event named "night of long knives"? Clearly the
"Long knives" didn't happen it's a fabricated stratagem.
Closing the post I include another Waffen SS video showing them to be
quite loving humans. This video is also amazing in that it includes
training snippets and what I've never seen before is them teaching
young girls to ride horses. Propaganda? Indeed Goebbels called all his
work propaganda, quite the honest man he was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRzPkpTRoVw
CUNTICA
be quite loving humans. "
Yeah, they loved them to death with with a bullet in the head, you
simpelton!
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> Someone from Milwaukee siding with HItler on "Hitlers Jewish
> Soldiers":
>
> respected. There is a book on that but I cant remember the title.
I'd be suprised if it was that much but it would be high.
Who Really Sank the Bismarck" Article In Arm Chair General.
The the thesis is that Admiral Guenther Lutjens was on a suicide
mission.
This is a summary of the arguments in the article:
1. Lutjens was a firm anti-Nazi according to friends and family.
2. He was part Jewish and his wife was half Jewish.
3. Prior to the raid he told colleagues that he would not be returning
from the sortie.
4. He gave away prized possessions: This is considered a sure sign
that someone is COMMITTED to suicide.
5. Not refueling in Bergen would have made the Bismark slow down in
order conserve fuel, making it easier for the RN to catch up.
6. He waited for 4 salvoes from Hood before returning fire. At that
time the Bismark's captain stepped in and ordered fire to commence.
7. The long, rambling radio messages guaranteed that the British would
D/F him.
CUNTICA
fucking revisionists are so damn ignorant, unread & stupid!
Dean Markley
> On May 13, 4:10 pm, LIBERATOR <markz...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > Someone from Milwaukee siding with HItler on "Hitlers Jewish
> > Soldiers":
>
> > 40% of the officers in the German Navy were jews, too. AND highly
> > respected. There is a book on that but I cant remember the title.
>
> I'd be suprised if it was that much but it would be high.
>
> Who Really Sank the Bismarck" Article In Arm Chair General.
>
> The the thesis is that Admiral Guenther Lutjens was on a suicide
> mission.
>
> This is a summary of the arguments in the article:
> 1. Lutjens was a firm anti-Nazi according to friends and family.
Yes, this is true and yet he served his masters without protest.
> 2. He was part Jewish and his wife was half Jewish.
I don't know about this. There was apparently a good bit of Jewish
ancestry in a good number of Germans. Something they conveniently
ignored when expedient to their goals.
> 3. Prior to the raid he told colleagues that he would not be returning
> from the sortie.
Well duh, a single battleship and heavy cruiser against the Royal
navy? No wonder.
> 4. He gave away prized possessions: This is considered a sure sign
> that someone is COMMITTED to suicide.
Or maybe he thought he'd end up in a comfy Canadian POW camp.
> 5. Not refueling in Bergen would have made the Bismark slow down in
> order conserve fuel, making it easier for the RN to catch up.
I thought the fuel issue was due to a hit by Prince of Wales that
ruptured fuel tanks?
> 6. He waited for 4 salvoes from Hood before returning fire. At that
> time the Bismark's captain stepped in and ordered fire to commence.
Captain Lindemann knew what he was doing. He held a better position
being virtually broadside to the oncoming British. You don't fire
just because the enemy is ranging on you, you fire when you have a
good firing solution.
> 7. The long, rambling radio messages guaranteed that the British would
> D/F him.
That was a key mistake on his part. Actually building such ships as
Bismarck was pointless. It was a First World War design and
essentially obsolete for a raiding purpose. The Germans could have
gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.
Carolina Reb
>
> That was a key mistake on his part. Actually building such ships as
> Bismarck was pointless. It was a First World War design and
> essentially obsolete for a raiding purpose. The Germans could have
> gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.
Hindsight is always better than foresight. Even Roosevelt and his
Khazar advisers knew the obsolete battlewagons were a thing of the
past. That's why he kept them in Pearl Harbor and made sure the
carriers were far out to sea, so he could get his war in Europe.
Bill Shatzer
That's simply crazy. Enterprise was scheduled to make port at Pearl on
Saturday afternoon but was delayed by a storm.
Roosevelt couldn't control the weather. Had things gone according to
schedule and had the storm not intervened, the Enterprise would have
been moored fat, dumb and happy at Pearl at 7:55 AM on Sunday morning.
It is, moreover, extremely unlikely that the Japanese attack on Pearl
would have led, at least not in the short term, to the US entering the
war in Europe had Hitler not gotten another case of the "dumbs" and
declared war on the US sui sponte.
LIBERATOR
Not as much as I love you.
LIBERATOR
I agree.
Eunometic
> On May 13, 11:05 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 4:10 pm, LIBERATOR <markz...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Someone from Milwaukee siding with HItler on "Hitlers Jewish
> > > Soldiers":
>
> > > 40% of the officers in the German Navy were jews, too. AND highly
> > > respected. There is a book on that but I cant remember the title.
>
> > I'd be suprised if it was that much but it would be high.
>
> > Who Really Sank the Bismarck" Article In Arm Chair General.
>
> > The the thesis is that Admiral Guenther Lutjens was on a suicide
> > mission.
>
> > This is a summary of the arguments in the article:
> > 1. Lutjens was a firm anti-Nazi according to friends and family.
>
> Yes, this is true and yet he served his masters without protest.
>
> > 2. He was part Jewish and his wife was half Jewish.
>
> I don't know about this. There was apparently a good bit of Jewish
> ancestry in a good number of Germans. Something they conveniently
> ignored when expedient to their goals.
They didn't ignore it at all. One could be declared a full German,
irrespective of the proportion of semitic ancestry by decree. It was
frequently carried out.
Topaz
wrote:
>That's simply crazy. Enterprise was scheduled to make port at Pearl on
>Saturday afternoon but was delayed by a storm.
>
>Roosevelt couldn't control the weather. Had things gone according to
>schedule and had the storm not intervened, the Enterprise would have
>been moored fat, dumb and happy at Pearl at 7:55 AM on Sunday morning.
>
>It is, moreover, extremely unlikely that the Japanese attack on Pearl
>would have led, at least not in the short term, to the US entering the
>war in Europe had Hitler not gotten another case of the "dumbs" and
>declared war on the US sui sponte.
That's simply crazy. America is ruled by the Jews.
Liberating America From Israel
by Paul Findley
Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused
to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express
this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe
the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during
the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S.
aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967
Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. lobby for Israel is powerful and intimidating, but any
determined president-even President Bush this very day-could prevail
and win overwhelming public support for the suspension of aid by
laying these facts before the American people:
Israel's present government, like its predecessors, is determined to
annex the West Bank-biblical Judea and Samaria - so Israel will become
Greater Israel. Ultra-Orthodox Jews, who maintain a powerful role in
Israeli politics, believe the Jewish Messiah will not come until
Greater Israel is a reality. Although a minority in Israel, they are
committed, aggressive, and influential. Because of deep religious
conviction, they are determined to
prevent Palestinians from gaining statehood on any part of the West
Bank.
In its violent assaults on Palestinians, Israel uses the pretext of
eradicating terrorism, but its forces are actually engaged advancing
the territorial expansion just cited. Under the guise of
anti-terrorism, Israeli forces treat Palestinians worse than cattle.
With due process nowhere to be found, hundreds are detained for long
periods and most are tortured. Some are assassinated. Homes, orchards,
and business places are destroyed. Entire cities are kept under
intermittent curfew, some confinements lasting for
weeks. Injured or ill Palestinians needing emergency medical care are
routinely held at checkpoints for an hour or more. Many children are
undernourished. The West Bank and Gaza have become giant concentration
camps. None of this could have occurred without U.S. support. Perhaps
Israeli officials believe life will become so unbearable that most
Palestinians will eventually leave their ancestral homes.
Once beloved worldwide, the U.S. government finds itself reviled in
most countries because it provides unconditional support of Israeli
violations of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the
precepts of all major religious faiths.
How did the American people get into this fix?
Nine-eleven had its principal origin 35 years ago when Israel's U.S.
lobby began its unbroken success in stifling debate about the proper
U.S. role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and effectively concealed from
public awareness the fact that the U.S. government gives massive
uncritical support to Israel.
Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open
discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our
government all these years. I have firsthand knowledge, because I was
a member of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee in
June 1967 when Israeli military forces took control of the Golan
Heights, a part of Syria, as well as the Palestinian West Bank and
Gaza. I continued as a member for 16 years and to this day maintain a
close watch on Congress.
For 35 years, not a word has been expressed in that committee or in
either chamber of Congress that deserves to be called debate on Middle
East policy. No restrictive or limiting amendments on aid to Israel
have been offered for 20 years, and none of the few offered in
previous years received more than a handful of votes. On Capitol Hill,
criticism of Israel, even in private conversation, is all but
forbidden, treated as downright unpatriotic, if not anti-Semitic. The
continued absence of free speech was assured when those few who spoke
out-Senators Adlai Stevenson and Charles Percy, and Reps. Paul
"Pete" McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney, Earl Hilliard, and myself-were
defeated at the polls by candidates heavily financed by pro-Israel
forces.
