Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

[Andreas]

Yes.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=000098

Later in the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004176

Also recommend this one, started by fellow forum member JonS at my instigation:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=87408

[Michael Dorosh]

You've forgotten Cabron66 already, haven't you. Just as well, so has the member directory's search function.

[Michael Dorosh]

You've forgotten Cabron66 already, haven't you. Just as well, so has the member directory's search function.

[Andreas]

No thanks for reminding me...

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

No thanks for reminding me...

All the best

Andreas

[undead reindeer cavalry]

EDIT: will make a better post later.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

EDIT: will make a better post later.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are wrong, in your AFAIK and your assumption. If you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find out why.

there's several pages in this thread - I'd appreciate you pointing out jsut which one as I asked in the first place.

OK - I've had a look - can't find anything except a post where you say you don't know how he would find out.

But now you're saying it's somewhere in this thread, and apparently me trying to find out represents a flaw in my character.

I suspect you actually mean this, this, or maybe this , or possibly this .

Or maybe elements of all four and then some more. It's a shame really - one would think the answer would be a faitrly short statement of where Rudel would get this info from - if such a source actually existed.

[ March 14, 2007, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are wrong, in your AFAIK and your assumption. If you go back a few pages in this thread, you'll find out why.

there's several pages in this thread - I'd appreciate you pointing out jsut which one as I asked in the first place.

OK - I've had a look - can't find anything except a post where you say you don't know how he would find out.

But now you're saying it's somewhere in this thread, and apparently me trying to find out represents a flaw in my character.

I suspect you actually mean this, this, or maybe this , or possibly this .

Or maybe elements of all four and then some more. It's a shame really - one would think the answer would be a faitrly short statement of where Rudel would get this info from - if such a source actually existed.

[ March 14, 2007, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I suggest reading this:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

This should make some sobering reading for anyone who actually believes German air/ground kill claims. Good effort by Chris to start the discussion.

All the best

Andreas

I posted Hptm Bruno Meyer's story about the action discussed by the gentlemen at the Dupuy-forum on page 5 in the CMAK-cross-post, it ends with:

Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:

"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."

(Hs-129 Panzerjäger! - Martin Pegg, p 150)

However, this translation of Luftflotte 4's 'war diary' is crap.

Daily combat reports of VIII. Fl. Korps (Luftflotte 4):

Tageseinsatz 8.7.1943

eingesetzt: 1686 Flugzeuge

davon:

77 Aufklärer

493 Kampfflugzeuge

701 Sturzkampfflugzeuge

186 Schlachtflugzeuge (davon 53 Pz.Jäger Hs 129 mit 3 cm-Kanone)

229 Jagdflugzeuge

Schwerpunkt vor Pz.AOK 4. Erstmalig erfolgreicher Einsatz der Panzerjägerstaffeln.

(First successfull operation of the Panzerjägerstaffeln.)

Erfolge: 84 Panzer (davon 11 brennend) vernichtet, 5

Geschütze, 2 Salvengeschütze, 2 Flakgeschütze und etwa 40 mot. Fahrzeuge

zerstört, 21 Panzer und 2 Salvengeschütze beschädigt.

Abschüße: 43 Feindflugzeuge im Luftkampf

Verluste: 1 Fw 190, 2 Hs 129, 1 Ju 87 durch Flak (RK-Träger Hptm. Wutka), 1 Ju

87 durch Jäger (RK-Träger Oblt. Fitzner)

Bemerkungen:

Der erste Einsatz der Panzerjägerstaffeln erwies sich als wirksam.

(The first operation of the Panzerjägerstaffeln proved to be effective.)

Wenn auch brennende Panzer nicht gemeldet wurden, so muß damit gerechnet werden, daß eine größere Anzahl wirksam beschossen wurde (mehr als 6 Treffer).

(Even though burning tanks were not reported, it must be estimated that that a larger number was effectively shot at [more than 6 hits].)

