Andreas

I think that total is fairly irrelevant, even though the individual data is quite interesting. Nice digging. All the best Andreas

I have already posted how she was taken under fire by heavy German artillery after she was 'sunk'. Just read the thread. It appears there was another major air attack on Baltic Fleet units on 4/4/42, Operation Eisstoss, but it is unclear whether this was aimed at Kronstadt and Leningrad, or just Leningrad. http://www.waffenhq.de/specials/ops-ww2_axis.html All the best Andreas

I have already posted how she was taken under fire by heavy German artillery after she was 'sunk'. Just read the thread. It appears there was another major air attack on Baltic Fleet units on 4/4/42, Operation Eisstoss, but it is unclear whether this was aimed at Kronstadt and Leningrad, or just Leningrad. http://www.waffenhq.de/specials/ops-ww2_axis.html All the best Andreas

And you simply have to invent things I never said to have an argument. Why? Are you just sad that way, are you too dumb to read what I write, or do you enjoy trying to intentionally stir things up? All the best Andreas

And you simply have to invent things I never said to have an argument. Why? Are you just sad that way, are you too dumb to read what I write, or do you enjoy trying to intentionally stir things up? All the best Andreas

And they were hit by numerous torpedoes. But of course, I am sure they would have sunk even more if they had been hit with dive-bombing attacks. All the best Andreas

And they were hit by numerous torpedoes. But of course, I am sure they would have sunk even more if they had been hit with dive-bombing attacks. All the best Andreas

From Black Five .

Another different story. Unless Rudel had a torpedo-armed Stuka. All the best Andreas

Another different story. Unless Rudel had a torpedo-armed Stuka. All the best Andreas

All this is pretty irrelevant to Real Life. In Real Life machine-guns were issued AP rounds, which in the German case could IIRC go through 8+mm of armour plate, depending on the distance. The German approach was to make their light armour SmK proof (SmK is the German abbreviation for the AP munition). This is the reason for the heavy sloping of the armour on their HTs, and also on the SPWs. But there are of course areas where the plate is not heavily angled, and where, at shorter distance, the armour is not always going to be sufficient. Especially the 231 which only had 5mm minimum armour is going to be an endangered species. The worst performers in this regard are of course the US HTs, who have no angle on their armour, and armour that is not SmK proof to start with. There's a reason they were called 'Purple Heart Boxes'. All the best Andreas

No. All the best Andreas

I haven't seen any figures like that for the German side. 13. PD had only one armoured battalion with 60 or so Panzer IV. The Panther battalion was not with the division. There would presumably have been Stug battalions as well, and 1st Romanian Armoured went down fighting, according to what I have read. Other Romanian units surrendered quickly however. Most of the German infantry divisions at the time were of the standard 3/2 organisation, i.e. 3 regiments with 2 battalions, plus divisional units. But then, I am not sure that 15. ID was really involved in the breakthrough battle. That seems to have been fought primarily by 306. ID and 13. PD. But you won't ever get it as detailed as the Russian side. All the best Andreas

It is the point where the comparison becomes irrelevant. The Japanese were aiming to remove the American ships from the order of battle for the forthcoming battles. They succeeded. The Stuka attacks on Marat aimed to remove its ability to contribute to the defense of Leningrad. They were only partially successful. All the best Andreas

It is the point where the comparison becomes irrelevant. The Japanese were aiming to remove the American ships from the order of battle for the forthcoming battles. They succeeded. The Stuka attacks on Marat aimed to remove its ability to contribute to the defense of Leningrad. They were only partially successful. All the best Andreas

Of course, if Marat had been in deeper water, she would most likely have sunk. But then again, she would have been able to maneuver, and to avoid being hit so devastatingly in the first place, and so she would not have sunk. It works both ways. All the best Andreas

Of course, if Marat had been in deeper water, she would most likely have sunk. But then again, she would have been able to maneuver, and to avoid being hit so devastatingly in the first place, and so she would not have sunk. It works both ways. All the best Andreas

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk. All the best Andreas

So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk. All the best Andreas

Which of the US battleships was able to interfere in enemy action within weeks after the attack, even theoretically? All the best Andreas

Which of the US battleships was able to interfere in enemy action within weeks after the attack, even theoretically? All the best Andreas

For clarification - that suggestion has little to do with the discussion on definitions. It was primarily meant to put things in context, and partially to dismiss the 'could no longer under its own propulsion' point as being of little relevance in the real world of 1941-5. All the best Andreas

For clarification - that suggestion has little to do with the discussion on definitions. It was primarily meant to put things in context, and partially to dismiss the 'could no longer under its own propulsion' point as being of little relevance in the real world of 1941-5. All the best Andreas

Right description of the matter in German: Wrong description of what happened in German: The right description is using the term 'settles', the wrong 'sunk'. The right description points out that two turrets were made useable again, the wrong description excitedly states that the ship exploded in two parts, and then goes on hero-worshipping. The right description is from a reputable historical website hosted by the University of Stuttgart library. The wrong description is from a German neo-nazi party website, and that is why this distinction matters to me. Rudel achieved a partial kill, part of which was temporary, while part of it was permanent. The fact that Marat could no longer leave the harbour is not really that relevant - how many sorties of surface units were made from Kronstadt until the end of the war? Whether the ship was mobile or not, it would most likely never have been more than a shore battery. The aim of the aerial attacks was to prevent the ship artillery from interfering in German ground operations against Leningrad, not preventing a sortie by the ships and their engagement in a sea battle. Mine warfare had already taken care of that. In the case of Marat, the attacks were temporarily successful. The German pilots including Rudel should be given full credit for that, they were attacking a heavily defended target, and they had good success, and suffered heavy losses. But let's not get carried away - the Landsers who were treated to 30.5 rounds from Marat a few weeks after the ship was disabled no doubt had some choice views on Rudel's 'sinking' of Marat. All the best Andreas

Right description of the matter in German: Wrong description of what happened in German: The right description is using the term 'settles', the wrong 'sunk'. The right description points out that two turrets were made useable again, the wrong description excitedly states that the ship exploded in two parts, and then goes on hero-worshipping. The right description is from a reputable historical website hosted by the University of Stuttgart library. The wrong description is from a German neo-nazi party website, and that is why this distinction matters to me. Rudel achieved a partial kill, part of which was temporary, while part of it was permanent. The fact that Marat could no longer leave the harbour is not really that relevant - how many sorties of surface units were made from Kronstadt until the end of the war? Whether the ship was mobile or not, it would most likely never have been more than a shore battery. The aim of the aerial attacks was to prevent the ship artillery from interfering in German ground operations against Leningrad, not preventing a sortie by the ships and their engagement in a sea battle. Mine warfare had already taken care of that. In the case of Marat, the attacks were temporarily successful. The German pilots including Rudel should be given full credit for that, they were attacking a heavily defended target, and they had good success, and suffered heavy losses. But let's not get carried away - the Landsers who were treated to 30.5 rounds from Marat a few weeks after the ship was disabled no doubt had some choice views on Rudel's 'sinking' of Marat. All the best Andreas