As a result, legislation dealing with the Middle East has been heavily
biased in favor of Israel and against Palestinians and other Arabs
year after year. Home constituencies, misled by news coverage equally
lop-sided in Israel's favor, remain largely unaware that Congress
behaves as if it were a subcommittee of the Israeli parliament.
However, the bias is widely noted beyond America, where most news
media candidly cover Israel's conquest and generally excoriate
America's complicity and complacency. When President Bush welcomed
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, sometimes called the Butcher of
Beirut, as "my dear friend" and "a man of peace" after Israeli forces,
using U.S.-donated arms, completed their devastation of the West Bank
last spring, worldwide anger against American policy reached the
boiling point.
The fury should surprise no one who reads foreign newspapers or
listens to BBC. In several televised statements long before 9/11,
Osama bin Laden, believed by U.S. authorities to have masterminded
9/11, cited U.S. complicity in Israel's destruction of Palestinian
society as a principal complaint. Prominent foreigners, in and out of
government, express their opposition to U.S. policies with
unprecedented frequency and severity, especially since Bush announced
his determination to make war against Iraq.
The lobby's intimidation remains pervasive. It seems to reach every
government center and even houses of worship and revered institutions
of higher learning. It is highly effective in silencing the many U.S.
Jews who object to the lobby's tactics and Israel's brutality...
Today, a year after 9/11, President Bush has made no attempt to
redress grievances, or even to identify them. In fact, he has made the
scene far worse by supporting Israel's religious war against
Palestinians, an alliance that has intensified anti-American anger. He
seems oblivious to the fact that nearly two billion people worldwide
regard the plight of Palestinians as today's most important
foreign-policy challenge. No one in authority will admit a calamitous
reality that is skillfully shielded from the American people but
clearly recognized by most of the world: America suffered 9/11 and its
aftermath and may soon be at war with Iraq, mainly because U.S. policy
in the Middle East is made in Israel, not in Washington.
Israel is a scofflaw nation and should be treated as such. Instead of
helping Sharon intensify Palestinian misery, our president should
suspend all aid until Israel ends its occupation of Arab land Israel
seized in 1967. The suspension would force Sharon's compliance or lead
to his removal from office, as the Israeli electorate will not
tolerate a prime minister who is at odds with the White House.
If Bush needs an additional reason for doing the right thing, he can
justify the suspension as a matter of military necessity, an essential
step in winning international support for his war on terrorism. He can
cite a worthy precedent. When President Abraham Lincoln issued the
proclamation that freed only the slaves in states that were then in
rebellion, he make the restriction because of "military necessity."
If Bush suspends U.S. aid, he will liberate all Americans from long
years of bondage to Israel's misdeeds.
Mr. Paul Findley, who served as a Republican congressman from Illinois
for 22 years, is the author of 'They Dare to Speak Out' and a member
of the American Educational Trust's Foreign Relations Committee.
Also See: http://www.stop-us-military-aid-to-israel.net/
Citizens for Fair Legislation ALERT: NO NEW AID TO ISRAEL
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1556560.php
Congressman Paul Findley: Liberating America From Israel
http://www.mediamonitors.net/findley2.html
Pat Buchanan: Why Politicians Prefer Israel over American
Interest?
http://amconmag.com/01_13_03/buchanan7.html
Israeli Minister - 'We've Become Barbarians'
http://rense.com/general33/become.htm
Wales Politician Compares Apartheid Israel to Nazi Germany
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/page.cfm?objectid=12498073
&method=full&siteid=50082
Israel's image of liberal democracy takes a battering
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/04/wisr04.xml&s
Sheet=/news/2003/01/04/ixworld.html
Israel Bans Christian Politician and Party from Election
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1845530.stm
Israel to Expel Christian Politician and non-Jewish Parties from
Knesset
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,866348,00.html
Row over Arabs' election ban
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/01/wisr01.
xml&sSheet=/news/2003/01/01/ixnewstop.html
How Americas Zionist controlled media spin the facts.
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/98414_comment.php
American Media Controlled by Israeli Supporters
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Eric+Alterman+MSNBC+Israel&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT
F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3caaa1d0_1%40news.tm.net.my&rnum=1
The Myth of Barak's Generous Offer
http://fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html
Direct Financial Cost of Israel to US: $1.6 trillion and
growing
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
MAKING MERCHANDISE OUT OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD: SELLING THE UPCOMING
WAR IN
IRAQ http://www.endtimesnetwork.com/m2_s1.html
Zionism Unbound - Vidal Gored 16 Years Ago
http://www.rense.com/general32/unbound.htm
'It's Time To Get Tough With Israel' - Patriotic US Army Brig
General
http://www.rense.com/general33/tough.htm
Israel's Policy Of 'Covert Aggression'
http://www.rense.com/general31/ze.htm
ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM
http://abbc.com/historia/zionism/rokach.html
The Men From JINSA and CSP
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020902&c=1&s=vest
JINSA Behind Drive To Cover-Up Israeli Spy Scandal
http://rense.com/general18/JINSA.HTM
Christian Coalition Abandonment of Palestinian Christians is
Hypocritical http://www.mediamonitors.net/sherri64.html
Where does world-famous televangelist's money go?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845747.asp#BODY
Christian Patriarch of Holy Land calls for end of Oppressive
Israeli
occupation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2604761.stm
Zionism versus the Bible - Peace and Jutice on Earth or the
Extremism of
the 'Christian' Right? http://www.mediamonitors.net/williamson4.html
THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE - Christianity & The NWO
http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm
No Joy in Bethlehem
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,865083,00.html
'Saddest Christmas Ever' in Bethlehem
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021225&cat=news&st=newsmideas
tdc
For Unbiased News, visit:
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.rense.com/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://www.independent.co.uk/
http://www.thenation.com/
http://www.mediamonitors.net/
http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.fair.org/
http://www.counterpunch.com/
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://www.progressive.org/
http://www.yellowtimes.org/
http://www.latimes.com/
For Good Analysis and Commentary, visit:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/
http://www.robert-fisk.com/
http://www.iacenter.org/
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html
http://www.nader.org/public_interest.html
http://reese.king-online.com/
http://fair.org/media-beat/
http://avnery-news.co.il/english/
Please distribute....
http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://heretical.com/ http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
CUNTICA
underwear on my head & I'm eating a banana & it's a really big banana!
Dean Markley
Isn't that ignoring it? Sheesh.
LIBERATOR
I did mistakenly refer to the night of long knives as the time when
Hitler gathered up the Jews.
I was asleep at the computer.
Topaz
Obviously Cuntica should be flushed down a toilet.
But on usenet we should write of things more political and important:
Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
"'Spain represents the world at the cross-roads.' Thus wrote
the Bolshevic press organ, Die Rundschau, in its issue dated July 22,
1937. That one sentance precisely defines the international
significance of the Spanish problem. It states exactly what the
Spanish problem is. Here the final decision must lie either with
Bolshevism or the principle of Authority. On the one side stands
ruinous anarchy and, on the other, orderly constructive development."
"Nations which in recent years have kept their eyes closed to
the startling growth of the international Bolshevic menace will one
day experience a terrible awakening from this moral narcosis. The fact
that we, German National Socialists, as conscious and uncompromising
protaganists against the Bolshevic world-front, are still condemned to
play the part of a preacher in the wilderness, calling out to deaf
ears--this cannot prevent us from seeing things as they are and
calling them by their right names. For if the constantly increasing
extension of this Bolshevic infection in Europe should cause still
greater disaster, then future historians will be in a position to
record the fact that we, German National Socialists, were not among
those who allowed themselves to be led astray in the universal chaos
of thought and mental fog purposely created as a sort of smoke-screen
by an insidious epidemic of political propaganda. Nothing could make
us deviate in the least from the straight road we have taken.
"From the very nature of the case it is obvious that the
subversive forces of International Jewry will raise a tumult of rage
when we clearly and dispassionately lay bare the background of this
revolutionary developement which is extending through the world. For,
after all, they are the only people who are drawing profit forn the
chaotic ruin which Bolshevism is bringing upon mankind. That on this
account they will swamp us with a torrrent of abuse and lies and
calumnies is only an honour for us and a further proof that we are
right in warning Europe against this peril."
"The fight which General Franco is waging, with the support of all
the constructive elements, against the Bolshevic menace to his native
land is at the same time a fight for civilization."
"The Moscow Comintern never tires of impressing on public
opinion thoughout the world the theory that the national movement,
which on July 17, 1936, intervened in the seething developements in
Spain, was a military rising oragnised by reactionary generals and
that this rising was definately repudiated by the Spanish people. The
truth however is that this national movement was in reality an act of
self-defence on the part of the people, against the revolt which had
been planned by the Spanish Communist Party for that time and was
subsequently postponed to August 1936. This communist revolt had been
planned in Moscow several years previously, organized from Moscow and
directed from Moscow, and is still being carried out in practice from
Moscow today."
