Tero

Google Earth gave the distance from Eastern part of Kronstadt to the Finnish lines as ~25 km (at the old border in Terijoki). With 30km range the guns would have reached max 10 km inland. I have not seen any data in Finnish sources about Marat being a particular pest to the troops guarding the old border at the coast. I could not Google a proper map for the Oranienbaum pocket so it is hard to say where the Marat guns would have reached there.

Google Earth gave the distance from Eastern part of Kronstadt to the Finnish lines as ~25 km (at the old border in Terijoki). With 30km range the guns would have reached max 10 km inland. I have not seen any data in Finnish sources about Marat being a particular pest to the troops guarding the old border at the coast. I could not Google a proper map for the Oranienbaum pocket so it is hard to say where the Marat guns would have reached there.

Originally posted by michael kenny: It is a perfect example of Rudel being credited with the kill when in fact he was but a part of the effort. As of 1941 when Marat was bombed he was not yet the ace he became so I at least would assume he was not in a position to make any claims over other legitimate claimants. Rudel may have contributed to the grounding of the Marat but Rudel failed in his aim of eliminating the ship. Rudel was not the Luftwaffe. Sunk, grounded, damaged or submerged makes no difference. The ship remained as an effective means of shelling the Germans. It still performed that task after the claimed 'kill' It would be interesting to find out if the Germans made any effort to further attack the Marat-which would be odd if it was indeed a true sinking. The Marat was killed as a ship. When it acted as a shore battery we would need to know how effective it was as such. Assuming the range of the main guns was 20-30 km's it would be interesting to know how close to the German troops she could reach with her guns. Perhaps the reason more effort was not made to silence her because it would have been redundant as her fire was not doing any undue damage to the siege troops.

Originally posted by michael kenny: It is a perfect example of Rudel being credited with the kill when in fact he was but a part of the effort. As of 1941 when Marat was bombed he was not yet the ace he became so I at least would assume he was not in a position to make any claims over other legitimate claimants. Rudel may have contributed to the grounding of the Marat but Rudel failed in his aim of eliminating the ship. Rudel was not the Luftwaffe. Sunk, grounded, damaged or submerged makes no difference. The ship remained as an effective means of shelling the Germans. It still performed that task after the claimed 'kill' It would be interesting to find out if the Germans made any effort to further attack the Marat-which would be odd if it was indeed a true sinking. The Marat was killed as a ship. When it acted as a shore battery we would need to know how effective it was as such. Assuming the range of the main guns was 20-30 km's it would be interesting to know how close to the German troops she could reach with her guns. Perhaps the reason more effort was not made to silence her because it would have been redundant as her fire was not doing any undue damage to the siege troops.

Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots. </font>

Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots. </font>

Originally posted by 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. You simpy can not admit that it is remotely possible I might possibly have a case and all your reasoning can not fully support your case about the Marat kill credit for Rudel being totally without merit.

Originally posted by 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. You simpy can not admit that it is remotely possible I might possibly have a case and all your reasoning can not fully support your case about the Marat kill credit for Rudel being totally without merit.

Originally posted by Andreas: Another different story. Unless Rudel had a torpedo-armed Stuka. Not so very different. Repulse and PoW were bombed from altitude. High altitude bombing ships never really worked, dive bombing did. What is more, they had more space to manouver than Marat would ever have had.

Originally posted by Andreas: Another different story. Unless Rudel had a torpedo-armed Stuka. Not so very different. Repulse and PoW were bombed from altitude. High altitude bombing ships never really worked, dive bombing did. What is more, they had more space to manouver than Marat would ever have had.

Originally posted by John Kettler: I though it was odd that the weapon system was more accurate firing HE than AP, The weapon system (40mm cannon) was not more accurate when firing HE. The pilot could walk the MG up to the target and then fire the HE round at the target more accurately than he could with the AP round. I find it odd the HE round had a higher MV than the AP.

Originally posted by John Kettler: I though it was odd that the weapon system was more accurate firing HE than AP, The weapon system (40mm cannon) was not more accurate when firing HE. The pilot could walk the MG up to the target and then fire the HE round at the target more accurately than he could with the AP round. I find it odd the HE round had a higher MV than the AP.

