[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Attack of the Dead-2025.

Canada strips Jewish National Fund of charitable status

Minnesota State Rep. Vang just admitted that she is an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

1100% increase in neurological events since the roll-out of Covid mRNA

16 Things That Everyone Needs To Know About Violent Far-Left Revolution In Los Angeles

Undercover video in Arizona alleges ongoing consumer fraud by Fairlife

Dozens arrested after San Francisco protest turns violent Sunday

Looking for the toughest badasses in the city (Los Angeles)

Democrat Civil War Explodes: DNC Chair Threatens to Quit Over David Hogg

Invaders waving Mexican flags, pour onto the 101 Freeway in Los Angeles

Australian Fake News Journo Hit By Rubber Bullet In L.A. Riot

22-year-old dies after being unable to afford asthma inhaler

North Korean Bulsae-4 Long-Range ATGM Spotted Again In Russian Operation Zone

Alexander Dugin: A real Maidan has begun in Los Angeles

State Department Weighing $500 Million Grant to Controversial Gaza Aid Group: Report

LA Mayor Karen Bass ordered LAPD to stand down, blocked aid to federal officers during riots.

Russia Has a Titanium Submarine That Can ‘Deep Dive’ 19,700 Feet

Shocking scene as DC preps for Tr*mp's military birthday parade.

Earth is being Pulled Apart by Crazy Space Weather! Volcanoes go NUTS as Plasma RUNS OUT

Gavin, feel free to use this as a campaign ad in 2028.

US To Formalize Military Presence in Syria in Deal With al-Qaeda-Linked Govt

GOP Rep Introduces Resolution Labeling Free Palestine Slogan as Anti-Semitism

Two-thirds of troops who left the military in 2023 were at risk for mental health conditions

UK and France abandon plans to recognise Palestinian state at conference

Kamala Backs LA Protests After Rioters Attack Federal Officers

Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox partners move ahead with Knesset dissolution plan

Former Prime Minister of Ukraine: Zelensky will leave the country

Man protesting Paramount ICE raid added to FBI's Most Wanted

JUAN O SAVIN- The Plan to Capture America

US Manufacturing By State: Who Gains Most From 'Made In America'?


History
See other History Articles

Title: The Only Nazi Aircraft Carrier
Source: Damn Interesting
URL Source: http://www.damninteresting.com
Published: Mar 4, 2006
Author: Greg Bjerg
Post Date: 2006-12-01 22:03:03 by Indrid Cold
Keywords: None
Views: 735
Comments: 65

In no naval action of World War 2 will you find a German aircraft carrier taking part. All the major navies in the war used them extensively, except for Nazi Germany. There were lots of German U-Boats, battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, but no flattops. However, the Nazis had plans to build a total of four carriers and almost finished one of them.

Her name was the KMS Graf Zeppelin and though launched in December 1938 she was never over 80% completed. Construction delays, lack of aircraft, and bitter disputes between Air Marshall Herman Goering and the Navy insured that the ship was doomed to become scrap metal.

Hitler had promised the German Navy (The Kriegsmarine) carriers as early as 1935, and the keel was laid for the Graf Zepplin on December 26, 1936. The Graf Zeppelin was 920 feet long and weighed 19,250 tons. Her top speed was to be 33.8 knots. Her crew complement was 1,760 and she was to hangar forty aircraft. By comparison the large American Essex class carriers of WWII could carry 80 to 100 aircraft. The Germans got as far as partly installing the catapults when the ship was then turned into a floating warehouse for u-boat parts.

Hitler's attitude vacillated on the project and it never had his full backing. It also had a major detractor in Goering, who was resentful of any incursion on his authority as head of the country's air power. Goering had been ordered by Hitler to develop aircraft for the ship. His response was to offer redesigned versions of the then-obsolete JU-87 Stuka dive bomber and older versions of the Messerschmitt 109 fighter. Both planes were land-based aircraft never intended to meet the rough requirements for carrier operations. Even after modifications they were hopelessly inferior to Allied types. To insure further delay in the carrier’s completion, Goering informed Hitler that these planes would not be ready until the end of 1944. Goering’s tactics worked and the Graf Zeppelin’s construction was halted in 1943.