"In 1935 the annual funds which Moscow contributed for the
support of the Communist Party in Spain totalled several million
pesetas, of which two millions were officially acknowledged as having
been paid by the Comintern itself. At the 7th World Congress of the
Comintern in Moscow, in 1935, Dimitroff gave instructions for the
formation of a Front Populaire in Spain. Between February 16 and April
19,1936, 140 people were murdered by gangs of red revolutionaries, and
529 buildings were burned down and destroyed before the Bolshevic
Revolution officially broke out."
"We can account for this baffling style of mutual admiration
between Bolshevism and Western Liberalist Intellectualism only if we
assume it to be some form of mental disease."
"During February and March 101 Russian Soviet aeroplanes were shipped
from Reval to Spain. And on March 1st, 50 heavy guns from Soviet
Russia were brought overland to Almansa. Recently one single large
consignment of was material from Soviet Russia to the Reds in Spain
included 100 heavy tanks, 500 medium-sized tanks, 2000 light tanks,
4000 heavy machine guns, 6000 light machine guns and 300 aeroplanes,
with their pilots."
"I shall now deal with some instances which will help to give an
idea of the extent to which World Liberalism goes in its moral support
of the Reds in Spain. I have already emphasized the fact that the
marriage between Bolshevism and Democracy presents some uncanny
features; indeed one might call them downright perverse. In the
historical developement of its activities Democracy has more and more
become the political facade of World Capitalism. Bolshevism now
carries the democratic principle to its ultimate logical application.
We may call it the Democracy of Terror. It increases the pace of that
sanguinary and pitiless developement of which Liberalism had already
mapped out the path. I might illustrate this point by a rather drastic
comparison. In democracy leading heads were out-voted by the counting
of heads. In Bolshevism the same result is obtained by chopping off
heads with the guillotine. The result in both cases is the same. The
heads are wanting. The masses are robbed of their natural leaders and
left prey to international Jews, who are now free to exercise their
dictatorship by the employment of terrorization and money."
"Pleasing catchwords were used to win the favour of the
workers but when the communist leaders came into power social terror
became the rule of the day. Among the workers and peasant classes
hunger prevailed, as symbol and sign of the Bolshevic rule."
"In keeping with the Soviet Russian pettern, family life and
the instituton of marriage are being ruined by this world plague.
Degradation of married women, the socialization of women, the
martyrdom of children--these are the principles which are in vogue
here."
"According to the 'Daily Mail' of August 22, 1936, Twenty-eight
nuns from the convent of Santa Clara "were subjected to inconceivable
tortures by relays of red maniacs."
"But Bolshevism in practice is nothing better than the most
frightful find of barbarism. It is the outward expression of the
hatred of the underworld agianst all those who are representative of
Western civilization and a cultural level to which Bolshevism can
never hope to attain."
"Among the 20,000 churches and monasteries which the Reds have
plundered and destroyed many were of historical and architectual
significance which cannot be replaced."
"But the churches of the world remain passive to it all and do not
seem to have the least suspicion as to the deadly menace that
threatens them. This is where Bolshevism shows itself again as the
incarnation of evil. Its destructive influence on the popular
religious instinct goes to the very roots of that instinct itself. And
this ruthless atheistic campaign spares nothing whatsoever which might
serve to remind the people of God and religion. The one fact alone
that the Fuerer has saved the German churches from this fate should be
enough to make them feel bound to remain eternally thankful to him.
But instead of this they never tire of going beyond the sphere of
their religious duties, interfering in political matters and making
their influence felt in a way that has no connection whatsoever with
their duties or their divine calling."
"According to indisputable figures based exclusively on
Bolshevic statistics, 42,000 priests have been murdered in Russia. Up
to February 2,1937, approximately 17,000 priests and monks and eleven
bishops were murdered in Spain."
"A Swedish refugee stated, on November 10, 1936: 'I have seen
churches on the walls of which the murdered bodies of women were hung,
nuns that had been beheaded or burned and whose bodies had been nailed
in rows to the church walls."
"The Strassburg paper, 'Der Elsasser', in its issue of
February 27, 1937 published the staggering fact that '50,000 Spanish
children are at the present moment wandering through Spanish
provinces, abandoned and in rags. All public activities for the
welfare of the youth have been abolished. And so the youngsters, very
often no more than four or five years old, are left no alternative.
They stagger along the road in swarms, shivering with cold and are
nothing more than wandering skeletons.'"
"One shudders to think what might happen to humanity if this
system became universal throughout the world."
"Bolshevism and its 'friendly press' throughout the world lose no
opportunity of pointing an accusing finger at the alleged use of
terror in countries which are governed according to the principles of
authority. The whole world gives a cry of agonizing sympathy when, for
example, a Jew in Germany receives a well-earned box on the ears. But
what is this when compared with the terror that disrupts whole
nations"
"Lenin himself, when asked at the 12th Congress of the Red Party,
what were the principles on which Communism relied, answered: 'Murder,
destruction, not a stone to be left in place if its removal should be
to the advantage of the Revolution.'"
"The Jewish Soviet Ambassador in London finds it convenient to
express his moral indignation before the Non-Intervention Committee in
London. The world and the League of Nations are hypocritically
appealed to. Before these tribunals the Jew Litwinow-Finkelstein plays
the part of the civilised philistine and fills Europe with cries of
protest."
"The Intenational Brigades which are sent into action on the Red
Spanish front are commanded by Soviet officers. Their commander was
the Jew, General Kleber."
"We shall not be deterred from pointing to the Jew as the inspirer,
the instigator and the beneficiary of the dreadful catastrophe."
"At Barcelona he sits, in the person of Wladimer Bischitzki as
director of the international oragnization for the smuggling of arms
and munitions, comrades Lurje and Fuchs, of his own racial breed,
sitting by his side. His Paris agents are his racial compatriots,
Fratkin, Rosenfeld and Schapiro. At Hirtenberg in Austria their
collaborator is the Jew, Mandl. In Amsterdam the Jew, Wolf. In
Rotteerdam the Jews, Cohen, Gruenfeld, Kirsch, and Simon. In Denmark
the Jew, Moses Israel Diamant. In Prague the Jews, Kindler, Kahn,
Abter and Hithner. We know them all and we know them well."
"The fact that Western Liberalism closes its eyes to this evil
portent is only a sign of its almost childish naivety."
"A struggle for native land and liberty, for honour and family
and God and religion, for wife and child, for school and upbringing,
for order, moral principle, culture and civilization, for our lives
and our daily bread , has begun. In Germany it has already been
brought to a triumphant issue."
http://www.ihr.org/ www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
NEMO
LIBERATOR
LOL, Nemo & Cuntica should be flushed down the toilet as they hug each
other.
CUNTICA
crotchless panties & wearing a Pickle - Haube!
LIBERATOR
> LIBERATOR, Topaz is Nazi homo & he like young guys like you dressed in
> crotchless panties & wearing a Pickle - Haube!
No no, you are wrong.
Topaz
Obviously nemo should be flushed down a toilet.
Rev. Father James Dempsey
wrote:
>
>
>Obviously nemo should be flushed down a toilet.
>
>But on usenet we should write of things more political and important:
>
>
> Here are quotes from a speech delivered by Dr. Joseph Goebbels
>at the National Socialist Party Congress, Nuernberg, 1937.
Was Goebbels gay like Alex Vangel? Is THAT why he murdered his wife
and children?
Eunometic
Not true.
> The Germans could have
> gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.- Hide quoted text -
Not true.
The Bismark was designed to outfight anything it couldn't outrun and
to outrun anything it couldn't out fight.
It was faster than the KGV class it could outfight such lightweights
as the Battlecruiser Hood.
The claim that it was out of date is based on the Germans not
accepting the 'all or nothing' armour theory.
They more evenly distributed the armour over their ship (say 80%)
against say 60% for US and British ships. They also had an armoured
citadel. (note how PoW bridge crew was killed by a shell). Bismarks
guns were high velocity guns designed to fire at shallow angles and
medium ranges appropriate to the visibillity conditions of the Nth
Altantic. They were limited by elevation not velocity.
Bismarks armour was designed to provide overall resistance to the fast
firing and very damaging guns of 6 and 8 inch guns of cruisers rather
than 15 inch guns of battleships. She was more likely to encounter
cruisers. Battleships she would generally avoid engaging as numerical
inferioty required this untill the Kriegsmarine could be built up.
Remember to the Bismark had 3 layers of armour from bow to stern added
up that is quite a lot. She could predetonate and defuze shells.
Her 16 x 105mm guns could fire 18 round per minute, over twice as fast
as the 16 x 5.25" shells of the KGV class. On top of that she still
had her 12 x 150mm secondary armament. Her shells were 60% of the
weight of the US 5" but had a much higher velocity and range.
Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
Dan
> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Eunometic
Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.
The follow on from the Bismark class was 6 x H39 battleships. Though
about 1700 tons of keel was layed for two of them like most
battleships at that stage they were scrapped in order to free
resources for weapons that could be more quickly finished.