Originally posted by Cuirassier: I wouldn't call the sinking of the Titanic peaceful, whether in comparison to the Bismarck or not. The event was tragic but there was no violence involved in the sinking. The loss of life is irrelevant in this context. I chose Bismarck instead of Lusitania as a comparison because of the BB angle.

Originally posted by Cuirassier: I wouldn't call the sinking of the Titanic peaceful, whether in comparison to the Bismarck or not. The event was tragic but there was no violence involved in the sinking. The loss of life is irrelevant in this context. I chose Bismarck instead of Lusitania as a comparison because of the BB angle.

Originally posted by 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. Agreed up to a point. The Marat was killed as a capital ship but it was turned into a shore battery.

Originally posted by 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. Agreed up to a point. The Marat was killed as a capital ship but it was turned into a shore battery.

Originally posted by 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. Tell that to the crews of the Prince of Wales and Repulse. [ March 01, 2007, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

Originally posted by 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. Tell that to the crews of the Prince of Wales and Repulse. [ March 01, 2007, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Why attach the descriptor "peacefully"? Why does that make a difference? The Titanic settled at the bottom of the ocean. Did the Bismarck settle at the bottom of the ocean ?

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Why attach the descriptor "peacefully"? Why does that make a difference? The Titanic settled at the bottom of the ocean. Did the Bismarck settle at the bottom of the ocean ?

Originally posted by Broompatrol: I couldn't tell from the video if the tanks were actually k.o.d or not but if you listen it sure sounds like Stuka pilots are firing the AC's on full auto. In an earlier post didn't someone suggest that Rudel didn't fire on full auto? At least in one clip the full auto was 20mm wing guns. The bomber version carried MG's in the wing and are shown firing the guns once the bombs have been dropped. AFAIK the BK37 armed birds did not carry wing MG's on a regular basis. Clips show distinctive puffs of smoke indicating single shots when the BK37 fires.

Originally posted by Broompatrol: I couldn't tell from the video if the tanks were actually k.o.d or not but if you listen it sure sounds like Stuka pilots are firing the AC's on full auto. In an earlier post didn't someone suggest that Rudel didn't fire on full auto? At least in one clip the full auto was 20mm wing guns. The bomber version carried MG's in the wing and are shown firing the guns once the bombs have been dropped. AFAIK the BK37 armed birds did not carry wing MG's on a regular basis. Clips show distinctive puffs of smoke indicating single shots when the BK37 fires.

Nothing ruins a tankers day like a piece of high velocity tungsten through the engine block.

Originally posted by JasonC: We shouldn't count the planes that missed because they pushed over in the wrong place, huh? They should be counted. But your assumption that you can calculate stats like squadron hit chances and 50% circles using separate single machines expending a single bomb like you would do for a single gun firing consequtive shots from a fixed location is totally and fundamentally flawed. Like gee that never happened to a stuka dive bombing a tank, right? Bombing with a single bomb or engageing with BK37 with multiple shots ? Big difference. There isn't a 50% zone because they are different shots - sure, it is all 100% zones for exactly one out of eight and all 0% zones for 7 out of 8. Yep. That is why you can not calculate hit chances for a squadron. But then, the operative bit is 7 out of 8 missing entire aircraft carriers over 200 meters long. Moving at, say, 30 knots while the planes are doing, say, 300 knots. Calculate in FLAK, crosswind (cum changes at various altitudes), smoke, sun glare and other visual obstructions etc. There is simply no fixed reference point to pin that 50% circle on. They trained to aim at the elevators. Given most CV's had two of those some 100 meters apart. The aim point selection for each individual pilot alone screws all squadron level calculations. Yeah, they sometimes all missed. Which means it is remarkably unlikely that most bombs fell within 40m of the aim point. If the target is 200 by 20 meters then 40 meters from the aim point would not mean squat along the flight deck unless it was within 20 meters from the ends. Sideways 40 meters would give, say, 20 meters worth of deck to hit before going 10 meters wide each way. A 300mm rocket fire mission is a better simulation of air attack (by a squadron, mind) than CM air attacks are. Agreed, if we are talking about level bombing mission with multiple bombs per plane with everbody pushing the button on cue. [ February 28, 2007, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

Originally posted by Andreas: So I wouldn't consider them completely disabled or sunk. So, since they did not make the effort to get the guns operational immediately they can be kept in the "sunk" status ?