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

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think Rudel should be given credit for partially disabling Marat (teilweise ausser Gefecht gesetzt). Of course, that's probably too many words and syllables (particularly in German!) for the comprehension of the average Signal reader, so they went with Versenkt instead. I am sure there were no propaganda reasons for that.

All the best

Andreas

Could have also been at the time they didn't realize that the ship was still usable in it's location.

There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think Rudel should be given credit for partially disabling Marat (teilweise ausser Gefecht gesetzt). Of course, that's probably too many words and syllables (particularly in German!) for the comprehension of the average Signal reader, so they went with Versenkt instead. I am sure there were no propaganda reasons for that.

All the best

Andreas

Could have also been at the time they didn't realize that the ship was still usable in it's location.

There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons.

MR

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons.

And then deconsruct them two generations later. It's, like, the human condition, man.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Mad Russian:

There is no question that nations create heroes. All nations do it. For the very same reasons.

And then deconsruct them two generations later. It's, like, the human condition, man.

[McIvan]

If someone inflicts enough damage on a ship that it no longer floats, then surely they sank it. The ship sank until it hit something firmer than water to support it. The only reason the sinking did not lead to total loss because the water was very shallow. I don't see how that means it wasn't sunk. It just didn't sink very far.

What a ridiculous piece of pedantry this is, quibbling on the basis of whether water has to be washing over the deck, and how long it was before they could jury-rig some use out of the remaining turrets.

[ February 26, 2007, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

[McIvan]

If someone inflicts enough damage on a ship that it no longer floats, then surely they sank it. The ship sank until it hit something firmer than water to support it. The only reason the sinking did not lead to total loss because the water was very shallow. I don't see how that means it wasn't sunk. It just didn't sink very far.

What a ridiculous piece of pedantry this is, quibbling on the basis of whether water has to be washing over the deck, and how long it was before they could jury-rig some use out of the remaining turrets.

[ February 26, 2007, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

[Guest Mike]

Yes it is completely ridiculous to think that people can come up with such a stupid thing as to stop a ship sinking by beaching it.

All those ship masters over thousands of years were such idiots to think so. they should have listened to you and JK who obviously know better.

[Guest Mike]

Yes it is completely ridiculous to think that people can come up with such a stupid thing as to stop a ship sinking by beaching it.

All those ship masters over thousands of years were such idiots to think so. they should have listened to you and JK who obviously know better.

[Wicky]

Some Marat images to help visualise how half empty / half full it was depending on which side you are / were on

In CM lingo it looks bogged/immobilised but with a functioning gun...

[Wicky]

Some Marat images to help visualise how half empty / half full it was depending on which side you are / were on

In CM lingo it looks bogged/immobilised but with a functioning gun...

[McIvan]

I might be inclined to concede the argument if that were the case....but I could not find any reference to the ship being beached.

As far as I can determine, it took a crippling hit and sank in shallow water. I don't believe it was in any fit state to go anywhere. Where are you getting this beached idea from?

Thanks for the silly straw man abuse about thinking that beaching isn't a good idea, btw. Of COURSE I think that every sinking ship should make no attempt to beach itself and should do the decent thing forthwith. How clever you were to know that I held that view. If it were otherwise, how could German pilots get their just rewards?

Good photo of the Marat after its *cough*sinking*cough*. I can't imagine a ship with that damage going anywhere but straight down.

[ February 26, 2007, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

[McIvan]

I might be inclined to concede the argument if that were the case....but I could not find any reference to the ship being beached.

As far as I can determine, it took a crippling hit and sank in shallow water. I don't believe it was in any fit state to go anywhere. Where are you getting this beached idea from?

Thanks for the silly straw man abuse about thinking that beaching isn't a good idea, btw. Of COURSE I think that every sinking ship should make no attempt to beach itself and should do the decent thing forthwith. How clever you were to know that I held that view. If it were otherwise, how could German pilots get their just rewards?