They were to add an enclosed armoured version of the duel FLAK 105mm
guns, still triaxially stabalised and inclusive of radar built on to
the mount.
Dan
> On May 19, 3:06 pm, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 11:57 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
>>
>> OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.
There's more to sea battles than speed although it can be a deciding
factor.
>
> The follow on from the Bismark class was 6 x H39 battleships. Though
> about 1700 tons of keel was layed for two of them like most
> battleships at that stage they were scrapped in order to free
> resources for weapons that could be more quickly finished.
So what? Not built, doesn't count and it's "laid."
>
> They were to add an enclosed armoured version of the duel FLAK 105mm
> guns, still triaxially stabalised and inclusive of radar built on to
> the mount.
So what? Not built, doesn't count and it's "stabilized." The term
coaxial applies to weapons mounted in parallel.
Eunometic
> On 5/19/2011 12:58 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 3:06 pm, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2011 11:57 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
> >>> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
>
> >> OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.
>
> There's more to sea battles than speed although it can be a deciding
> factor.
The reality is that Kriegsmarine doctrin for its battleships called
for avoiding contact with equal or superior forces. This was carried
to extremes at times such as when Lutjens prevented Lindemann from
finishing of PoW which was damaged and had jamed guns.
Hitler himself asked why the Bismark didn't pursue PoW if she had
jammed guns. (Germans were decoding British traffic at this time as
well)
The smaller German navy could not afford to damage its ships.
Something called a "lanchestrian scenario" ensures they would quickly
loose all of their ships.
1 knot is enough to avoid contact unless there is no place to run due
to other enemy forces or land masses.
>
>
>
> > The follow on from the Bismark class was 6 x H39 battleships. Though
> > about 1700 tons of keel was layed for two of them like most
> > battleships at that stage they were scrapped in order to free
> > resources for weapons that could be more quickly finished.
>
> So what? Not built, doesn't count
Its common to do whatiff scenarios with Iowa vs Bismark.
Two problems with this comparison:
By the time Iowa was commisioned 2-3 years latter Bismark & Tirpitz
would have been substantially upgraded while H39 would be launched
(though still fitting out). For instance better blind fire radar,
more FLAK etc. Iowa was a better ship cerntainly but it was a latter
more advanced design.
>
>
> > They were to add an enclosed armoured version of the duel FLAK 105mm
> > guns, still triaxially stabalised and inclusive of radar built on to
> > the mount.
>
> So what? Not built, doesn't count
Just saying, comparing 1940 launched and fitted ship ship with a 1943
launched and fitted out ship produces a predicatble result.
Had the US entered the war 1 year earlier the Iowas probably would
have been cancelled.
> The term
> coaxial applies to weapons mounted in parallel.
co-axial means something with a common axis. Technically the only way
two weapns can be is if one is mounted inside the other.
triaxial means the guns can travers, elevate and also roll to ensure
that when they elevate they don't unintintiall add in yaw.
Dan
> 1 knot is enough to avoid contact unless there is no place to run due
> to other enemy forces or land masses.
Only if the parties are not firing at each other when one isn't
detected in the first place.
In any event Bismark wouldn't have survived much longer anyway unless
hiding in a fjord like Tirpitz. A heavy surface fleet wasn't in
Germany's best interest. Dönitz knew this.
Keith Willshaw
> On May 19, 4:20 pm, Dan <B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
> The smaller German navy could not afford to damage its ships.
> Something called a "lanchestrian scenario" ensures they would quickly
> loose all of their ships.
>
> 1 knot is enough to avoid contact unless there is no place to run due
> to other enemy forces or land masses.
>
Or the enemy has an aircraft carrier - the RN had several as Bismarck
discovered
Or the enemy has radar equipped cruisers to shadow you - see above
Or the enemy has effective maritime patrol aircraft - see above
Or the enemy has decent sea going destroyers as Scharhorst discovered
There is a good reason to build balanced fleets.
<snip>
>
> By the time Iowa was commisioned 2-3 years latter Bismark & Tirpitz
> would have been substantially upgraded while H39 would be launched
> (though still fitting out). For instance better blind fire radar,
> more FLAK etc. Iowa was a better ship cerntainly but it was a latter
> more advanced design.
>
No they would either be sunk or hiding in a fiord - oh wait that is
what happened.
Keith
Dean Markley
And yet Bismarck was caught and sunk by those ships she was intended
to outrun and outfight. She was simply a modified Baden from WW1.
Very well armored and difficult to sink, yes. But look at how she
(he?) was mission-killed early on. Bismarck was too much for simple
raiding, you don't need 15 inch guns to sink merchant ships. Having
one or two battleships is not sufficient to counter the British
fleet. And before you begin to rant about H class battleships being
planned, they were ONLY planned. As far as being sufficient to fight
off cruisers, that is not the purpose of a battleship.
The Bismarcks were suboptimal units oriented toward a suboptimal usage.
Dean Markley
And that 1 knot might be useless depending on sea state and the
ability of a particular ship to handle it.
Peter Skelton
> On May 14, 3:46 am, Dean Markley<damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:05 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> That was a key mistake on his part. Actually building such ships as
>> Bismarck was pointless. It was a First World War design and
>> essentially obsolete for a raiding purpose.
>
> Not true.
>
cost too much and cover too little ocean.
>> The Germans could have
>> gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Not true.
>
> The Bismark was designed to outfight anything it couldn't outrun and
> to outrun anything it couldn't out fight.
> It was faster than the KGV class it could outfight such lightweights
> as the Battlecruiser Hood.
>
The problem was outrunning aircraft. As soon as it became practical to
stuff radar into an aircraft, surface warship raiders were toast.
> The claim that it was out of date is based on the Germans not
> accepting the 'all or nothing' armour theory.
>
<an insane analysis of Bismarck's armour and guns is snipped here,
anyone interested in a more educated analysis should go to nihon
kaigun's pages>
--
Peter
Peter Skelton
You misspelled Lexington, Yorktown and Wasp (not that the NC's and SD's
weren't much better ships than the B's).
--
Peter
Peter Skelton
> On May 19, 3:06 pm, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2011 11:57 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
>>
>> OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.
It was a Nelson that caught her and shot the sh*t out of her, wasn't it?
Of course that was after a plane slowed her down and a cruiser disabled
her gunnery.
>
> The follow on from the Bismark class was 6 x H39 battleships. Though
> about 1700 tons of keel was layed for two of them like most
> battleships at that stage they were scrapped in order to free
> resources for weapons that could be more quickly finished.
>
> They were to add an enclosed armoured version of the duel FLAK 105mm
> guns, still triaxially stabalised and inclusive of radar built on to
> the mount.
They'd have been an even more serious waste of resource than the Iowas,
but the US could afford it, Germany couldn't.
--
Peter
Dean Markley
Peter, good point there about the cruiser fire disabling Bismarck.
Euno claims Bismarck was proof against cruisers but but he tends to
ignore facts and focus on what-ifs instead.
Keith Willshaw
> On May 14, 3:46 am, Dean Markley <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:05 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>>
>> That was a key mistake on his part. Actually building such ships as
>> Bismarck was pointless. It was a First World War design and
>> essentially obsolete for a raiding purpose.
>
> Not true.
>
>> The Germans could have
>> gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>
> Not true.
>
> The Bismark was designed to outfight anything it couldn't outrun and
> to outrun anything it couldn't out fight.
> It was faster than the KGV class it could outfight such lightweights
> as the Battlecruiser Hood.
>
Which didnt turn out to be the case.
> The claim that it was out of date is based on the Germans not
> accepting the 'all or nothing' armour theory.
>
And other features of its design
> They more evenly distributed the armour over their ship (say 80%)
> against say 60% for US and British ships. They also had an armoured
> citadel. (note how PoW bridge crew was killed by a shell).
You do know the Bismarck bridge crew died the same way dont you ?
<Quote>
Mr. Josef Statz and two shipmates escaped from the Damage Control Central,
which was located at the base of the communications tube to the forward
conning tower. Statz and his companions climbed up this narrow 750mm
diameter tube containing vital electrical and control cabling. He made his
ascent in a listing, rolling, and pitching ship. When he arrived at the
access hatch to the forward conning tower, the scene before him was one of
utter and complete desolation. All of the ship's control equipment was
demolished and in two piles of rubble forward and aft of the hatch from
which he was about to emerge.
The conning tower interior was wrecked and the deck creating the two-level
interior structure had disappeared. Light was streaming in from holes in
the roof armor, where the forward rangefinders had been located, from the
riddled port side armor, and from the forward end, where the deck had
separated from the vertical 350mm armor.
</Quote>
> Bismarks
> guns were high velocity guns designed to fire at shallow angles and
> medium ranges appropriate to the visibillity conditions of the Nth
> Altantic. They were limited by elevation not velocity.
>
> Bismarks armour was designed to provide overall resistance to the fast
> firing and very damaging guns of 6 and 8 inch guns of cruisers rather
> than 15 inch guns of battleships. She was more likely to encounter
> cruisers. Battleships she would generally avoid engaging as numerical
> inferioty required this untill the Kriegsmarine could be built up.