By the time work stopped on the ship, the Germany Navy had a submariner as its top naval officer– Admiral Karl Donitz– and all ship construction was turned over to building new U-Boats. The Graf Zeppelin stayed at her moorings in Stettin for the rest of the war never to see action.

As the end of the war in Europe neared, the Graf Zeppelin was scuttled in shallow water off Stettin (now Szczecin in Poland) on April 25, 1945 just before the Red Army captured the city. But she wasn’t quite ready for the scrap yard yet. According to recently found material in Russian archives, the ship was refloated by the Russians and towed to Leningrad filled with captured booty and military parts for use in the Soviet Union. After unloading her cargo she was named "PO-101" (Floating Base Number 101) by the Soviets. The new owners had hoped to repair and refit the ship as a new carrier but this proved to be impractical so the Graf Zeppelin had one more task to fulfill.

Graf Zepplin Aircraft CarrierOn August 16, 1947 she was towed out to sea and used for target practice by Soviet ships and aircraft. Aerial bombs were placed in her hangers, flight deck and smoke stack. Planes and ships then shot shells and dropped bombs on her to demonstrate how to sink a carrier, presumably American. After twenty-four hits the Graf Zeppelin stayed afloat and had to be finished off by torpedoes.

Details on how the Nazis planned to use the carrier in action have been lost to obscurity. The Germans had none of the experience that the American, British and Japanese navies had gained in the years between the wars. While the Graf Zeppelin had some advanced features she displayed her designers' lack of knowledge about carriers. The heavy surface armament was of little use and accounted for too much weight; the anti-aircraft armament was heavy but badly sited, all on the starboard side. The radius of action was low for a fleet carrier intended to operate with the capital ships on the Atlantic shipping routes.

Had she been commissioned she would have provided a considerable commerce-raiding capability. The carrier could have provided effective support for capital ships and cruisers with air cover, and would have increased their potential for destruction considerably. Such support operations could have changed the outcome of sea battles like the sinking of the Battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz had the Graf Zeppelin been present.

The Germans have never sailed an aircraft carrier since.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-19) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#20. To: Destro (#6)

I take exception to the MP43/STG44 being called a precursor to the AK-47.

While the assault rifles look superficially the same (as a result of form following function rather than being a copy) the AK-47 has different 'guts'.

I just read an interview with Kalishnikov while waiting in the doctor's office, and he did acknowledge using some of the design. F'rinstance the detachable "banana clip".

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   10:01:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: noone222 (#10)

My dad used to say that if it weren't for the Russian winters and Russian soldiers we'd all be speaking German.

I'm sure that's what the propaganda engines of the time were saying, but Hitler couldn't even conquer England, a low-tech island with a disarmed populace and few natural resources.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   10:17:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: DeaconBenjamin (#12)

One of the interesting things about the Sherman besides having an externally mounted gasoline tank (wasn't a diesel-there was a reason the Brits referred to it as the Ronson, it always lit) was that the complicated suspension didn't allow for the replacement of road wheels without virtually removing all the weight off of one side of the tank, making a rather simple and common maintenance procedure a daunting task.

The T-34 was designed to be easy to produce. In 1941 the design was frozen and the only allowable changes were ones that made it easier to manufacture. They finally had to make a few changes by 1943 (upgunning it to an 85mm cannon) I haven't yet gotten any books that discuss Red Army maintenance concepts, but given that the Soviets were building so many T-34s, if any of them broke they could almost simply just swap out for a new one. They were producing between 800-1200 a month, a number so large that Hitler didn't believe it, and this was at a time that the Germans were making something like 20 Tigers a month and soldiers on the Eastern Front were begging for anything they could use, even if it was a Pz II.

historian1944  posted on  2006-12-02   10:22:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: historian1944 (#22)

They had a T-34 up the hill in the Presidio of Monterey, by the barracks for the Russian-language students at the Defense Language Institute (Army Language School). I never learned how the U.S. acquired it.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   10:27:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Indrid Cold (#21)

England wasn't low-tech for those days. Germany failed to defeat England because of English technological developments like radar, the Spitfire fighter, and the breaking of German cyphers (with the earliest computers).

