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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video)

‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over This’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities,

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke

We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations

Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin

Methylene Blue Benefits

Another Mossad War Crime

80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class

Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks

Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files

In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks

Digital Prison in the Making?

In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine

Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station

Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA

6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history

First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet

I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA

Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike


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: 688
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

#1. To: Indrid Cold, historian1944 (#0)

I never thought about this rather obvious deficiency in the Nazi war machine.

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

robin  posted on  2006-12-01   22:37:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: robin, Indrid Cold, historian1944 (#1)

I never thought about this rather obvious deficiency in the Nazi war machine.

The Nazi war machine had many tactical and strategic deficiencies. Lack of long range bombers for example - because they figured they would never need them - and when it looked like they might need them instead of designing strategic bombers they developed long range bombers designed for tactical reasons - to terror bomb American cities for example instead of factories in the Urals.

The Germans may have made some awesome machines but their military land forces were still dependent on horse and mule power. Hollywood war movies made them seem as being an all mechanized military or something - they were not.

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

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   1:20:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Destro (#2)

75 percent of the German army crossed over into Russia on foot with their supplies pulled by horse and mule. You are right about H-wood portrayals of German military capacity- all hi-tech with the latest and greatest. And sure- they did produce some very highly technical and impressive machinery of war- which- was ironically a major flaw. They could produce the awesome Tiger tank- but it took three times as long to make- required 3 times the men and specialists to make- and required entire teams of men just to service- spare parts became hard to come by. This was typical of many of the Wunder-Krieg machines of the Wermacht. Meanwhile they were buried by the production of heavily armored basic tanks with ingenius yet not overly complicated designs- easily repaired- easy to cannabalize other wounded tanks for spare parts.

In every movie we see about WWII- American troops are shown fighting elite units with the latest and greatest stuff. The reality was they were fighting wermacht troops with bolt action rifles little changed from WWI still throwing clunky potato masher hand grendaes- who had got to the front under foot power and who lugged more stuff than did the average GI. And frankly? The American performance was not that great in the face of these second tier troops (first tier troops being on the Russian front) amd despite these disadvantges they were trained far better than American troops.

Burkeman1  posted on  2006-12-02   1:53:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Burkeman1 (#3)

The reality was they were fighting wermacht troops with bolt action rifles little changed from WWI...

Another failing of the German army. They just couldn't seem to produce a reliable semi-automatic rifle like the American Garand or Russian SVT40. The precursor to the AK-47, the MP43/STG44, had to be built behind Hitler's back after he issued orders that no new rifles be developed.

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

Pissed Off Janitor  posted on  2006-12-02   2:35:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Indrid Cold (#0)

As the end of the war in Europe neared, the Graf Zeppelin was scuttled in shallow water off Stettin (now Szczecin in Poland)

Just in case it comes up on Jeopardy, the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen was used by the U.S. in the atomic bomb test in Bikini atoll in 1946.

Rube Goldberg  posted on  2006-12-02   3:57:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Pissed Off Janitor, Burkeman1 (#4)

The precursor to the AK-47, the MP43/STG44, had to be built behind Hitler's back after he issued orders that no new rifles be developed.

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'.

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

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   4:11:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Burkeman1 (#3) (Edited)

And frankly? The American performance was not that great in the face of these second tier troops (first tier troops being on the Russian front) amd despite these disadvantges they were trained far better than American troops.

Not to take credit away from American troops but you are correct. When Americans landed on the beaches of Anzio the Germans sent in their only reserves - rear echelon infantry - cooks and such and the so bloodied the Americans and kept them pinned down Americans thought they were facing elite fanatic Nazi troops.

There are few movies that I give gold stars for being historicaly accurate but one of the is HBO's 'Band of Brothers' which did a pretty good job in showing good and the bad of history - Americans shooting POWs, looting and poor officers. In one of the final episodes a soldier does yell at marching German POWs about what the hell Germany was thinking when she went to war with America when the GIs rode around in Ford and GM trucks a the Germans were still using horses. Great insightful scene.