>
A claim that is entirely false and contradicts your earler statement
<Quote>
>it could outfight such lightweights
> as the Battlecruiser Hood.
</Quote>
Hood had 15" guns and side armour to battleship standard
> Remember to the Bismark had 3 layers of armour from bow to stern added
> up that is quite a lot. She could predetonate and defuze shells.
>
Which turned her into a blazing hulk with all guns out of action
> Her 16 x 105mm guns could fire 18 round per minute, over twice as fast
> as the 16 x 5.25" shells of the KGV class.
4" guns were rather unlikely to penetrate KGV's armor and as the guns were
not turreted their crews were killed rather quickly
> On top of that she still
> had her 12 x 150mm secondary armament. Her shells were 60% of the
> weight of the US 5" but had a much higher velocity and range.
>
> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
About 2 years in fact.
Keith
Eunometic
> On 19/05/2011 1:58 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 3:06 pm, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >> On 5/18/2011 11:57 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>
> >>> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
>
> >> OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.
>
> It was a Nelson that caught her and shot the sh*t out of her, wasn't it?
> Of course that was after a plane slowed her down and a cruiser disabled
> her gunnery.
No cruiser disabled her gunnery or scored a hit.
Bismark came in range of Suffolk and Norfolk and fired upon them.
Norfolk in fact was hit by a shell which had bounced of the water
before she managed to retreat. Bismarck was not hit in this first
engagement, her 150mm secondary armament was quite capable of dealing
with any cruiser.
Unfortunatly the shock from the firing of her own guns disabled
Bismarcks forward radar, proably damaging the TS1 triodes. There were
3 radars, of type FuMO 23 and latter that night the remainder failed
for some reason. This was not uncommon PoW and KGV both lost their
radars in their 51.5cm Type 284 radars withing minutes of their
engagment with Bismark. Prinz Eugen had been upgraded with FuMO 27
radar; this had the more rugged TS6 triode and did not suffer from
this issue.
After Bismarck had been crippled to 7 knots speed and intercepted by
Rodney and KGV she was hit several times by Rodney & KGV before
Norfolk socred a hit on one of her 3 main directors. Norfolks hit was
not decisive because the fact that Bismarck was unable to manouver or
move at speed made it far more likely that she would be hit. Remember
the shells of KGV were in the air for almost 60 seconds before hitting
near their target and if Bismarck had of had a speed of 30 knots
(about 900 meter/minute) any manouver or measurmeant error would have
been amplified. Statistically two ships againt one are also more
likely to score a hit. He who scroes the first hit has a chance of
degrading the accuracy of return fire even if they do not achieve a
penetration.
Heavy cruisers indeed are dangerous to a battleship in that their high
fire rate can cause considerable damage to fire control systems though
on their own are incapable of seriously damaging a battleship.
Hood was also doomed the momment she engaged Bismark. Hood had been
designed as a Battlecruiser and was not designed to engage a
battleship. Cruisers are very fast ships designed to shadow the
enemy, raid and escape battleships using speed. The Brritish navy
decided they would create battlecruisers: these were the size of a
battleship but reduced armour but put the weight into uprated engines
with the speed to chase down and 'overkill' enemy cruisers.
Because of Bismarcks speed the only ship the Royal Navy Had was Hood
that could catch her but Hood lacked adaquete armour to take on a
battleship (she was designed to muscle smaller cruisers) and her
ancient dryer table fire control meant that both Bismark and Prinz
Eugen would almost certainly score the first hits.
I should also point out that on the night before she was sunk, while
she was crippled, Bismarck was harrased by destroyers.
The destroyers captians noted that they had been accustomed to them
seeing the battleship first before the battleship saw the destroyers
since they were smaller. Bismarcks night fighting optics was so good
however that she invariably engaged the destroyers with her 150mm guns
before the destroyers saw them and was able to drive them off.
> They'd have been an even more serious waste of resource than the Iowas,
> but the US could afford it, Germany couldn't.
I don't disagree. That's why the keels of the 6 x H39 ships were
ripped up.
The Anglo-German naval treaty required a balanced fleet to be built.
Eunometic
Never happened.
> Euno claims Bismarck was proof against cruisers but but he tends to
> ignore facts and focus on what-ifs instead.-
You on the other hand never checked the facts.
Bismarck had more evenly distributed armour including an armoured
bridge and citadel ie slightly thinner but over a wider area. While
the armoured bridge/citadel could not resist hits from a battleship it
could resist hits from cruisers. The 'All or nothing" concept on UK
and USN ships simply tended to eliminate armour (mainly on the deck)
on what were cenceived of as non-critical areas (such as the bridge)
and concentrate it more heavily areas so that they might provide more
complete protection. At closer range engagements, which the Germans
expected to be normal, the shallow striking angle provides protection
to Bismarck. Bismarck is thus more vulnerable only at long range
(from plunging fire) and only from a Battleship. Bismarck was not
intended to fight battleships often and then only at close range (due
to poor visibillity in the Atlantic). The all or nothing idea assumed
the shell would simply pass throught or not cause serious damage.
Now consider what happens when a German Navy Heavy-Cruiser like Prinze
Eugen engages with a USN or RN style Battleship. Prinze Eugen might
only be 1/3rd the size but 8 inch guns had almost the same range as
that of the 14-16 inch guns of a battleship, certainly near the limits
of radar and optics and moreover had 3 times the fireing rate. It is
likely that a Heavy Cruiser may get the first hits not only damaging
fire control and radar but getting penetrations into the Bridge and
the 'nothing' part of the 'all or nothing' armour concept areas. The
compromised secondary "Duel Purpose" armament the allied ships would
tend to be too weak to partake in accurate fire at long range.
Bismarcks purpose as a commer raider meant she had to be optimised to
dominate heavy-cruisers.
Peter Skelton
> On May 19, 10:01 pm, Peter Skelton<skelton.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19/05/2011 1:58 AM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>> On May 19, 3:06 pm, Dan<B24...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>>> On 5/18/2011 11:57 PM, Eunometic wrote:
>>
>>>>> Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
>>
>>>> OK, what about Colorado, North Carolina and South Dakota classes?
>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>> Bismark was 2 knots faster than all of those classes.
>>
>> It was a Nelson that caught her and shot the sh*t out of her, wasn't it?
>> Of course that was after a plane slowed her down and a cruiser disabled
>> her gunnery.
>
> No cruiser disabled her gunnery or scored a hit.
>
<two completely irrelevant paragraphs excised here>
> After Bismarck had been crippled to 7 knots speed and intercepted by
> Rodney and KGV she was hit several times by Rodney& KGV before
> Norfolk socred a hit on one of her 3 main directors.
You are calling yourself a liar here. Well done, it was courteous of you
to save me the trouble.
<More irrelevance snipped>
Euro's position is that after aircraft torpedoed B and a cruiser knocked
out her directors, Rodney shot her all to hell. At the same time he
states that no cruiser hit her.
He feels that that disagrees with my statement above repeated here:
"It was a Nelson that caught her and shot the sh*t out of her, wasn't
it? Of course that was after a plane slowed her down and a cruiser
disabled her gunnery."
--
Peter
Eunometic
> Eunometic wrote:
> > On May 14, 3:46 am, Dean Markley <damark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 13, 11:05 am, eunome...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> >> That was a key mistake on his part. Actually building such ships as
> >> Bismarck was pointless. It was a First World War design and
> >> essentially obsolete for a raiding purpose.
>
> > Not true.
>
> >> The Germans could have
> >> gotten many more u-boats for that huge expenditure.- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> > Not true.
>
> > The Bismark was designed to outfight anything it couldn't outrun and
> > to outrun anything it couldn't out fight.
> > It was faster than the KGV class it could outfight such lightweights
> > as the Battlecruiser Hood.
>
> Which didnt turn out to be the case.
>
> > The claim that it was out of date is based on the Germans not
> > accepting the 'all or nothing' armour theory.
>
> And other features of its design
Name those features:
>
> > They more evenly distributed the armour over their ship (say 80%)
> > against say 60% for US and British ships. They also had an armoured
> > citadel. (note how PoW bridge crew was killed by a shell).
>
> You do know the Bismarck bridge crew died the same way dont you ?
Only after and extensive short ranged battle, and not with cruisers I
might add.
The Bridge was designed to protect against cruisers, not another
Battleship.
>
by elevation not velocity.
>
> > Bismarks armour was designed to provide overall resistance to the fast
> > firing and very damaging guns of 6 and 8 inch guns of cruisers rather
> > than 15 inch guns of battleships. She was more likely to encounter
> > cruisers. Battleships she would generally avoid engaging as numerical
> > inferioty required this untill the Kriegsmarine could be built up.
>
> A claim that is entirely false and contradicts your earler statement
There is not contradiction.
>
> <Quote>>it could outfight such lightweights
> > as the Battlecruiser Hood.