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   10:29:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Indrid Cold (#20)

If Kalashnikov is still alive, he must have been very young when he designed the AK-47.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   10:31:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: aristeides (#23)

They had a T-34 up the hill in the Presidio of Monterey, by the barracks for the Russian-language students at the Defense Language Institute (Army Language School). I never learned how the U.S. acquired it.

There's a fellow about 100 miles from me who's a Class 3 (machine gun) dealer, and he has a T-34 that he rents out for special occasions and whatnot. You and your 4 crew mates can drive it around in his gravel pit and blast stuff with machine guns all day for a couple of hundred bucks.

I almost rented it to celebrate the 10th anniversary of our stores (we wanted to drive it in the 4th of July parade), but the city engineer couldn't guarantee that the treads wouldn't tear hell out of the warm asphalt streets.

You can buy your own T-34 for about $35,000, last I looked.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   10:33:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Destro (#7)

Hitler gambled and he thought the war he started would be short and sweet and thus the Nazis were ill prepared for total war.

What's also interesting is that the logistics problems that they encountered in the Soviet Union were already evident in the invasion of France. If the French operation would have lasted a few more weeks, or if France was a few hundred miles longer, they would have had to deal with them, and would have been much more prepared to invade the Soviet Union. The worst road in France was better than the best road in Russia, it was said, and the Germans didn't have accurate maps ("There's not supposed to be a river here!") even though there were hundreds of overflights that could have allowed them to make accurate maps available. We have a similar failing in that all the whizbang gadgets the Army has still doesn't get the soldiers a map smaller than 1:50000 (a good size city is just a shape on a map, no streets) and you're usually forced to buy a map at a gas station everywhere you go (including Iraq).

There were only a few Corps size elements that were motorized or mechanized to a large degree. Hitler had decided he needed more armored divisions, so he reduced the armor complement of each one, reducing their combat power. Most of the Infantry divisions were on foot, and more horses were used in WWII than in WWI. That meant that the bypassing of resistance that the armored units wanted to do wasn't sustainable because the infantry couldn't get there in time to eliminate them. That led the armored units to fighting traditional battles of encirclement, forcing them to abandon maneuver warfare out of necessity.

The Germans didn't get on an economic war footing until Speer was involved(I forget his title) in 1943 and then they finally curtailed manufacture of civilian goods in favor of military ones. They were pretty much the last economy to admit that there was actually a war on. Production picked up quite a bit then, too late, and the German stuff was in general very good in designed but they liked complexity. An example I've seen cited was in the medium artillery, such as our 105mm (I don't recall if they used the same caliber, but they did have a similar sized piece) in the breech assembly, their gun would have 37 parts and our gun would have 10.

historian1944  posted on  2006-12-02   10:33:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: aristeides (#25)

If Kalashnikov is still alive, he must have been very young when he designed the AK-47.

Yes, he was 28 when it was adopted by the Red Army in '47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Kalashnikov

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   10:35:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: aristeides (#23)

We probably captured one that the Germans were using that they had captured from the Soviets. The Germans were adept at fighting the poor man's war, using captured stuff. There were many units on the Eastern Front that would use PpSh submachine guns, and Rommel's troops at one point in Africa had trucks made in every country but Germany they were using.

historian1944  posted on  2006-12-02   10:35:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Phant2000 (#18)

According to Colleen McCulloch's novels about Julius Caesar, Caesar regularly defeated numerically superior opposing forces. In some of those battles, he was on the defensive. But not in all.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   10:50:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Phant2000 (#18)

Some of Robert E. Lee's victorious battles were when he attacked with numerically inferior forces. Second Bull Run, for example.

Weren't the Germans numerically inferior to the French plus the British in the Battle of France? For that matter, weren't they numerically inferior to all those Russian armies that they rolled up in the opening months of Barbarossa?

