michael kenny Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Using pilots claims we can say they did as well as Allied TAF pilots in France. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Perhaps the date on that combat report of the 1st of April gives it away? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Perhaps the date on that combat report of the 1st of April gives it away? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 Hetzer38, Where'd you find that rather obscure manual, praytell? Also, am confused by the European system of mathematical notation. While by adjusting my thinking I understand you to say that two thousand and forty-nine tank kills were claimed by thirty Panzerknacker pilots, to most Americans it reads as two decimal/point zero four nine, something altogether different. Likewise, the use of the comma in lieu of the decimal takes some real getting used to. For example, if you write 3,375 and I'm paying attention, then I know that what you've written = 3.375 in my notation system, but most Americans would read this as three thousand three hundred and seventy-five, a rather large difference! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 Hetzer38, Where'd you find that rather obscure manual, praytell? Also, am confused by the European system of mathematical notation. While by adjusting my thinking I understand you to say that two thousand and forty-nine tank kills were claimed by thirty Panzerknacker pilots, to most Americans it reads as two decimal/point zero four nine, something altogether different. Likewise, the use of the comma in lieu of the decimal takes some real getting used to. For example, if you write 3,375 and I'm paying attention, then I know that what you've written = 3.375 in my notation system, but most Americans would read this as three thousand three hundred and seventy-five, a rather large difference! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Hetzer38: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hetzer38: "Twelve hundred feet high rises the cloud of the dying Marat" Well, that must have been like the dying scene performed by Peewee Herrmann in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", considering that it took until 1953 for Marat to be taken out of service. Dying for 12 years... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Hetzer38: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hetzer38: "Twelve hundred feet high rises the cloud of the dying Marat" Well, that must have been like the dying scene performed by Peewee Herrmann in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", considering that it took until 1953 for Marat to be taken out of service. Dying for 12 years... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Why would he know "what really happened" at all? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Why would he know "what really happened" at all? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Don't know, but if you got credited with sinking a battleship, wouldn't you be interested in finding out what really happened later? And if you write about it, should you not be interested in finding out about it before doing so? So insert 'must have been able to know what really happened', if it makes you happy. Doesn't change one bit of my point. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Don't know, but if you got credited with sinking a battleship, wouldn't you be interested in finding out what really happened later? And if you write about it, should you not be interested in finding out about it before doing so? So insert 'must have been able to know what really happened', if it makes you happy. Doesn't change one bit of my point. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Perhaps the date on that combat report of the 1st of April gives it away? Regards Jim R. Wonderful! Made me spill half of my coffee onto myself! Originally posted by John Kettler: Hetzer38, Where'd you find that rather obscure manual, praytell?While googling around I found some link to an expired (private) auction of a CD including the L.Dv. 4000/10 Juni 1942 Bordwaffenmunition. (L.Dv. = Luftwaffe-Dienstvorschrift = LW "duty-manual"; M.Dv =Marine-Dv; H.Dv = Heeres-Dv;...), and the Handbuch der Bordwaffenmunition Erprobungsstelle der Luftwaffe1942. So I googled for those, and came up with an emule-link to the Handbuch der Bordwaffenmunition Erprobungsstelle der Luftwaffe1942; (257 pages)... ( 1942 was a long time ago and I don't think there's a copyright-issue with downloading that file... ) Originally posted by John Kettler: Also, am confused by the European system of mathematical notation. While by adjusting my thinking I understand you to say that two thousand and forty-nine tank kills were claimed by thirty Panzerknacker pilots, to most Americans it reads as two decimal/point zero four nine, something altogether different. Likewise, the use of the comma in lieu of the decimal takes some real getting used to. For example, if you write 3,375 and I'm paying attention, then I know that what you've written = 3.375 in my notation system, but most Americans would read this as three