>
> </Quote>
>
> Hood had 15" guns and side armour to battleship standard
>
> > Remember to the Bismark had 3 layers of armour from bow to stern added
> > up that is quite a lot. She could predetonate and defuze shells.
>
> Which turned her into a blazing hulk with all guns out of action
After nearly the entire British Navy in that area chased her.
Bismarck in the end was simply out numbered.
>
> > Her 16 x 105mm guns could fire 18 round per minute, over twice as fast
> > as the 16 x 5.25" shells of the KGV class.
>
> 4" guns were rather unlikely to penetrate KGV's armor and as the guns were
> not turreted their crews were killed rather quickly
WTF?
Bismarks 105mm FLAK gunners would be withdrawn below decks in a battle
with other ships and her 150mm secondary guns would be doing the work
and they certainy could damage KGV bridge.
Apart from her 16 x 105mm FLAK guns with a rate of fire of 18rpm each
Bismark had 12 x 150mm secondary guns with a rate of fire of 7rpm.
These are no joke and apart from a long range would generate a 250ft
high splash.
Contrast the UK's secondary arment of 16 x 5.25 which had to provide
both FLAK and secondary protection but had the inadaquete rate of fire
of 8 rpm or the USN 5" guns whose range was limted.
>
> > On top of that she still
> > had her 12 x 150mm secondary armament. Her shells were 60% of the
> > weight of the US 5" but had a much higher velocity and range.
>
> > Forget about the Iowa class they came years latter.
>
> About 2 years in fact.
Launching a ship does not make it opperational, this can take another
year.
Jim Wilkins
> ...>
> Because of Bismarcks speed the only ship the Royal Navy Had was Hood
> that could catch her but Hood lacked adaquete armour to take on a
> battleship (she was designed to muscle smaller cruisers) and her
> ancient dryer table fire control meant that both Bismark and Prinz
> Eugen would almost certainly score the first hits.
Hood was no longer 'as designed' for WW1, but missed an important
planned refit that would have strengthened the remaining weakness, the
engine room deck armor, a more plausible coulda/woulda/shoulda than
any you have offered.
http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm
At Mers El Kebir Hood apparently hit Bretagne on the third salvo at
about the same range as the engagement with Bismarck.
In the final battle Bismarck failed to damage the British battleships
as they closed to half that distance. They however WERE hitting
Bismarck.
jsw
Eunometic
Your original post was written such that it created the impression
that Norfolk's hits had been critical in disabling Bismarck. In fact
in the first engagement she did not achieve any hits. In the final
engagement Bismark had already been damaged by torpedo bombers the
preciding day and several heavy calibre hits by KGV and Rodney had
already doomed her. Norfolks damage to fire control of course didn't
disable her fire control, it merely damaged her main directors (which
had the best view). She still had directors and range finders for the
secondary armament and range finders within the main gun turrets
themselves.
Thus Norfolk's guns made little difference in the final battle.
Bismarck damaging her own radar from shell shock in her engagement
with Norfok DID NOT DISABLE HER FIRE CONTROL. Radar gunnery was not a
factor in the battle for either side since neither had radar accurate
enough for blind fire while all used optical systems because both had
unreliable radar of limited performance. KGV was possibly able to use
its type 279 for gun splash.
Bismark might have bagged a few destoyers on her last night if her
radar was functional as it would have provided shell splash data to
analyste the straddles.
Eunometic
> On May 19, 8:03 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > ...>
> > Because of Bismarcks speed the only ship the Royal Navy Had was Hood
> > that could catch her but Hood lacked adaquete armour to take on a
> > battleship (she was designed to muscle smaller cruisers) and her
> > ancient dryer table fire control meant that both Bismark and Prinz
> > Eugen would almost certainly score the first hits.
> > ...
>
> Hood was no longer 'as designed' for WW1, but missed an important
> planned refit that would have strengthened the remaining weakness, the
> engine room deck armor, a more plausible coulda/woulda/shoulda than
> any you have offered.http://www.hmshood.com/history/construct/repair42.htm
The refit would have made little difference. Her armour was sitill to
thin even after the refit.
>
> At Mers El Kebir Hood apparently hit Bretagne on the third salvo at
> about the same range as the engagement with Bismarck.
This indicates that hood can hit a ship at anchor.
Her fire control against moving targets was vastly inferior. She
stood little chance.
>
> In the final battle Bismarck failed to damage the British battleships
> as they closed to half that distance. They however WERE hitting
> Bismarck.
Again, Bismarck was almost stationary making her an easier target,
vibrating, and also ptiching and rolling9whch degrader her aim) due to
her difficuty in holding a course.
This swung things againt her. She also had several times more barrels
pointing at her then she could point back, statistically she was
doomed because the first few hits are likely to degrade fire control
even further.
Peter Skelton
>> Euno claims Bismarck was proof against cruisers but but he tends to
>> ignore facts and focus on what-ifs instead.-
>
> You on the other hand never checked the facts.
>
> Bismarck had more evenly distributed armour including an armoured
> bridge and citadel ie slightly thinner but over a wider area. While
> the armoured bridge/citadel could not resist hits from a battleship it
> could resist hits from cruisers. The 'All or nothing" concept on UK
> and USN ships simply tended to eliminate armour (mainly on the deck)
I'd like a reference for the elimination of deck armour (yes, you're
being called a liar again)
> on what were cenceived of as non-critical areas (such as the bridge)
> and concentrate it more heavily areas so that they might provide more
> complete protection.
The reduction in conning tower armour happened in all fleets (except in
the incompetent German designs), to allow more interior space and reduce
top weight. Because of the narrow dimensions, armour to resist cruiser
fire was considered appropriate ad BB AP rounds would pass clear through
unexploded as happened on PoW.
At closer range engagements, which the Germans
> expected to be normal, the shallow striking angle provides protection
> to Bismarck. Bismarck is thus more vulnerable only at long range
> (from plunging fire) and only from a Battleship. Bismarck was not
> intended to fight battleships often and then only at close range (due
> to poor visibillity in the Atlantic). The all or nothing idea assumed
> the shell would simply pass throught or not cause serious damage.
>
I'd like a reference for that last bit of BS. It's as absurd as your
earlier statements about B's main armament.
> Now consider what happens when a German Navy Heavy-Cruiser like Prinze
> Eugen engages with a USN or RN style Battleship. Prinze Eugen might
> only be 1/3rd the size but 8 inch guns had almost the same range as
> that of the 14-16 inch guns of a battleship, certainly near the limits
> of radar and optics and moreover had 3 times the fireing rate.
Reference for the firing rate please. You're claiming 6/min. Pnly the
British counties could maintain that rate.
It is
> likely that a Heavy Cruiser may get the first hits not only damaging
> fire control and radar but getting penetrations into the Bridge and
> the 'nothing' part of the 'all or nothing' armour concept areas. The
> compromised secondary "Duel Purpose" armament the allied ships would
> tend to be too weak to partake in accurate fire at long range.
>
> Bismarcks purpose as a commer raider meant she had to be optimised to
> dominate heavy-cruisers.
I would like a reference to B's being designed to dominate heavy
cruisers. It is not the truth, raiding was a secondary consideration. B
was designed to fight battleships, she was an interim step towards the
ultimate ships planned for the war to start around 1944.
--
Peter
Peter Skelton
>
I made no reference to that engagement at all. What are you blathering
about?
--
Peter
Eunometic
You weren't specific about which engagement.
In the first engagement (accidental from Norfolks POV) developed
damage to her radar but from here own shell shock.
In the second engagement Norfolk may have disabled Bismarks main
director but this was well into the battle after she had received hits.
Eunometic
Due to airpower being available to the Brtish but not the Germans.
This was due to the failure of
1 The Luftwaffe to develop high performance long range aircraft able
to survive against the relatively low prerformance aircraft eg
Fulmars.
A long range version of the He 111 or Ju 89 (which with its 750hp
DB600 replaced by 1100hp DB601) would have outstanding perfornmance
and would threaten cruisers such as Suffolk/Norfolk as well as
reconaisance aircraft such as the Catalinas.
2 The development of approprate fast aircraft carriers based on a
small hull such as that of the Hipper/Prinze Eugen class such as the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Seydlitz
Its fairly clear that the extended wing Me 109T in numbers as small as
8 could simply have been flown of such a ship without catapult (as the
Japanese suggested to the Germans) and have easily dealt with
Swordfish, Fulmars, Martlets/Wildcats and Catalinas. It would have
transformed Bismarks mission.
> She was simply a modified Baden from WW1.
> Very well armored and difficult to sink, yes. But look at how she
> (he?) was mission-killed early on.
> Bismarck was too much for simple
> raiding, you don't need 15 inch guns to sink merchant ships.
15 inch guns with 12 very powerfull 6"/150mm secondary guns mean that
the ONLY threat to Bismark is another Battleship.
Even a Heavy Cruiser can not hope to cause damage using her fast guns
nor large humbers of on rushing destroyers are in trouble.