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   10:54:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: aristeides (#24)

England wasn't low-tech for those days. Germany failed to defeat England because of English technological developments like radar, the Spitfire fighter, and the breaking of German cyphers (with the earliest computers).

Yes, England had a crude radar, which was cutting-edge for its time. However, much of the plane-spotting was still done by old men in Home Guard uniforms who had to run a mile to get to a telephone.

The Spitfire fighter was as good as any plane in those days, however let's not forget that their success was due largely to the fact that by the time the German fighters got to London or wherever, they only had fuel to fight for a few minutes, then had to turn around and go home, whereas the Spitfires could stay up for an hour or two. Once the German fighters left, the bombers were sitting ducks.

WWII marked the apex of British naval power--they came in with the finest navy in the world, and left the war in the #2 position. Cracking the Enigma code, and the Japanese military codes as well, certainly made a fine contribution to the war effort and spelled out "game over" for the U-boats.

But as far as a land war goes, England sucked. Their rifles were better than the French and Italians, but worse than the Germans. Their tanks...sucked. Their trucks...sucked. Their artillery...sucked. Their commanders...sucked.

Nevertheless, Hitler still couldn't have taken England without the invasion materials, troops, and ships similar to those required for D-Day. The Tommies at least have more spine than the French--resistance would've begun immediately, and the government was prepared to flee to Canada for the duration if they had to.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   10:56:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Phant2000 (#17)

morning, Phant, a fyi. you have an edit button to fix your typos!

Reply Trace Private Reply Edit

christine  posted on  2006-12-02   10:58:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: aristeides (#23)

They had a T-34 up the hill in the Presidio of Monterey, by the barracks for the Russian-language students at the Defense Language Institute (Army Language School). I never learned how the U.S. acquired it.

Nohting mysterious about it. The Russians simply gave it to us as part of an evaluation program in 1942. The Russians sent over a few T-34s and a KV-1 and wanted to see if American engineers supplied with lend-lease equipment could improve on the design.

The T-34 was well liked by US crews, but the poor KV-1 blew it's engine and transmition out the first day of testing and was religated to the firing range to test the armor quality.

"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.

Pissed Off Janitor  posted on  2006-12-02   11:48:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: DeaconBenjamin (#12)

I was reffering to Soivet tanks as they did the vast majority of the fighting. Americans didn't have tanks in WWII. They had gas tanks wrapped in a few extra layers of tin foil mounted on treads with a bazooka attached.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-12-02   11:51:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#34)

I wonder then why we didn't knock off the design and start producing lots and lots of an American version of the T-34.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   12:44:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Neil McIver (#9)

I think Germany would have defeated England had the US not intervened.

I don't. Hitler did not think so either so he gambled that defeating the USSR would make teh British give up.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   13:46:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Indrid Cold (#20) (Edited)

I just read an interview with Kalishnikov while waiting in the doctor's office, and he did acknowledge using some of the design. F'rinstance the detachable "banana clip".

What makes the AK-47 unique is the why it is built on the insides - the guts. I actually think the internal design of the AK-47 matches the Russian personality - loose, ill fitting and cheaply made but reliable, un-corrodible and can do the work even if caked in mud and dirt after laying around for a long time without any maintenance.

I think a German designer would have reacted in disgust if he had saw the AK-47 design because the parts were ill fitting and sat loosely together.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   13:49:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Destro (#38)

What makes the AK-47 unique is the why it is built on the insides - the guts. I actually think the internal design of the AK-47 matches the Russian personality - loose, ill fitting and cheaply made but reliable, un-corrodible and can do the work even if caked in mud and dirt after laying around for a long time without any maintenance.

I think a German designer would have reacted in disgust if he had saw the AK-47 design because the parts were ill fitting and sat loosely together.

Yeah, it's a peasant gun, that's for sure.

The Germans have always designed things that work really, really well under controlled conditions, but when applied to the real world or when scheduled maintenance is missed....

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   14:18:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Indrid Cold (#39)

The Germans have always designed things that work really, really well under controlled conditions, but when applied to the real world or when scheduled maintenance is missed....