Besonders in der Abwehr des in späten Nachmittagstunden von Nordosten gegen SS-Das Reich anlaufenden Panzerangriffs konnte nach Einsatz der Panzerjäger festgestellt werden, daß die Russen abdrehten und sich zurückzogen.

(Especially in the late hours of the afternoon, defending SS 'Das Reich' against a rolling tank attack from North-East, it was observed that the russians sheered off and fell back after the Panzerjägers' attack.)

Nachteinsatz 8./9.7.1943 (28 Flugzeuge)

6 Kampfflugzeuge Bahnjagd Kursk - Kastornoje. Gute Trefferlage in Zwischenbahnhöfen

20 Störkampfflugzeuge Einsatz ostw. Belgorod im Koren-Abschnitt.

84 tanks destroyed (11 of them burning), 5 guns, 2 "Stalinorgeln", 2 AA-guns and about 40 motorized vehicles destroyed, 21 tanks and two "Stalinorgeln" damaged...these are not credited to the Panzerjägerstaffeln alone but to all of Luftflotte 4's / VIII Fl.Korps - groundattack-aircraft that participated on this day of combat! So, I guess the 701 Stukas + 133 remaining Schlachtflugzeuge that flew combat missions that day accounted for a good part of the knocked-out total of 84.

(O.K., and let's give those 493 bombers one or two of those tanks too...;-)

So the fifty-three Hs 129B-2s of the Panzerjägerstaffeln were credited with much less kills than "believed".

And even if Hptm Bruno Meyer's story is just that - a story - (of which I'm not totally convinced right now, ~20-30 tank kills for ~50 Hs 129B flying 'rolling' attacks doesn't sound that unimaginable to me, and I'm not utterly convinced that Bruno Meyer's "story" can only be referring to the 26th Tank Brigade of the II Guards Tank Corps, which lost ~10 tanks that day...); that doesn't prove that Luftwaffe-kill-credits (for example for Stuka or "Tankbuster" 'aces') were seriously flawed as a general rule.

Have a look at Sommerschlacht, for:

Air Operations during Battle of Kursk July-August 1943

German links:

* Order of battle of Lfl. 4

* Order of battle of Lfl. 6

* Daily combat reports of Lfl. 6 and VIII. Fl.Korps (compilation)

* Excerpts from Kriegstagebuch Armee-Abteilung Kempf (VIII. Fl.Korps operations)

* Some OKW statistics (T77R785-5513559ff)

Russian links:

* Order of battle of 1. wa (Western Front)

* Order of battle of 15. wa (Brjansk Front)

* Order of battle of 16. wa (Central Front)

* Order of battle of 2. wa (Voronesh Front)

* Order of battle of 5. wa (Steppes Front)

* Order of battle of 17. wa (Southwest Front)

* Order of battle of ADD units

* Order of battle of PWO units

Cheers, Hetzer.

Edit:

Just stumbled over a translation error by Chris Lawrence:

The VIII Air Corps does record this day 53 sorties of Hs-129s with 30mm cannons.

Wrong. Fifty-three Hs 129 aircraft (Flugzeuge) are listed in the report of VIII Fliegerkorps for 8 July, not sorties (Einsätze).

(...more like ~200 sorties flown by Hs 129B-2s that day IMO...Hmm, does anyone have the war diaries of * Pz.Jagd-Kdo./Sch.G. 1 * 4.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 1 * 8.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 1 * 4.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 2 * 8.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 2 * or Pz.Jagd-Staffel/J.G. 51 at hand ?...

[ March 19, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Hetzer38]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I suggest reading this:

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000016.html

This should make some sobering reading for anyone who actually believes German air/ground kill claims. Good effort by Chris to start the discussion.

All the best

Andreas

I posted Hptm Bruno Meyer's story about the action discussed by the gentlemen at the Dupuy-forum on page 5 in the CMAK-cross-post, it ends with:

Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:

"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."

(Hs-129 Panzerjäger! - Martin Pegg, p 150)

However, this translation of Luftflotte 4's 'war diary' is crap.