Good photo of the Marat after its *cough*sinking*cough*. I can't imagine a ship with that damage going anywhere but straight down.

[ February 26, 2007, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: McIvan ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by McIvan:

I might be inclined to concede the argument if that were the case....but I could not find any reference to the ship being beached.

As far as I can determine, it took a crippling hit and sank in shallow water. I don't believe it was in any fit state to go anywhere. Where are you getting this beached idea from?

Thanks for the silly straw man abuse about thinking that beaching isn't a good idea, btw. Of COURSE I think that every sinking ship should make no attempt to beach itself and should do the decent thing forthwith. How clever you were to know that I held that view. If it were otherwise, how could German pilots get their just rewards?

Good photo of the Marat after its *cough*sinking*cough*. I can't imagine a ship with that damage going anywhere but straight down.

You're still not getting it. A battleship that is still capable of using its weapons is not a "write off". Andreas posted excellent info up above. All of you are getting wrapped around the axle on matters of nomenclature, but its not an unimportant distinction to make. Technically you're both correct. The ship was sunk, in the truest, broadest sense of the term, but since it was still able to use its weapons (and considered dangerous enough to be subjected to renewed attacks), it was not "sunk" in the sense of the word that uses that term to mean destroyed.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by McIvan:

I might be inclined to concede the argument if that were the case....but I could not find any reference to the ship being beached.

As far as I can determine, it took a crippling hit and sank in shallow water. I don't believe it was in any fit state to go anywhere. Where are you getting this beached idea from?

Thanks for the silly straw man abuse about thinking that beaching isn't a good idea, btw. Of COURSE I think that every sinking ship should make no attempt to beach itself and should do the decent thing forthwith. How clever you were to know that I held that view. If it were otherwise, how could German pilots get their just rewards?

Good photo of the Marat after its *cough*sinking*cough*. I can't imagine a ship with that damage going anywhere but straight down.

You're still not getting it. A battleship that is still capable of using its weapons is not a "write off". Andreas posted excellent info up above. All of you are getting wrapped around the axle on matters of nomenclature, but its not an unimportant distinction to make. Technically you're both correct. The ship was sunk, in the truest, broadest sense of the term, but since it was still able to use its weapons (and considered dangerous enough to be subjected to renewed attacks), it was not "sunk" in the sense of the word that uses that term to mean destroyed.

[McIvan]

Going on a bit further, I see now that Stalin's Organist has discovered that Italian frogmen failed to sink either the Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth in WWII, a fact which will no doubt come as a devastating surprise to the Italians concerned, seeing as the harbour waters didn't get over the decks in that case either. Although I note that all the websites I visited referred to them as having been "sunk", that must just be the ignorant layman's version of the term.

I remain of the view that a ship that sinks in shallow water has been "sunk". I suppose you can make a case for the view that it's just crippled or even (god help me) "aground", if you equate "sunk" with total loss. I would think the stronger view, even if that were accepted, is that Marat was "only" crippled because it was sunk in shallow water, not that it wasn't sunk at all.

Edit: Quite right in that the distinction between camps seems to be drawn around total loss or not, as Mr Dorosh pointed out while I was writing this post and trying to do odd bits of work.

[McIvan]

Going on a bit further, I see now that Stalin's Organist has discovered that Italian frogmen failed to sink either the Valiant and the Queen Elizabeth in WWII, a fact which will no doubt come as a devastating surprise to the Italians concerned, seeing as the harbour waters didn't get over the decks in that case either. Although I note that all the websites I visited referred to them as having been "sunk", that must just be the ignorant layman's version of the term.

I remain of the view that a ship that sinks in shallow water has been "sunk". I suppose you can make a case for the view that it's just crippled or even (god help me) "aground", if you equate "sunk" with total loss. I would think the stronger view, even if that were accepted, is that Marat was "only" crippled because it was sunk in shallow water, not that it wasn't sunk at all.

