Andreas Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Originally posted 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. Another different story. Unless Rudel had a torpedo-armed Stuka. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 What if the ping-pong ball had dimples?... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broompatrol Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 What if the ping-pong ball had dimples?... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 quote: "It is perhaps the ultimate paradox that the very last film taken of a Luftwaffe aircraft in action for the newsreel should be of an anti-tank JU87-G on a solo sortie attacking soviet armour on the Oder in March 1945. Slow, ponderous, poorly protected, vulnerable - a sitting duck. It is unlikely that the poor soviet tankers on the recieving end of this Stuka's firing run, dying so close to final victory, would have gained any concellation(?) from the knowledge that, acoording to many experts, the plane that killed them, was no longer up to the task." Cheers, Hetzer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 quote: "It is perhaps the ultimate paradox that the very last film taken of a Luftwaffe aircraft in action for the newsreel should be of an anti-tank JU87-G on a solo sortie attacking soviet armour on the Oder in March 1945. Slow, ponderous, poorly protected, vulnerable - a sitting duck. It is unlikely that the poor soviet tankers on the recieving end of this Stuka's firing run, dying so close to final victory, would have gained any concellation(?) from the knowledge that, acoording to many experts, the plane that killed them, was no longer up to the task." Cheers, Hetzer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Originally posted by Tero: 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. 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Originally posted by Tero: 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. 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Originally posted by Hetzer38: It is unlikely that the poor soviet tankers on the recieving end of this Stuka's firing run, dying so close to final victory, would have gained any concellation(?) from the knowledge that, acoording to many experts, []the plane that killed them, was no longer up to the task" Some figures from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=925732&highlight=#925732: "I shall cite still given of book which have recently left in Russia of Alexey Isaev. 1 Ukrainian front from April, 1st till May, 9th, 1945 has lost destroyed and domaged 935 tanks T-34/85. 625 from them - from artillery (289 - destroyed, it it is impossible to restore) 37 - from Faust (12 - destroyed) 62 - from aircraft (27 - destroyed), and a part of tanks - from friendly fire Il-2 It has been lost destroyed and domaged also 89 JS-2 (from Faust - 2), 56 JSU--122/152 (18 - Faust), 231 Su-76 (Faust - 9)." That would give 7% hit by A/C and 3% destroyed bt A/C 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Originally posted by Hetzer38: It is unlikely that the poor soviet tankers on the recieving end of this Stuka's firing run, dying so close to final victory, would have gained any concellation(?) from the knowledge that, acoording to many experts, []the plane that killed them, was no longer up to the task" Some figures from http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=925732&highlight=#925732: "I shall cite still given of book which have recently left in Russia of Alexey Isaev. 1 Ukrainian front from April, 1st till May, 9th, 1945 has lost destroyed and domaged 935 tanks T-34/85. 625 from them - from artillery (289 - destroyed, it it is impossible to restore) 37 - from Faust (12 - destroyed) 62 - from aircraft (27 - destroyed), and a part of tanks - from friendly fire Il-2 It has been lost destroyed and domaged also 89 JS-2 (from Faust - 2), 56 JSU--122/152 (18 - Faust), 231 Su-76 (Faust - 9)." That would give 7% hit by A/C and 3% destroyed bt A/C 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 Hetzer38, Yes, nothing like getting killed in the last days of the war. Talk about sucking! Your clip seems somehow larger, crisper and clearer in the Stettin sequence than what I remember from what Tero provided. michael kenny, Great material! Much appreciated! Regards, John Kettler [ March 03, 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 3, 2007 Author Share Posted March 3, 2007 Hetzer38, Yes, nothing like getting killed in the last days of the war. Talk about sucking! Your clip seems somehow larger, crisper and clearer in the Stettin sequence than what I remember from what Tero provided. michael kenny, Great material! Much appreciated! Regards, John Kettler [ March 03, 2007, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Originally posted by Tero: about the Marat kill credit for Rudel being totally without merit.Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Originally posted by Tero: about the Marat kill credit for Rudel being totally without merit.Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tero: about the Marat kill credit for Rudel being totally without merit.Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tero: about the Marat kill credit for Rudel being totally without merit.Marat was hit by several bombs from a number of pilots. Rudel was just one of those pilots. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Well I don't, actually. It is a perfect example of Rudel being credited with the kill when in fact he was but a part of the effort. Rudel may have contributed to the grounding of the Marat but Rudel failed in his aim of eliminating the ship. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Well I don't, actually. It is a perfect example of Rudel being credited with the kill when in fact he was but a part of the effort. Rudel may have contributed to the grounding of the Marat but Rudel failed in his aim of eliminating the ship. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: That would give 7% hit by A/C and 3% destroyed bt A/C IMO that's a surprisingly high percentage, especially considering the period. it would be interesting to know how many of the hits were friendly fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undead reindeer cavalry Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 Originally posted by michael kenny: That would give 7% hit by A/C and 3% destroyed bt A/C IMO that's a surprisingly high percentage, especially considering the period. it would be interesting to know how many of the hits were friendly fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 3, 2007 Share Posted March 3, 2007 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.