The Mission of Bismark was to drive of the Cruiser Escort of a convoy
or sink it While a heavy Cruiser like Prinze Eugen did the dirty work
on the merchant ships. If confronted by an enemy battleship she was
designed to be able to hold her own but to disengage.
The Germans could not afford a damaged ship to be offline.
Having said that Heavy Cruisers like the Prinz Eugen (nearly 1.5 times
the weight of Norfolk) would do quite well.
> Having
> one or two battleships is not sufficient to counter the British
> fleet.
The Kriegsmarine only needs a small number of Battleships to tie down
a large number of RN battleships.
> And before you begin to rant about H class battleships being
> planned, they were ONLY planned.
The keels of two of the six had been laid.
> As far as being sufficient to fight
> off cruisers, that is not the purpose of a battleship.
It was for Bismark.
The RN had battlecruisers, such as Hood, to destroy cruisers but we
saw what happens when a battleship confronts a battlecruiser at the
battle of Denmark straights.
>
> The Bismarcks were suboptimal units oriented toward a suboptimal usage.- Hide quoted text -
Bismark was optimal for her mission of driving of cruiser escorts so
that she or her own heavy cruiser escort can destroy a convoy to that
end her armament (secondary guns) were designed to deal with that and
her armour was designed to handle 6 and 8 inch hits all over.
The only thing that could threaten Bismark was another Battleship. She
would deal with that using her speed and fire power.
The flaw with Bismark was that she lacked an aircraft carrier to help
her.
Sometime after Bismark was sunk the German navy properly integrated
Seetakt radar into the FLAK system.
Had this been completed by the time she went on her first mission it
might have been enough to handle the Sworsfish, was the other cause of
her demise: these aircract took advantage of the poor visibillity and
light.
Dean Markley
See now, that last paragraph illustrates how you regress to "what-if".
But answer these two questions:
1. How well did the Bismarck perform in fighting off the Swordfish?
How many did it shoot down?
2. After the engagement with Hood/PoW, how many hits did Bismarck
score on Royal Navy ships?
Jim Wilkins
> ...>
> The only thing that could threaten Bismark was another Battleship. She
> would deal with that using her speed and fire power.
>
> The flaw with Bismark was that she lacked an aircraft carrier to help
> her.
>
> Sometime after Bismark was sunk the German navy properly integrated
> Seetakt radar into the FLAK system.
>
> Had this been completed by the time she went on her first mission it
> might have been enough to handle the Sworsfish, was the other cause of
> her demise: these aircract took advantage of the poor visibillity and
If, if, if. Only in your private Eunoverse can Germany overcome
Britain. Bismarck was designed as a spineless bully to attack weaker
vessels, but run away to save itself from the BBs of an invasion
fleet.
jsw
Jim Wilkins
> On May 20, 10:54 am, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In the final battle Bismarck failed to damage the British battleships
> > as they closed to half that distance. They however WERE hitting
> > Bismarck.
>
> Again, Bismarck was almost stationary making her an easier target,
> vibrating, and also ptiching and rolling9whch degrader her aim) due to
> her difficuty in holding a course.
>
> This swung things againt her. She also had several times more barrels
> pointing at her then she could point back, statistically she was
> doomed because the first few hits are likely to degrade fire control
> even further.
Whine, whine, whine. All the ships were rolling and pitching in the
same ocean and only the relative motion between the ships affects the
aiming correction. Bismarck's erratic course may have made British aim
more difficult. Bismarck simply wasn't intended to stand up to her own
equals, only convoy cruiser escorts. Hood suffered from the same
discredited cost-cutting design deficiency.
jsw
LIBERATOR
Owe, owe owe owe... LOL, where's Robbie? What alias is Robbie using?
Robbie defend against this, somehow...
Eunometic
Too bad he knows little to nothing about German radar, night fighting
optics and compares an 1941 battleship (Bismark) against 1943
battleships when Tirpitz could have been used.
Dean Markley
More of your what-if arguments. Yet Tirpitz never emerged because the
Germans knew she would be put under rapidly by an opponent such as USS
Washington.
Tankfixer
@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, - Eunometic euno...@yahoo.com.au
spouted !
Bismark was the finest 1919 battleship that Germany ever built..
Too bad she built it in 1941
LIBERATOR
> In article <8aaabc1a-80ae-4e4e-9897-e868dcad8ec6
owe....!
Eunometic
> On May 19, 9:32 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
few hits are likely to degrade fire control
> > even further.
>
> Whine, whine, whine. All the ships were rolling and pitching in the
> same ocean and only the relative motion between the ships affects the
> aiming correction.
No it doesn't.
1 The fact that Bismarck was listing, had only one rudder, was
vibrating, and could not keep a predictable steady course and had to
make inumerable minor corrections all effected her aim seriously.
2 An fully intact ship may be moving and even manouvering but its
motion is smooth, predicable and fed into its own computers.
Rudder control and engine power means that she maintains a constant
smooth course against the waves. An unpowered ship tends to "bob"
with all its motion determined by the elements, a powered one has its
motion dominated by its rudder and engines.
By contrast Bismarck appeared as a stationary target to KGV and
Rodney. A ship at 30 knots is moving at 16m/s and in the 30-60
seconds a shell is in flight can move between 500m (1650ft) and 1000m
(3300ft). Any error in position meassurement translates into a speed
error which integrates the predicted position error vastly.
> Bismarck's erratic course may have made British aim
> more difficult.
Hardly, she was moving at only a few knots, less than 4-7knots. She
was effectively stationary, unable to move more than 100m.
> Bismarck simply wasn't intended to stand up to her own
> equals,
She was intended to stand up to her equals.
Her theoretecial weakness was long range plunging fire. At medium
ranges she was in her immunity zone. Nevertheless the use of tripple
armoured decks should have defuzed shells and predetonated them even
if upper or inner decks penetrated. Furthermore the broader coverage
by her armour does provide more area protection when within her
immunity zone.
> only convoy cruiser escorts. Hood suffered from the same
> discredited cost-cutting design deficiency.
>
You don't understand what a battlecruiser is for.
A battlecruiser is a 50,000 ton guerilla, the same tonnage as a
battleship but with lighter armour than a battleship that is by virtue
of its lightness designed to be fast enough to catch and destroy
cruisers that are 1/4 of their size. Battleships are too slow for
catching cruisers. The exception was Bismarck: she was as fast as a
Battlecruiser and as heavily armoured as a battleship.
The reason Hood was used to chase Bismarck was becasue the British had
nothing else fast enough.
Dan
> On May 21, 12:50 am, Jim Wilkins<kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:32 pm, Eunometic<eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
> few hits are likely to degrade fire control
>>> even further.
>>
>> Whine, whine, whine. All the ships were rolling and pitching in the
>> same ocean and only the relative motion between the ships affects the
>> aiming correction.
>
> No it doesn't.
> 1 The fact that Bismarck was listing, had only one rudder, was
> vibrating, and could not keep a predictable steady course and had to
> make inumerable minor corrections all effected her aim seriously.
She had two rudders, one was jammed hard over.
>
> 2 An fully intact ship may be moving and even manouvering but its
> motion is smooth, predicable and fed into its own computers.
> Rudder control and engine power means that she maintains a constant
> smooth course against the waves. An unpowered ship tends to "bob"
> with all its motion determined by the elements, a powered one has its
> motion dominated by its rudder and engines.
>
> By contrast Bismarck appeared as a stationary target to KGV and
> Rodney. A ship at 30 knots is moving at 16m/s and in the 30-60
> seconds a shell is in flight can move between 500m (1650ft) and 1000m
> (3300ft). Any error in position meassurement translates into a speed
> error which integrates the predicted position error vastly.
>
>
>> Bismarck's erratic course may have made British aim
>> more difficult.
>
> Hardly, she was moving at only a few knots, less than 4-7knots. She
> was effectively stationary, unable to move more than 100m.
Let me see if I understand your argument. Bismark was moving
erratically and thus couldn't maintain her aim, yet was stationary with
respect to Allied warships? I have news for you relative velocities and
angles for one ship apply equally to the other. Let me provide you with
an analogy; you are standing still, a vehicle approaches you at 10 mph,
the closing speed is 10 mph. From the point of view of either party the
other is moving at 10 mph relative.
<snip> utter bollocks.
Jim Wilkins
>
> Her theoretecial weakness was long range plunging fire. At medium
> ranges she was in her immunity zone. Nevertheless the use of tripple
> armoured decks should have defuzed shells and predetonated them even
> if upper or inner decks penetrated. Furthermore the broader coverage
> by her armour does provide more area protection when within her
> immunity zone.
Here's a description of how Bismarck stood up to the fire from British
battleships, including evidence from the wreck:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm
Both ships' shells could easily penetrate the armor belt, but the
damage was above water.
This is an older expert assessment:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
You made a big deal of 1941 vs 1943, HMS Rodney was commissioned in
1927 and worn out by 1944.
jsw
Eunometic
The relative velocities of say bismark WRT to Rodney are established
by
1 Accurate compass heading readings from say Rodney's compass and
odograph which are fed into the fire control computer.