Edit: Quite right in that the distinction between camps seems to be drawn around total loss or not, as Mr Dorosh pointed out while I was writing this post and trying to do odd bits of work.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by McIvan:

Edit: Quite right in that the distinction between camps seems to be drawn around total loss or not, as Mr Dorosh pointed out while I was writing this post and trying to do odd bits of work.

Yep. You're both right. Shake hands like gentlemen and prepare for the next round.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by McIvan:

Edit: Quite right in that the distinction between camps seems to be drawn around total loss or not, as Mr Dorosh pointed out while I was writing this post and trying to do odd bits of work.

Yep. You're both right. Shake hands like gentlemen and prepare for the next round.

[McIvan]

The next round involved a whole bunch of references to and pictures of US battleships sunk....sorry, I meant to say "aground"....at Pearl Harbour, prior to them being refloated...sorry, I meant to say "ungrounded".....but I stupidly went and wiped my post with an unwary mouse click...sigh.

So I shall await the lightning-like riposte of her Majesty's loyal opposition....

[McIvan]

The next round involved a whole bunch of references to and pictures of US battleships sunk....sorry, I meant to say "aground"....at Pearl Harbour, prior to them being refloated...sorry, I meant to say "ungrounded".....but I stupidly went and wiped my post with an unwary mouse click...sigh.

So I shall await the lightning-like riposte of her Majesty's loyal opposition....

[Guest Mike]

ding ding....senconds out, round 2......

Yes it would have been a surprise to the Italians - the ships settled on an even keel, and without water on their decks the Italians had no way of knowing they were hors de combat.

I have looked through a few websites this afternoon, most do say sunk, a few say "heavily damaged" or similar. none of them are particularly authoritative - it doesn't matter how many wrong answers you get

[Guest Mike]

ding ding....senconds out, round 2......

Yes it would have been a surprise to the Italians - the ships settled on an even keel, and without water on their decks the Italians had no way of knowing they were hors de combat.

I have looked through a few websites this afternoon, most do say sunk, a few say "heavily damaged" or similar. none of them are particularly authoritative - it doesn't matter how many wrong answers you get

[McIvan]

You don't think the Italians would have noticed they were thirty feet lower in the water than before? Mmmmm, well, maybe not. They were sunk dammit! They're full of bloody water. Bah.

Ok then....how about drawing analogies with the battleships at Pearl. Some of them were left on the bottom with the water just about at the level of the decks. At least two iirc were refloated in 1942 and 43 respectively and repaired thereafter. Were they sunk? They are counted in the tally of losses. They differ from Marat in respect of the time taken to repair them.....also because they were refloated first and repaired second rather than the other way round....but who's to say they couldn't have had some limited functionality, eg AA guns, coms and radar, restored?

In the case of the Marat, immediately after it went down it was an inoperable and sunken piece of junk. I'm guessing that a week after it went down, the situation is exactly the same, other than that it looks like it should be possible to restore function to the mid and aft gun turrets. It's not until two months later that they get the guns firing. The ship still can't move, nor can it float...it's arguably not a ship at all, just a sort of shore battery in an unlikely location.

The other bit I lost with my mouse click, which is now really hacking me off because (never having now to expose it to scrutiny) it was a MODEL, I tell you, of CLARITY and AUTHORITATIVE PROSE, was an analogy with tanks knocked out on the battlefield, returned to base, repaired and back in action say three weeks later.

Were they knocked out or not? Does the enemy responsible for knocking them out get credit for a kill, or do they now merely rank amongst the own side over-claims?

I put it to you that total write off is far too harsh a criteria to apply when determining whether or not a combatant should be credited with a "kill" or, for that matter, a sinking. A tanker that knocks out an enemy tank gets a kill, and a flier that knocks out an enemy ship which sinks to the bottom of a shallow sea-bed gets credit for sinking it. They can put the tank in the repair shop and get the engineer into the ship, but that doesn't turn back time.