Daily combat reports of VIII. Fl. Korps (Luftflotte 4):

Tageseinsatz 8.7.1943

eingesetzt: 1686 Flugzeuge

davon:

77 Aufklärer

493 Kampfflugzeuge

701 Sturzkampfflugzeuge

186 Schlachtflugzeuge (davon 53 Pz.Jäger Hs 129 mit 3 cm-Kanone)

229 Jagdflugzeuge

Schwerpunkt vor Pz.AOK 4. Erstmalig erfolgreicher Einsatz der Panzerjägerstaffeln.

(First successfull operation of the Panzerjägerstaffeln.)

Erfolge: 84 Panzer (davon 11 brennend) vernichtet, 5

Geschütze, 2 Salvengeschütze, 2 Flakgeschütze und etwa 40 mot. Fahrzeuge

zerstört, 21 Panzer und 2 Salvengeschütze beschädigt.

Abschüße: 43 Feindflugzeuge im Luftkampf

Verluste: 1 Fw 190, 2 Hs 129, 1 Ju 87 durch Flak (RK-Träger Hptm. Wutka), 1 Ju

87 durch Jäger (RK-Träger Oblt. Fitzner)

Bemerkungen:

Der erste Einsatz der Panzerjägerstaffeln erwies sich als wirksam.

(The first operation of the Panzerjägerstaffeln proved to be effective.)

Wenn auch brennende Panzer nicht gemeldet wurden, so muß damit gerechnet werden, daß eine größere Anzahl wirksam beschossen wurde (mehr als 6 Treffer).

(Even though burning tanks were not reported, it must be estimated that that a larger number was effectively shot at [more than 6 hits].)

Besonders in der Abwehr des in späten Nachmittagstunden von Nordosten gegen SS-Das Reich anlaufenden Panzerangriffs konnte nach Einsatz der Panzerjäger festgestellt werden, daß die Russen abdrehten und sich zurückzogen.

(Especially in the late hours of the afternoon, defending SS 'Das Reich' against a rolling tank attack from North-East, it was observed that the russians sheered off and fell back after the Panzerjägers' attack.)

Nachteinsatz 8./9.7.1943 (28 Flugzeuge)

6 Kampfflugzeuge Bahnjagd Kursk - Kastornoje. Gute Trefferlage in Zwischenbahnhöfen

20 Störkampfflugzeuge Einsatz ostw. Belgorod im Koren-Abschnitt.

84 tanks destroyed (11 of them burning), 5 guns, 2 "Stalinorgeln", 2 AA-guns and about 40 motorized vehicles destroyed, 21 tanks and two "Stalinorgeln" damaged...these are not credited to the Panzerjägerstaffeln alone but to all of Luftflotte 4's / VIII Fl.Korps - groundattack-aircraft that participated on this day of combat! So, I guess the 701 Stukas + 133 remaining Schlachtflugzeuge that flew combat missions that day accounted for a good part of the knocked-out total of 84.

(O.K., and let's give those 493 bombers one or two of those tanks too...;-)

So the fifty-three Hs 129B-2s of the Panzerjägerstaffeln were credited with much less kills than "believed".

And even if Hptm Bruno Meyer's story is just that - a story - (of which I'm not totally convinced right now, ~20-30 tank kills for ~50 Hs 129B flying 'rolling' attacks doesn't sound that unimaginable to me, and I'm not utterly convinced that Bruno Meyer's "story" can only be referring to the 26th Tank Brigade of the II Guards Tank Corps, which lost ~10 tanks that day...); that doesn't prove that Luftwaffe-kill-credits (for example for Stuka or "Tankbuster" 'aces') were seriously flawed as a general rule.