I think Goebbels's propaganda that highlighted the German wonder weapons that he claimed would save the day is also a lasting image that distorts the historical truth on how Germany was not that advanced in her weaponry (on some, yes on most, no) or fully industrialized for war until maybe 1943-44.

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

PS: Lastly, we must also consider the diplomatic failure of Hitler's regime in gaining allies and lessons that tells us about Bush and the diplomacy on Iraq. Instead of winning over France after defeating her - he humiliated her by having the treaty signed in the same railway car rather than use the victory to bury the old war wounds. Being vindictive is poor diplomacy. See the diplomatic failings of Bush on Iraq.

Also the stupid Nazi racial policy geared to the reduction of the Slav made those poor people have to choose between the devil Stalin and the satan Hitler. Hitler and the Nazis pissed away the support of millions of Slavs in the east based on notions developed by fantasists who had an inferiority complex in the 19th century.

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

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   4:30:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Burkeman1 (#3)

They could produce the awesome Tiger tank- but it took three times as long to make- required 3 times the men and specialists to make- and required entire teams of men just to service- spare parts became hard to come by. This was typical of many of the Wunder-Krieg machines of the Wermacht. Meanwhile they were buried by the production of heavily armored basic tanks with ingenius yet not overly complicated designs- easily repaired- easy to cannabalize other wounded tanks for spare parts.

Yea, like the Russian tanks - which were low tech but effective like employing sloping armor and wider tread tracks for good mud traction. There is a reason besides the fact that they fought vast numbers of Russians that the Germans lost every tank battle they fought in Russia from 1943 on.

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

Destro  posted on  2006-12-02   4:35:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. 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.

Interesting thread.

I think Germany would have defeated England had the US not intervened. I don't see how England could have survived otherwise as they had a hard enough time even with US support. That would have left only the Soviets to contend with, and with just a single front war, he would have had a chance of at least an invasion victory. No guarantees, but maybe.

Though even then hostile occuptions don't last, as Bush took his sweet time learning in Iraq. I'd guess the Ruskie populous wouldn't have put up with it for long.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-02   5:14:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Neil McIver (#9)

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

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-02   6:03:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Destro (#2)

The Germans may have made some awesome machines but their military land forces were still dependent on horse and mule power. Hollywood war movies made them seem as being an all mechanized military or something - they were not.

For what it's worth, Patton made the point which you make. Additionally, it would not have made sense for the Germans to mechanize their supply and troop transports. They had access to much more forage than petroleum. At least the traditional view expressed by US WWII histories is that the Germans were hard pressed to supply their internal combustion engines with sufficient fuel and lubricants. Thus the need for the armored thrust to the Caucasus, and the importance of Ploesti.

I have heard that the German engines were often diesels, but do not recall reading about their biodiesel programs. Is anyone familiar with that story?

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   7:49:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Burkeman1 (#3)

Meanwhile they were buried by the production of heavily armored basic tanks with ingenius yet not overly complicated designs- easily repaired- easy to cannabalize other wounded tanks for spare parts.

If you are referring to the Sherman tanks, they were certainly ingenious, but underarmored and undergunned.

If you are referring to the JS I and II, I did not know that they were produced in the numbers you suggest.

If you are referring to the KV-85, it was indeed an excellent design.

I would be interested to know more about the simplicity of repair of the Soviet tanks.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   7:54:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Destro (#7)

Not to take credit away from American troops but you are correct. When Americans landed on the beaches of Anzio the Germans sent in their only reserves - rear echelon infantry - cooks and such and the so bloodied the Americans and kept them pinned down Americans thought they were facing elite fanatic Nazi troops.

An interesting study in the importance of leadership is the performance of the American troops in Sicily under Patton and in Italy under Clark.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   7:56:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Neil McIver (#9)

I think Germany would have defeated England had the US not intervened. I don't see how England could have survived otherwise as they had a hard enough time even with US support.