thousand three hundred and seventy-five, a rather large difference! Regards, John Kettler Sorry, but I am obviously confused about your system of mathematical notation as well - I hope I get it straight next time! Originally posted by Andreas: ...I would agree, except that he wrote this stuff after the war, when he must have known what really happened. All the best Andreas Damn it, but very good point Andreas! :mad: ...Still he recieved the following awards: * Eisernes Kreuz II. Klasse am 10.11.1939 * Eisernes Kreuz I. Klasse , Frontflugspange in Gold am 18.07.1941 * Ehrenpokal für besondere Leistungen im Luftkrieg am 20.10.1941 * Deutsches Kreuz in Gold am 08.12.1941 * Ritterkreuz am 06.01.1942 als Oberleutnant nach weit über 400 Feindflügen * Eichenlaub (Nr.229) am 14.04.1943 als Oberleutnant nach weit über 1.000 Feindflügen * Schwerter(Nr.42) am 25.11.1943 als Hauptmann nach über 1.600 Feindflügen * Brillanten (Nr. 10) am 29.03.1944 als Major nach über 1.800 Feindflügen und über 200 Panzervernichtungen * Goldenes Eichenlaub (Nr.1) am 29.12.1944 als Oberstleutnant nach über 2.400 Feindflügen und 463 Panzervernichtungen * Goldene Tapferkeitsmedaille (höchste ungarische Tapferkeitsauszeichnung, nur siebenmal verliehen, (Rudel als einziger Ausländer) am 14.01.1945...Surely not for making his superiors believe that he wrecked a lot of russian equipment when in fact he diddn't ? And after all he was credited with the "sinking" of the Marat (...and she was 'only' a crippled stationary 'shore-battery' afterwards...) celebrated by his fellow pilots and superiors, celebrated by the german folk, awarded with the Knight's cross for this "achievment"...although I admit it would have been a lot better for his credibility if he had included the info about the further 'fate' of the Marat in his book... Best Regards, Hetzer. [ March 13, 2007, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Perhaps the date on that combat report of the 1st of April gives it away? Regards Jim R. Wonderful! Made me spill half of my coffee onto myself! Originally posted by John Kettler: Hetzer38, Where'd you find that rather obscure manual, praytell?While googling around I found some link to an expired (private) auction of a CD including the L.Dv. 4000/10 Juni 1942 Bordwaffenmunition. (L.Dv. = Luftwaffe-Dienstvorschrift = LW "duty-manual"; M.Dv =Marine-Dv; H.Dv = Heeres-Dv;...), and the Handbuch der Bordwaffenmunition Erprobungsstelle der Luftwaffe1942. So I googled for those, and came up with an emule-link to the Handbuch der Bordwaffenmunition Erprobungsstelle der Luftwaffe1942; (257 pages)... ( 1942 was a long time ago and I don't think there's a copyright-issue with downloading that file... ) Originally posted by John Kettler: Also, am confused by the European system of mathematical notation. While by adjusting my thinking I understand you to say that two thousand and forty-nine tank kills were claimed by thirty Panzerknacker pilots, to most Americans it reads as two decimal/point zero four nine, something altogether different. Likewise, the use of the comma in lieu of the decimal takes some real getting used to. For example, if you write 3,375 and I'm paying attention, then I know that what you've written = 3.375 in my notation system, but most Americans would read this as three thousand three hundred and seventy-five, a rather large difference! Regards, John Kettler Sorry, but I am obviously confused about your system of mathematical notation as well - I hope I get it straight next time! Originally posted by Andreas: ...I would agree, except that he wrote this stuff after the war, when he must have known what really happened. All the best Andreas Damn it, but very good point Andreas! :mad: ...Still he recieved the following awards: * Eisernes Kreuz II. Klasse am 10.11.1939 * Eisernes Kreuz I. Klasse , Frontflugspange in Gold am 18.07.1941 * Ehrenpokal für besondere Leistungen im Luftkrieg am 20.10.1941 * Deutsches Kreuz in Gold am 08.12.1941 * Ritterkreuz am 06.01.1942 als Oberleutnant nach weit über 400 Feindflügen * Eichenlaub (Nr.229) am 14.04.1943 als Oberleutnant nach weit über 1.000 Feindflügen * Schwerter(Nr.42) am 25.11.1943 als Hauptmann nach über 1.600 Feindflügen * Brillanten (Nr. 10) am 29.03.1944 als Major nach über 1.800 Feindflügen und über 200 Panzervernichtungen * Goldenes Eichenlaub (Nr.1) am 29.12.1944 als Oberstleutnant nach über 2.400 Feindflügen und 463 Panzervernichtungen * Goldene Tapferkeitsmedaille (höchste ungarische Tapferkeitsauszeichnung, nur siebenmal verliehen, (Rudel als einziger Ausländer) am 14.01.1945...Surely not for making his superiors believe that he wrecked a lot of russian equipment when in fact he diddn't ? And after all he was credited with the "sinking" of the Marat (...and she was 'only' a crippled stationary 'shore-battery' afterwards...) celebrated by his fellow pilots and superiors, celebrated by the german folk, awarded with the Knight's cross for this "achievment"...although I admit it would have been a lot better for his credibility if he had included the info about the further 'fate' of the Marat in his book... Best Regards, Hetzer. [ March 13, 