Have a look at Sommerschlacht, for:

Air Operations during Battle of Kursk July-August 1943

German links:

* Order of battle of Lfl. 4

* Order of battle of Lfl. 6

* Daily combat reports of Lfl. 6 and VIII. Fl.Korps (compilation)

* Excerpts from Kriegstagebuch Armee-Abteilung Kempf (VIII. Fl.Korps operations)

* Some OKW statistics (T77R785-5513559ff)

Russian links:

* Order of battle of 1. wa (Western Front)

* Order of battle of 15. wa (Brjansk Front)

* Order of battle of 16. wa (Central Front)

* Order of battle of 2. wa (Voronesh Front)

* Order of battle of 5. wa (Steppes Front)

* Order of battle of 17. wa (Southwest Front)

* Order of battle of ADD units

* Order of battle of PWO units

Cheers, Hetzer.

Edit:

Just stumbled over a translation error by Chris Lawrence:

The VIII Air Corps does record this day 53 sorties of Hs-129s with 30mm cannons.

Wrong. Fifty-three Hs 129 aircraft (Flugzeuge) are listed in the report of VIII Fliegerkorps for 8 July, not sorties (Einsätze).

(...more like ~200 sorties flown by Hs 129B-2s that day IMO...Hmm, does anyone have the war diaries of * Pz.Jagd-Kdo./Sch.G. 1 * 4.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 1 * 8.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 1 * 4.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 2 * 8.(Pz.)/Sch.G. 2 * or Pz.Jagd-Staffel/J.G. 51 at hand ?...

[ March 19, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Hetzer38 ]

[Hetzer38]

And for what it's worth, here's the the point of view of "Das Reich" on the discussion.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Regained Momentum

When the rest of the regiment joined the fight, the attack gained more momentum and the Germans managed to open a substantial gap in the enemy lines. On 8 July, the Red Army threw more armoured units at the advancing SS divisions.

By this time, the focus of the battle fo Kursk had clearly shifted to the southern sector.

When it seemed as if the SS troops and the Kempf group were going to surround the Soviet garrison at Prokhorovka, the Red Army responded with a savage counter-attack.

At Teterevino, 3rd Battalion, Der Führer Regiment held its ground against an armoured assault until every unit in the Das Reich division reached the area to participate in the fight for this and other villages and the ridges upon which they sat.

With the help of Stukas fitted with anti-tank cannons, attacks upon the SS divisions were kept off for a brief period.

But before Hausser's troops could resume offensive actions, the Red Army hurled more infantry and armoured units at them. Most notably, a formation of 60 Russian battle tanks threatened SS supply lines by trying to block the main road running from Belgorod to Oboyan. However, this threat soon abated when Luftwaffe warplanes arrived, knocked out about 50 tanks, and killed several foot soldiers.

At the same time, Das Reich and other SS divisions repelled a series of armoured assaults at Teterevino, destroying almost 300 enemy armoured vehicles during the course of the day.

</font>

[Hetzer38]

And for what it's worth, here's the the point of view of "Das Reich" on the discussion.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Regained Momentum

When the rest of the regiment joined the fight, the attack gained more momentum and the Germans managed to open a substantial gap in the enemy lines. On 8 July, the Red Army threw more armoured units at the advancing SS divisions.

By this time, the focus of the battle fo Kursk had clearly shifted to the southern sector.

When it seemed as if the SS troops and the Kempf group were going to surround the Soviet garrison at Prokhorovka, the Red Army responded with a savage counter-attack.

At Teterevino, 3rd Battalion, Der Führer Regiment held its ground against an armoured assault until every unit in the Das Reich division reached the area to participate in the fight for this and other villages and the ridges upon which they sat.

With the help of Stukas fitted with anti-tank cannons, attacks upon the SS divisions were kept off for a brief period.

But before Hausser's troops could resume offensive actions, the Red Army hurled more infantry and armoured units at them. Most notably, a formation of 60 Russian battle tanks threatened SS supply lines by trying to block the main road running from Belgorod to Oboyan. However, this threat soon abated when Luftwaffe warplanes arrived, knocked out about 50 tanks, and killed several foot soldiers.

At the same time, Das Reich and other SS divisions repelled a series of armoured assaults at Teterevino, destroying almost 300 enemy armoured vehicles during the course of the day.

</font>

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:

"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."

Wow! Nearly as good as 2nd TAF at Mortain. On 7//8/44 121 and 124 Wing between them destroyed 84 Panzers and damaged another 54.