These are accurartly known and tracked between measurements so long as
they approximate simple movements (straight lines, simple curves)
2 By readings of range and bearing, relative to a stable reference
(compass heading, odograph) which are converted to cartesian co-
ordinates, substracted mechanically to establish an synthetic equation
that describes the tragets velocity and position WRT to time.
Correolis effects need to be compensated as does sidewise and head
wind drag on the projectile.
The calculations need to be converted to and done in an absolute frame
of reference so that all factors can be included.
> Let me provide you with
> an analogy; you are standing still, a vehicle approaches you at 10 mph,
> the closing speed is 10 mph. From the point of view of either party the
> other is moving at 10 mph relative.
Yes but if each of you are now moving approximatly towards each other
at 5mph for a relative velocity of 10mph we can say a couple of
things:
You can accuratly measure your own speed and position with an
odometer. Say an speedometer error of 0% and and odometer error 0%
You can less accuratly measure the relative motion since you must use
a steometric range finder to measure the position of the other vehicle
to take successive range measurements to calculate the relative motion
say error of speed 1m/s plus 10%.
Subtract your own motion from the relative motion and we have the
tagets absolute motion.
If the targets absolute motion is 1m/s (which is a slow grandmotherly
walk) a projectile which takes 1 second to reach that target is not
going to be effected much even if there is a +/-20 error in your speed
measurement as this equates to ony 20cm/sec
If the absolute motion of the target is near zero you have a simple
firing solution.
If the target is moving at 10m/s a 20% error is 2m.
You need to understand the concept of pitching, rolling and yawing?
Your need to understand the concept of vibraion?
Bismark's situation was far worse than the attacking KGV and Rodney.
Bismark hit and sank HMS Hood on the first half of her 3rd salvo. The
Bismark fired in semi salvos (Anton+Bertha ) then (Caesar+Dora)so this
is the 5th semi salvo.
Bismark then lobbed 4 more shells into PoW. He shooting was fine at
that point.
Eunometic
> On May 22, 9:20 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > ...>
> > She was intended to stand up to her equals.
>
> > Her theoretecial weakness was long range plunging fire. At medium
> > ranges she was in her immunity zone. Nevertheless the use of tripple
> > armoured decks should have defuzed shells and predetonated them even
> > if upper or inner decks penetrated. Furthermore the broader coverage
> > by her armour does provide more area protection when within her
> > immunity zone.
> > ...
>
> Here's a description of how Bismarck stood up to the fire from British
> battleships, including evidence from the wreck:http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_Bismarck_p2.htm
> Both ships' shells could easily penetrate the armor belt, but the
> damage was above water.
>
> This is an older expert assessment:http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
No battleship can resist hundreds of hits, many at point blank range
ie 3600 yards
> You made a big deal of 1941 vs 1943, HMS Rodney was commissioned in
> 1927 and worn out by 1944.
That is not an old Battleship at all by the standards of ships like
Arizona and Warspite.
The main disadvantage to this was that her old steam machinary made
her slow. In terms of armaments, armour, radar and fire control she
was up to day. In fact the pre-treaty 16" guns gave her a heavy hit.
Keith Willshaw
In 1941 when the action happened she was on her way to the USA
for a desperately needed refit. After the action she spent several
weeks in the South Boston Navy Yard.
Keith
Keith Willshaw
She was NOT pre-treaty, her construction was authorized under
the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922.
Keith
Jim Wilkins
> On May 23, 12:04 pm, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You made a big deal of 1941 vs 1943, HMS Rodney was commissioned in
> > 1927 and worn out by 1944.
>
> That is not an old Battleship at all by the standards of ships like
> Arizona and Warspite.
You just can't admit that the Reich bungled the planning for its Navy,
hoping that a few pirate ships could somehow evade the stern
punishment they invited. All they accomplished was to relieve the RN's
capital ships from boredom between invasion bombardments, and dump
steel that coulda been used for tanks and guns into the ocean.
The IJN, built by a smaller emerging nation under the same treaty
restrictions, was a far better fleet with superior capital ships and a
very good balance of smaller ones. Nevertheless the Allies (USN)
crushed it as they (USN+RN) woulda the best possible (but lesser)
German effort.
jsw
Dan
There's another difference. Any war Japan wanted to wage would
involve surface fleets. The Nazis could beat up her neighbours on land
and didn't need Bismark or aircraft carriers.
Jim Wilkins
> > The IJN, built by a smaller emerging nation under the same treaty
> > restrictions, was a far better fleet with superior capital ships and a
> > very good balance of smaller ones. Nevertheless the Allies (USN)
> > crushed it as they (USN+RN) woulda the best possible (but lesser)
> > German effort.
>
> > jsw
>
> There's another difference. Any war Japan wanted to wage would
> involve surface fleets. The Nazis could beat up her neighbours on land
> and didn't need Bismark or aircraft carriers.
>
Japan could beat up China without one too. I think they wanted the
prestige of being a Great World Power just like Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War
"After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the Meiji government embarked on
an endeavor to assimilate Western ideas, technological advances and
customs. By the late 19th century, Japan had emerged from isolation
and transformed itself into a modernized industrial state in less than
half a century. The Japanese wished to preserve their sovereignty and
to be recognized as an equal with the Western powers."
jsw
Dan
China, yes, Japan already had land forces there, but the rest of the
Pacific Rim required a real Navy.
Dan U.S. Air Force, retired
Ken S. Tucker
The US began a war with Japan in the 1850's, Japs built a superb
military machine, certainly as good as Englands by the 1930's.
By that time, Japs became oil addicts, and started invading
other countries to maintain a secure petroleum supply.
Ken
Keith Willshaw
Interesting but wrong.
The invasions of the 1930's were of Manchuria and China
who had no oil reserves.
The attacks for oil occurred in the 1940's after US and NEI
imposed an oil embargo after the Japanese marched into
French IndoChina.
Keith
Ken S. Tucker
> The invasions of the 1930's were of Manchuria and China
> who had no oil reserves.
Split hairs, what about coal?
(for ships and other things).
> The attacks for oil occurred in the 1940's after US and NEI
> imposed an oil embargo after the Japanese marched into
> French IndoChina.
> Keith
Look at the BIG picture, the trees make a forest.
Ken
Jim Wilkins
> ...>
> > ...Japan could beat up China without one too....
> > jsw
>
> China, yes, Japan already had land forces there, but the rest of the
> Pacific Rim required a real Navy.
>
The Army's plans were independent of the Navy's and to some extent
decided by ambitious field commanders. As far as I can tell the Army
controlled the government and its aggressions, the Navy was only
expected to cover for them.
jsw
Carolina Reb
>
> The US began a war with Japan in the 1850's, Japs built a superb
> military machine, certainly as good as Englands by the 1930's.
> By that time, Japs became oil addicts, and started invading
> other countries to maintain a secure petroleum supply.
That's true. Same as Jew-S-A is doing today.
LIBERATOR
>
> - Show quoted text -
I love guys like you that figure in exactness with figures. You're
almost as good as Robbie.
Matt Ferrari
"Ken S. Tucker" <dyna...@vianet.on.ca>
will one of you morons take a look at where you are posting to?
alt.music.rush.... does not give a rats ass
you are being used by a troll to disrupt a music newsgroup with this
bullshit
stop responding to it morons.
Peter Skelton
I've been away a few days. Anyone accusing the authors of that reference
(or me for that matter) Is as insane as someone trying to switch the
topic from armour to radar but no quite as rabidly mad as someone trying
to pretend German 1943 naval radar was in the same class as what the
allies were fielding at that time.
Of course, insanity never stopped euro.
--
Peter
Dean Markley
Not to worry Peter, by 1946, The German's radar would have been
several generations ahead of the allies. Well, at least according to
some.....
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca>
Yo Matt, don't blame me (Tucker), we can compromise on the net,
just hum a good Airforce tune, like 'Anchors away' while reading
posts from RAM.
Ken
Eunometic
> On May 22, 11:51 pm, Eunometic <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On May 23, 12:04 pm, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...>
> > > You made a big deal of 1941 vs 1943, HMS Rodney was commissioned in
> > > 1927 and worn out by 1944.
>
> > That is not an old Battleship at all by the standards of ships like
> > Arizona and Warspite.
> > ...
>
> You just can't admit that the Reich bungled the planning for its Navy,
> hoping that a few pirate ships could somehow evade the stern
> punishment they invited. All they accomplished was to relieve the RN's
> capital ships from boredom between invasion bombardments, and dump
> steel that coulda been used for tanks and guns into the ocean.
>
> The IJN, built by a smaller emerging nation under the same treaty
> restrictions,
Japan was not restricted by the treat of Versailes silly bugger.
Remember it was technically allied in WW1.
Jim Wilkins
> On May 23, 9:29 pm, Jim Wilkins <kb1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Japan was not restricted by the treat of Versailes silly bugger.
As if you hadn't discredited youself enough already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty
jsw
Dan
He meant Washington Treaty, genius.