2007, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ParaBellum: Here's a link to a YouTube vid showing Ju-87-Gs attacking soviet landing crafts with 37mm cannons. Quality is, unfortunately, not very good. Quite a few misses but also a couple of what looks like direct hits. What surprises me is that the Stuka pilots are attacking the ships from the side, and not from the front/rear. How do you know those are really manned Soviet craft and not simply something set up miles behind the lines or even back in Germany and filmed specifically as propaganda? There is a nice picture in Squadron-Signal's GERMAN INFANTRY IN ACTION showing Russian infantrymen storming past a burning German PzKpfw IV, with a Soviet press dude taking pictures. The whole thing was naturally staged. Also some nice pictures in an old issue of AFTER THE BATTLE showing British troops somewhere in Italy advancing at the double with fixed bayonets over rubblestrewn ground - and another shot in the same series showing them running the other way with bayonets fixed so that the photographer could pick the angle he liked best. I suspect the majority of "combat" footage of the era was staged. And in the most photogenic manner possible - ie if the ships show up better on film being bombed from the side, guess how a PK cameraman would have set up the sequence? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockinHarry Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ParaBellum: Here's a link to a YouTube vid showing Ju-87-Gs attacking soviet landing crafts with 37mm cannons. Quality is, unfortunately, not very good. Quite a few misses but also a couple of what looks like direct hits. What surprises me is that the Stuka pilots are attacking the ships from the side, and not from the front/rear. How do you know those are really manned Soviet craft and not simply something set up miles behind the lines or even back in Germany and filmed specifically as propaganda? There is a nice picture in Squadron-Signal's GERMAN INFANTRY IN ACTION showing Russian infantrymen storming past a burning German PzKpfw IV, with a Soviet press dude taking pictures. The whole thing was naturally staged. Also some nice pictures in an old issue of AFTER THE BATTLE showing British troops somewhere in Italy advancing at the double with fixed bayonets over rubblestrewn ground - and another shot in the same series showing them running the other way with bayonets fixed so that the photographer could pick the angle he liked best. I suspect the majority of "combat" footage of the era was staged. And in the most photogenic manner possible - ie if the ships show up better on film being bombed from the side, guess how a PK cameraman would have set up the sequence? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 RockinHarry, I believe the question was why the vessels weren't being strafed from end to end, as we did to the Japanese with the solid nose (8 x .50 cal.) B-25s during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, but instead were being attacked from the sides, a mode normally used for torpedo or skip bombing attack. Turning now to vulnerability, anything up through a destroyer could easily be pierced and savaged by the BK 3.7, or, for that matter, by the standard Stuka armament. Destroyers are made of 1/4" mild steel and have no armor. One well aimed rifle can do considerable damage to a WW II destroyer. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2007 Author Share Posted March 13, 2007 RockinHarry, I believe the question was why the vessels weren't being strafed from end to end, as we did to the Japanese with the solid nose (8 x .50 cal.) B-25s during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, but instead were being attacked from the sides, a mode normally used for torpedo or skip bombing attack. Turning now to vulnerability, anything up through a destroyer could easily be pierced and savaged by the BK 3.7, or, for that matter, by the standard Stuka armament. Destroyers are made of 1/4" mild steel and have no armor. One well aimed rifle can do considerable damage to a WW II destroyer. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by RockinHarry: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ParaBellum: Here's a link to a YouTube vid showing Ju-87-Gs attacking soviet landing crafts with 37mm cannons. Quality is, unfortunately, not very good. Quite a few misses but also a couple of what looks like direct hits. What surprises me is that the Stuka pilots are attacking the ships from the side, and not from the front/rear. How do you know those are really manned Soviet craft and not simply something set up miles behind the lines or even back in Germany and filmed specifically as propaganda? There is a nice picture in Squadron-Signal's GERMAN INFANTRY IN ACTION showing Russian infantrymen storming past a burning German PzKpfw IV, with a Soviet press dude taking pictures. The whole thing was naturally staged. Also some nice pictures in an old issue of AFTER THE BATTLE showing British troops somewhere in Italy advancing at the double with fixed bayonets over rubblestrewn ground - and another shot in the same series showing them running the other way with bayonets fixed so that the photographer could pick the angle he liked best. I suspect the majority of "combat" footage of the era was staged. And in the most photogenic manner possible - ie if the ships show up better on film being bombed from the side, guess how a PK cameraman would have set up the sequence? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by RockinHarry: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ParaBellum: Here's a link to a YouTube vid showing Ju-87-Gs attacking soviet landing crafts with 37mm cannons. Quality is, unfortunately, not very good. Quite a few misses but also a couple of what looks like direct hits. What surprises me is that the Stuka pilots are attacking the ships from the side, and not from the front/rear. How do you know those are really manned Soviet craft and not simply something set up miles behind the lines or even back in Germany and filmed specifically as propaganda? There is a nice picture in Squadron-Signal's GERMAN INFANTRY IN ACTION showing Russian infantrymen storming past a burning German PzKpfw IV, with a Soviet press dude taking pictures. The whole thing was naturally staged. Also some nice pictures in an old issue of AFTER THE BATTLE showing British troops somewhere in Italy advancing at the double with fixed bayonets over rubblestrewn ground - and another shot in the same series showing them running the other way with bayonets fixed so that the photographer could pick the angle he liked best. I suspect the majority of "combat" footage of the era was staged. And in the most photogenic manner possible - ie if the ships show up better on film being bombed from the side, guess how a PK cameraman would have set up the sequence? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Cameras were banned from the front lines in all armies from what I can tell. The rules were ignored a lot,but frontline photography in private collections is of much poorer quality than official stuff - mostly due to the expense of cameras in those days, and how really cheap the affordable ones in terms of quality output. I have a (tv) documentation (89 min, part 4 of 5), showing the exception to that rule, called "Mein Krieg - Amateurfilmer und ihre Aufnahmen aus dem Russlandfeldzug"...; With a 16mm-Kamera the german Panzerspähtrupp-Funkaufklärer [Panhard-Pz.Späh P 204(f)] Götz Hirt-Reger filmed the war against Russia from 1941 to 1944, mostly with Kodachrome colour-film; Hirt-Reger (74) comments the films he made 50 years ago. Additional material comes from other german and hungarian amateur-filming soldiers. Mostly non-frontline "shots" but good quality material anyway, a shame that Götz wasn't a Stuka-"rear-gunner"... Cheers, Hetzer. [ March 13, 2007, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hetzer38 Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Cameras were banned from the front lines in all armies from what I can tell. The rules were ignored a lot,but frontline photography in private collections is of much poorer quality than official stuff - mostly due to the expense of cameras in those days, and how really cheap the affordable ones in terms of quality output. I have a (tv) documentation (89 min, part 4 of 5), showing the exception to that rule, called "Mein Krieg - Amateurfilmer und ihre Aufnahmen aus dem Russlandfeldzug"...; With a 16mm-Kamera the german Panzerspähtrupp-Funkaufklärer [Panhard-Pz.Späh P 204(f)] Götz Hirt-Reger filmed the war against Russia from 1941 to 1944, mostly with Kodachrome colour-film; Hirt-Reger (74) comments the films he made 50 years ago. Additional material comes from other german and hungarian amateur-filming soldiers. Mostly non-frontline "shots" but good quality material anyway, a shame that Götz wasn't a Stuka-"rear-gunner"... Cheers, Hetzer. [ March 13, 2007, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I suspect ships are attacked from the side with guns because it is much easier for an aircraft to correct elevation of shot than line. Elevation tends to be much quicker for aircraft to adjust than heading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I suspect ships are attacked from the side with guns because it is much easier for an aircraft to correct elevation of shot than line. Elevation tends to be much quicker for aircraft to adjust than heading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 They did a whole miniseries here in Canada called THE WAR IN COLOR from private colour film footage taken during the war. Like your recon radioman, the stuff was mostly rear area footage, but very interesting. Some was "official" footage, and accounted for most "action" shots (by action meaning a few hours after the landing on Juno, for example). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 They did a whole miniseries here in Canada called THE WAR IN COLOR from private colour film footage taken during the war. Like your recon radioman, the stuff was mostly rear area footage, but very interesting. Some was "official" footage, and accounted for most "action" shots (by action meaning a few hours after the landing on Juno, for example). 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.