1st SS reported at 15:20 that fighter bombers had brought the division to a halt near Juvigny.

At 17:40 the Chief of Staff of 7 Armee reported that the assault had been stationary since 13:00 due to 'the employment of fighter bombers by the enemy'. General Speidel, Chief of Staff to both Rommel and Kluge said in his book that the armored operation was completely wrecked 'exclusively by the Allied Air Forces'.

You can find many other accounts where both US and British TAF aircraft reported similar numbers of knocked out tanks. Air Power certainly was an effective tank killer because they tell us so! Who could doubt such claims?

Makes you wonder why the Germans automaticaly applied up to a 50% reduction to all tank kill claims when their 'absolutely genuine confirmed' figures are almost spot on the figure for auctual losses..........................

Where can I find the total of Rudel's claims before the reduction was applied?

Anyone have a source for German pre-reduction claims?

[ March 14, 2007, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

Just how successful the Henschel Staffeln had been on 8 July is confirmed by Luftflotte 4's war diary which states that on that day:

"The Panzerjäger were especially successful. Eighty tanks were completely destroyed and a further number damaged."

Wow! Nearly as good as 2nd TAF at Mortain. On 7//8/44 121 and 124 Wing between them destroyed 84 Panzers and damaged another 54.

1st SS reported at 15:20 that fighter bombers had brought the division to a halt near Juvigny.

At 17:40 the Chief of Staff of 7 Armee reported that the assault had been stationary since 13:00 due to 'the employment of fighter bombers by the enemy'. General Speidel, Chief of Staff to both Rommel and Kluge said in his book that the armored operation was completely wrecked 'exclusively by the Allied Air Forces'.

You can find many other accounts where both US and British TAF aircraft reported similar numbers of knocked out tanks. Air Power certainly was an effective tank killer because they tell us so! Who could doubt such claims?

Makes you wonder why the Germans automaticaly applied up to a 50% reduction to all tank kill claims when their 'absolutely genuine confirmed' figures are almost spot on the figure for auctual losses..........................

Where can I find the total of Rudel's claims before the reduction was applied?

Anyone have a source for German pre-reduction claims?

[ March 14, 2007, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Makes you wonder why the Germans automaticaly applied up to a 50% reduction to all tank kill claims when their 'absolutely genuine confirmed' figures are almost spot on the figure for auctual losses

Because of the "ace" syndrome ? If you use individuals as role models and inspiration to the troops that would tend to make all contenders want to get in the programme.

This is why we should perhaps start using the term "kill claim" when talking about kills claimed by individual soldiers and use the term "kill estimate" when talking about the official number of kills as estimated by the intel pukes.

[Tero]

Originally posted by michael kenny:

Makes you wonder why the Germans automaticaly applied up to a 50% reduction to all tank kill claims when their 'absolutely genuine confirmed' figures are almost spot on the figure for auctual losses

Because of the "ace" syndrome ? If you use individuals as role models and inspiration to the troops that would tend to make all contenders want to get in the programme.

This is why we should perhaps start using the term "kill claim" when talking about kills claimed by individual soldiers and use the term "kill estimate" when talking about the official number of kills as estimated by the intel pukes.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

It's a shame really - one would think the answer would be a faitrly short statement of where Rudel would get this info from - if such a source actually existed.

Sorry, I thought it would not be necessary to point out the obvious, but I was obviously wrong.

Option one: German records - I don't know why you seem to believe that the Germans did not keep records of what happened to them, and that only the Soviets had those. The ships in Leningrad and Kronstadt continued to be a major source of concern, and operations against them, such as engagement by heavy artillery and the 1942 air attack offensive would have been documented in the relevant war diaries, just like the 23 September 41 attacks were. Interestingly, in the German AG records for the day the hits on the ships were acknowledged, but their status was unclear, and judgement of success withheld until it was clear whether the ships would engage again in the land battle (see relevant footnotes in Leeb's edited diary). The status following the attack was clarified only a few weeks later by a Soviet deserter. Knowing LW procedures, my guess is that the kill had been awarded to Rudel a long time before that (cf. the 1940 Ark Royal sinking).