I trust you mean Lend Lease and the other acts of fighting an undeclared war by FDR?

I have read accounts that the V1 and V2 rocket attacks so demoralized the British that, had it not been abundantly evident that the war would shortly be won, there would have been a pronounced movement to sue for peace.

DeaconBenjamin  posted on  2006-12-02   7:59:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Burkeman1 (#3)

The American performance was not that great in the face of these second tier troops (first tier troops being on the Russian front) amd despite these disadvantges they were trained far better than American troops.

The military historian John Kagan pointed out that 100 German troops were equal to 120 American troops, even though the German troops were not as well-equipped as the American troops. The reason is because of superior German officers.

Early in the war, every time there was a battle between Americans and Germans, the Americans got drubbed. Finally realizing what was going on, the Americans concentrated on sheer numbers of men. Quantity is its own quality.

"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.

YertleTurtle  posted on  2006-12-02   8:13:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: DeaconBenjamin (#13)

An interesting study in the importance of leadership is the performance of the American troops in Sicily under Patton and in Italy under Clark.

Interesting study? Clarke went from Lt Col to three star general for one reason: He was a cousin of General Marshall and no one dared have him removed as an inept officer. He also helped that he was a Jew.

Phant2000  posted on  2006-12-02   9:33:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: All (#16)

Correction to my post

Last sentence should read "It also helped ..."

Phant2000  posted on  2006-12-02   9:36:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: YertleTurtle (#15)

The military historian John Kagan pointed out ...

Yertle: Your statement is overly broad. First, any War College will tell you that attacking forces MUST out-number defensive forces (taught in all armies). Secondly, recall the German army had been at war for three years before the Americans were engaged. Thirdly, the Battle of the Bulge is the defining argument, i.e., the Germans way out-numbered the Americans and were out-fought by a handful of American soldiers who were cooks and whomever else could be found.

Phant2000  posted on  2006-12-02   9:58:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#4)

They just couldn't seem to produce a reliable semi-automatic rifle like the American Garand or Russian SVT40. The precursor to the AK-47, the MP43/STG44, had to be built behind Hitler's back after he issued orders that no new rifles be developed.

They had the K41 and the G43 (often called Hitler's Garands), which fired 8mm rounds from a detachable magazine, but it was another case of too little, too late.

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

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   9:59:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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  


#61. To: Neil McIver (#56)

e 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.

I am no expert, but small arms in combat would seem to me to be used almost within 100 meters. So a 1/4 degree in accuracy sacrifice for increased reliability would be a good thing.

tom007  posted on  2006-12-02   20:25:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#57)

It all depends on the geography.

Then there is that.

tom007  posted on  2006-12-02   20:28:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: tom007 (#60)

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.

My stepbrother, the used-car dealer, tells this one:

Friend of his really, really wanted a BMW convertible, so Mikey found one for him at a reasonable price. A couple of weeks after he got it, the weather started to cloud up, so he starts to put the top up. Midway up, his finger slips off the button for whatever reason. Top is now stuck halfway between extended and retracted.

He takes it to a foreign auto mechanic, and the mechanic asks whether his finger slipped off the button when extending the top. Our hero admits that it did. "Yup," said the mechanic, "that'll do it." $200 repair bill follows.

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

Indrid Cold  posted on  2006-12-02   20:35:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Indrid Cold (#63)

My very excellent mechanic friend drives a older Ford 150. He owns the shop and RE and could afford anything.

He says "They are all just metal".

tom007  posted on  2006-12-02   21:52:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Neil McIver (#56)

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.

From the videos of irregulars I have seen from Africa to the Balkans...the type of shooting I am describing is shooting from the hip - sometimes not seating the rifle properly on the shoulder - eyes clenched shut - yelling some slogan as they pull the trigger at the full auto setting.

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

Destro  posted on  2006-12-03   13:33:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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