For the same reasons, when I read JasonC's excellent posts about claims v losses - when aggregated over a campaign rather than specific actions such as Mortain - I tend to think that that claims weren't as overstated as they appear, because did not the Germans apply a total loss policy to their reports rather than tanks knocked out on the battlefield, whether or not subsequently repairable? Of course, I don't see what else Jason could do in terms of getting reliable figures.

A kill is not always a kill. Or is it?

**** **, quarter to five. Bloody hell

[McIvan]

You don't think the Italians would have noticed they were thirty feet lower in the water than before? Mmmmm, well, maybe not. They were sunk dammit! They're full of bloody water. Bah.

Ok then....how about drawing analogies with the battleships at Pearl. Some of them were left on the bottom with the water just about at the level of the decks. At least two iirc were refloated in 1942 and 43 respectively and repaired thereafter. Were they sunk? They are counted in the tally of losses. They differ from Marat in respect of the time taken to repair them.....also because they were refloated first and repaired second rather than the other way round....but who's to say they couldn't have had some limited functionality, eg AA guns, coms and radar, restored?

In the case of the Marat, immediately after it went down it was an inoperable and sunken piece of junk. I'm guessing that a week after it went down, the situation is exactly the same, other than that it looks like it should be possible to restore function to the mid and aft gun turrets. It's not until two months later that they get the guns firing. The ship still can't move, nor can it float...it's arguably not a ship at all, just a sort of shore battery in an unlikely location.

The other bit I lost with my mouse click, which is now really hacking me off because (never having now to expose it to scrutiny) it was a MODEL, I tell you, of CLARITY and AUTHORITATIVE PROSE, was an analogy with tanks knocked out on the battlefield, returned to base, repaired and back in action say three weeks later.

Were they knocked out or not? Does the enemy responsible for knocking them out get credit for a kill, or do they now merely rank amongst the own side over-claims?

I put it to you that total write off is far too harsh a criteria to apply when determining whether or not a combatant should be credited with a "kill" or, for that matter, a sinking. A tanker that knocks out an enemy tank gets a kill, and a flier that knocks out an enemy ship which sinks to the bottom of a shallow sea-bed gets credit for sinking it. They can put the tank in the repair shop and get the engineer into the ship, but that doesn't turn back time.

For the same reasons, when I read JasonC's excellent posts about claims v losses - when aggregated over a campaign rather than specific actions such as Mortain - I tend to think that that claims weren't as overstated as they appear, because did not the Germans apply a total loss policy to their reports rather than tanks knocked out on the battlefield, whether or not subsequently repairable? Of course, I don't see what else Jason could do in terms of getting reliable figures.

A kill is not always a kill. Or is it?

**** **, quarter to five. Bloody hell

[Guest Mike]

Knocked out - certainly - I would never argue otherwise. But there are ways og KO'ing ships other than sinking them.

And certainly Marat was effectively "just" a shore battery in an unlikely position.

the operative term you used is "arguably"

Oh to heck with it - here's a couple of definitions from dictionary.com!!

Sunk:to displace part of the volume of a supporting substance or object and become totally or partially submerged or enveloped; fall or descend into or below the surface or to the bottom (often fol. by in or into): The battleship sank within two hours. His foot sank in the mud. Her head sinks into the pillows. (one of many - the one dealing with water)

Submerge:

1. to put or sink below the surface of water or any other enveloping medium.

2. to cover or overflow with water; immerse.

3. to cover; bury; subordinate; suppress: His aspirations were submerged by the necessity of making a living.

–verb (used without object) 4. to sink or plunge under water or beneath the surface of any enveloping medium.

5. to be covered or lost from sight.

Right - so to be sunk requires at least partial submergance, and to be at least partially submerged requires covering or overflowing with water, or going below the surface of water.

So the ships are sunk, by definition, if part of them is entirely under water - and I dont' count internal decks 'cos by that standard mr picky says that all ships are sunk even when they'er floating!!

Certainly the ship is not floating tho - but floating and sunk are not binary situations for a ship - a ship that is grounded is neither!

[ February 26, 2007, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]