Option 2: by talking to his mateys, e.g. veterans from KG who continued to attack the ships, or to former staff officers of AG North, or officers from LW and SS formations who were engaged in the line containing the Oranienbaum bridgehead. There would only be hundreds of these guys, so of course it would be difficult to get in contact with them, since it is well known that former Wehrmacht folks never talked to each other again after the war.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

It's a shame really - one would think the answer would be a faitrly short statement of where Rudel would get this info from - if such a source actually existed.

Sorry, I thought it would not be necessary to point out the obvious, but I was obviously wrong.

Option one: German records - I don't know why you seem to believe that the Germans did not keep records of what happened to them, and that only the Soviets had those. The ships in Leningrad and Kronstadt continued to be a major source of concern, and operations against them, such as engagement by heavy artillery and the 1942 air attack offensive would have been documented in the relevant war diaries, just like the 23 September 41 attacks were. Interestingly, in the German AG records for the day the hits on the ships were acknowledged, but their status was unclear, and judgement of success withheld until it was clear whether the ships would engage again in the land battle (see relevant footnotes in Leeb's edited diary). The status following the attack was clarified only a few weeks later by a Soviet deserter. Knowing LW procedures, my guess is that the kill had been awarded to Rudel a long time before that (cf. the 1940 Ark Royal sinking).

Option 2: by talking to his mateys, e.g. veterans from KG who continued to attack the ships, or to former staff officers of AG North, or officers from LW and SS formations who were engaged in the line containing the Oranienbaum bridgehead. There would only be hundreds of these guys, so of course it would be difficult to get in contact with them, since it is well known that former Wehrmacht folks never talked to each other again after the war.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

And for what it's worth, here's the the point of view of "Das Reich" on the discussion.

What's his source for that?

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Hetzer38:

And for what it's worth, here's the the point of view of "Das Reich" on the discussion.

What's his source for that?

All the best

Andreas

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Knowing LW procedures, my guess is that the kill had been awarded to Rudel a long time before that (cf. the 1940 Ark Royal sinking).

Option 2: by talking to his mateys, e.g. veterans from KG who continued to attack the ships, or to former staff officers of AG North, or officers from LW and SS formations who were engaged in the line containing the Oranienbaum bridgehead. There would only be hundreds of these guys, so of course it would be difficult to get in contact with them, since it is well known that former Wehrmacht folks never talked to each other again after the war.

Option 3: He knew about all this (after the war) but as LW had awarded him for the sinking of Marat he did not bother about the fact some of his mateys were attacking static, not-so-very-well floating maritime shore batteries in the Leningrad/Kronstadt area.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Knowing LW procedures, my guess is that the kill had been awarded to Rudel a long time before that (cf. the 1940 Ark Royal sinking).

Option 2: by talking to his mateys, e.g. veterans from KG who continued to attack the ships, or to former staff officers of AG North, or officers from LW and SS formations who were engaged in the line containing the Oranienbaum bridgehead. There would only be hundreds of these guys, so of course it would be difficult to get in contact with them, since it is well known that former Wehrmacht folks never talked to each other again after the war.

Option 3: He knew about all this (after the war) but as LW had awarded him for the sinking of Marat he did not bother about the fact some of his mateys were attacking static, not-so-very-well floating maritime shore batteries in the Leningrad/Kronstadt area.

[Andreas]

Uh, yeah. Whatever. Note that the caption says 'dying', not sinking, which means your attempt at semantics are a bit pointless. Unless you want to argue that Marat then became a Zombie. Full points for trying though.

Of course, I would be interested to read the German original.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Uh, yeah. Whatever. Note that the caption says 'dying', not sinking, which means your attempt at semantics are a bit pointless. Unless you want to argue that Marat then became a Zombie. Full points for trying though.

Of course, I would be interested to read the German original.

All the best

Andreas