I remember the story of a Russian tank company that was equiped with captured German Panther tanks. The commanders and Gunners loved them for the hard hitting main gun and 1st class optics...but the poor driver spent every waking moment tending to the engine and tracks and it still broke down all the time.

If ever there was a poster child for the "Keep it Simple, Stupid" motto; the German war machine was it.

"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.

Pissed Off Janitor  posted on  2006-12-02   14:51:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Indrid Cold (#0)

The North Atlantic - Germany's main concern - is sufficiently rough, that carrier operations are not all that feasible.


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2006-12-02   14:58:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Destro (#37)

I don't. Hitler did not think so either so he gambled that defeating the USSR would make teh British give up.

Well, had Hitler defeated Russia, the British might have been wise to do so.

A two-front war takes an amazing toll on the their war-making capacity. I think it says a lot about Germany that they kept it up for years.

And don't forget Germany was a first allied with the soviets. I kinda doubt that the falling out between them was part of a demoralization plan against England.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-02   16:44:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Destro (#38)

un-corrodible

I think it was corrodible, but fired anyway. I remember hearing a Vietnam vet comment that they set an uncleaned AK-47 aside 6 or 8 weeks in the jungle, and just for fun grabed it, kicked the bolt open since it had rusted, and then proceeded to fire it.

By some measures it might be consider the most practical, and thereby advanced, military rifle in existance.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-02   16:49:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: historian1944 (#22)

One of the interesting things about the Sherman besides having an externally mounted gasoline tank (wasn't a diesel-there was a reason the Brits referred to it as the Ronson, it always lit)

I understood that the German tanks were diesels.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   17:14:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Neil McIver (#43)

I remember hearing a Vietnam vet comment that they set an uncleaned AK-47 aside 6 or 8 weeks in the jungle, and just for fun grabed it, kicked the bolt open since it had rusted, and then proceeded to fire it.

I've done that very thing, with a Romanian WUM-1 which became corroded shut after not having been cleaned or fired over the winter. It worked fine.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   17:16:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: aristeides (#31)

Some of Robert E. Lee's victorious battles were when he attacked with numerically inferior forces. Second Bull Run, for example.

Weren't all of Lee's victories with numerically inferior forces? I can't think of an exception.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   17:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Indrid Cold (#32)

Cracking the Enigma code,

Didn't the Poles crack Enigma, and get the first machine?

spelled out "game over" for the U-boats

1) I thought the German submarine service had its own code;

2) I thought that the ASW methodologies of the allied (particularly American) navies killed the U-boats -- land based aircraft in the Azores, Bermuda, Iceland, and everywhere else feasible; jeep carriers on convoy service; sonar; etc.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   17:24:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Neil McIver (#42)

Well, had Hitler defeated Russia, the British might have been wise to do so.

In other words Hitler was a degenerate gambler.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   17:26:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Neil McIver (#43)

There is a downside to the AK - it has poor aim and unskilled troops get into the habit of spraying and praying their salvos will hit their target. But these kind of troops would not be very good at maintaining a fussy but more accurate rifle like the M-16 so the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   17:29:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: DeaconBenjamin (#46)

I qualified what I said because some of Lee's victories were on the defensive (and some of his battles were defeats.)

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   17:32:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: DeaconBenjamin (#47)

Didn't the Poles crack Enigma, and get the first machine?

Huh. You're right, back in 1932. Whoda thunk it?

All branches of the service used somewhat different Enigma procedures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma

Yes, the hunter-killer packs and ASW made it completely impossible for the U-boats to operate, but in my opinion the capture of the naval Enigma machines made the war at sea a foregone conclusion.

FWIW.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   17:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: DeaconBenjamin (#47)

The Poles cracked Enigma, but decyphering messages fast enough for them to be operationally useful required mechanical aid. Hence the importance of the use of Turing's early computers.

The German U-Boat service used the same Enigma machine, but with a more complicated rotor and special procedures that made the naval cypher harder to crack. But the Brits eventually did it, and so beat the U-boats.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2006-12-02   17:35:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Indrid Cold (#51)

I never knew that! I thought it was the Brits all the way.

BTW, this is a great thread. I'm bookmarking it.

"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."
---Henry Kissinger, New York Times, October 28, 1973

robin  posted on  2006-12-02   17:39:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: robin (#53)

BTW, this is a great thread. I'm bookmarking it.

Check out the actual site--it'll keep you busy for hours.

The national nightmare has ended... Now begins two years of watching the Congress play "Kick the Gimp".

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   19:05:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Destro (#48)

In other words Hitler was a degenerate gambler.

Sure. Just as any tyrant that sets out to conquer the world.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-02   19:08:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Destro (#49)

There is a downside to the AK - it has poor aim and unskilled troops get into the habit of spraying and praying their salvos will hit their target. But these kind of troops would not be very good at maintaining a fussy but more accurate rifle like the M-16 so the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

I think many sources claim the 47 to be less accurate, and if so the looser tolerances may by why, but marginally reduced accuracy, which is all the 47 might be, is not too great a factor in combat, as there's a difference between that and a formal sport competition. I believe the rifles issued early in WWII were more accurate to a much longer range (600 yds+), but real combat conditions showed that it was worth trading that advantages for others like reduced weight.

Sure, no one rifle is superior to all others in all respects, and in some conditions the 16 is probably better to have. But I'm guessing the 47 scores the most points, all considered.

As for troops that choose to spray targets, I wouldn't say that necessarily denotes them as unskilled. Troops in the field will make do with the weapons and tools at their disposal, and if spraying with a 47 gets the job done more effectively than more careful aim, then that's exactly what they should do.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-02   19:22:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Neil McIver (#56)

I think many sources claim the 47 to be less accurate, and if so the looser tolerances may by why, but marginally reduced accuracy, which is all the 47 might be, is not too great a factor in combat, as there's a difference between that and a formal sport competition. I believe the rifles issued early in WWII were more accurate to a much longer range (600 yds+), but real combat conditions showed that it was worth trading that advantages for others like reduced weight.

It all depends on the geography. The claustrophobic jungles of Vietnam give the advantage over to the AK-47. The flat deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan allow the M-16s better accuracy to shine through. The Russians learned that the hard way when during the Soviet Afghan war local tribal militas were knocking the stuffing out of Russian troops with WWI vintage Lee-Enfield rifles at ranges that the newer AK-74 couldn't hope to reach.

But, in Russia's defence, they did have the sense to distribute the SVD sniper rifle in large amounts to the ground forces. 1 or 2 per platoon at minimum, plus they also issued more LMGs per squad when compared to most NATO infantry units.

As for weight. The new M16s weigh just as much as an M1 Garand or M14.

As for troops that choose to spray targets, I wouldn't say that necessarily denotes them as unskilled. Troops in the field will make do with the weapons and tools at their disposal, and if spraying with a 47 gets the job done more effectively than more careful aim, then that's exactly what they should do.

At least the Russians trusted their troops with full auto fire. The M16 series now only fires in single shot and 3 round burst. Only the M4 Carbine goes full auto.

"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.

Pissed Off Janitor  posted on  2006-12-02   19:52:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: aristeides (#25)

If Kalashnikov is still alive, he must have been very young when he designed the AK-47.

He was alive a few years ago - I read about his B day party. I seem to recall he was pretty young when he designed the AK.

tom007  posted on  2006-12-02   20:06:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Indrid Cold (#26)

You can buy your own T-34 for about $35,000, last I looked.

Thanks IC, now I know what to get the wife for Christmas.

tom007  posted on  2006-12-02   20:08:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Indrid Cold (#39)

The Germans have always designed things that work really, really well under controlled conditions, but when applied to the real world or when scheduled maintenance is missed....

I think this is true. A really good auto mechanic friend tells me he worked on a recent BMW that had 85 mini computers on it. He was not impressed by this at all.

In war, as with everyday life, the ideal wears off in a few weeks. Then robust and tough prove their mettle.

tom007  posted on  2006-12-02   20:18:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (61 - 65) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]