Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT - WWII quiz

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: OT - WWII quiz Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 11:20:03 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
What was the name of the US gunboat sunk by the Japanese in 1937?

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 931
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 11:23:45 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
What was the name of the infamous Japanese commander in charge of units that commited the worst pre WWII atrocity at Nanking?

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 932
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 11:27:32 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
What ship fired the last three torpedoes at the Scharnhorst at the Battle of the Barents Sea?

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 933
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 1:31:54 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Don't think this question has been asked:-

What was the name of the commander who sunk the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow, and what was the name/designation of his vessel?

Pretty easy I know


Gunther Prien.

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 934
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 1:45:13 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1950
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
Correct, but what was the name of the vessel??

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy.
- Michael Burleigh


(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 935
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 6:00:32 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline
from JGN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What was the name of the commander who sunk the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow, and what was the name/designation of his vessel?


Sinking of HMS Royal Oak
U-47 became famous when, on October 14, 1939, under the command of Günther Prien, she managed to enter the base of the British home fleet at Scapa Flow through a hole in the defence line, and sank the battleship HMS Royal Oak, which was in Scapa Flow in a largely unprepared state, although World War II had recently begun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What was the name of the US gunboat sunk by the Japanese in 1937?


On December 12, 1937 Japanese naval aircraft were ordered by their Army to attack “any and all ships” in the Yangtze above Nanking. Knowing of the presence of Panay and the merchantmen, the Imperial Japanese Navy requested verification of the order, which was received before the attack began about 13:27 that day. Although there were several large American flags flown on the ship, as well as one painted atop the cabin, the Japanese planes continued strafing and bombing the area around the Panay. Panay was hit by two of the eighteen 60-kg (132 pound) bombs dropped by three Yokosuka B4Y Type-96 bombers and strafed by nine Nakajima A4N Type-95 fighters. The bombing continued until Panay sank at 15:54. Three sailors were killed, and 43 sailors and 5 civilian passengers wounded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What was the name of the infamous Japanese commander in charge of units that committed the worst pre WWII atrocity at Nanking?


The Japanese awaited an answer. When no Chinese envoy had arrived by 1:00 p.m. the following day, General Matsui Iwane issued the command to take Nanking by force. On December 12, 2937 after two days of Japanese attack, under heavy artillery fire and aerial bombardment, General Tang Sheng-chi ordered his men to retreat. What followed was nothing short of chaos. Some Chinese soldiers stripped civilians of their clothing in a desperate attempt to blend in, and many others were shot in the back by their own comrades as they tried to flee. Those who actually made it outside the city walls fled north to the Yangtze, only to find that there were no vessels remaining to take them. Some then jumped into the wintry waters and drowned.
The Japanese entered the walled city of Nanjing on December 13, 1937 and faced little military resistance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What ship fired the last three torpedoes at the Scharnhorst at the Battle of the Barents Sea?


This must be a trick question, because the Scharnhorst was not at "the Battle of the Barents Sea".

the Battle of the Barents Sea

Commonwealth Order of battle:
Fourteen merchant ships guarded by the destroyers HMS Achates, Orwell, Oribi, Onslow, Obedient, and Obdurate; the Flower class corvettes Rhododendron and Hyderabad; the minesweeper HMS Bramble; and two trawlers Vizalma and Northern Gem.
"Force R" independently stationed in the Barents Sea - the cruisers Sheffield, Jamaica, and two destroyers.

German Order of battle:
The heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper; pocket battleship Lützow; and destroyers Friedrich Eckholdt, Richard Beitzen, Theodor Riedel, Z 29, Z 30, and Z 31.

However, at “the Battle of North Cape”…
On Christmas Day 1943, Scharnhorst and several destroyers, under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Erich Bey, put to sea with the purpose of attacking the Russia-bound Arctic convoys JW 55B and RA 55A north of Norway. Unfortunately for the Germans, their orders had been decoded by the British code breakers and the Admiralty were able to direct their forces to intercept. The next day, in heavy weather and unable to locate the convoy, Bey detached the destroyers and sent them south, leaving Scharnhorst alone. Less than two hours later, the ship encountered the convoy's escort force of the cruisers HMS Belfast, Norfolk, and Sheffield. Belfast had picked up Scharnhorst at 08:40 and 35,000 yards (32,000 m) using her Type 273 radar and by 09:41, Sheffield had made visual contact. Under cover of snow, the British cruisers opened fire. Belfast attempted to illuminate Scharnhorst with starshell, but was unsuccessful. Norfolk, however, opened fire using her radar to spot the fall of shot and scored two hits. One of these demolished Scharnhorst's main radar aerial, disabling the set and leaving her unable to return accurate fire in low visibility. Norfolk suffered minor damage.

In order to try to get around the cruisers to the convoy, Bey ordered Scharnhorst to take a southeast course away from the cruisers. In the late afternoon, the convoy's covering force, including the British battleship HMS Duke of York, made contact and opened fire. Despite suffering the loss of its hangar and a turret, Scharnhorst temporarily increased its distance from its pursuers. The Duke of York caught up again and fired again - the second salvo wrecked the "A" turret, detonating the charges in "A" magazine which led to the same in "B" magazine. Partial flooding of the magazines quenched the explosions. No Royal Navy ship received any serious damage, though the flagship was frequently straddled, and one of her masts was smashed by an 11-inch (280 mm) shell. At 18:00 Scharnhorst's main battery went silent; at 18:20 another round from Duke of York destroyed a boiler room, reducing Scharnhorst's speed to about 22 knots (41 km/h) and leaving her open to attacks from the destroyers. Duke of York fired her 77th salvo at 19:28.

Battered and crippled as she was, her secondary armament was still firing wildly as the cruiser HMS Jamaica and the destroyers Musketeer, Matchless, Opportune, and Virago closed and launched torpedoes at 19:32. The last three torpedoes, fired by Jamaica at 19:37 from under two miles (3 km) range, were the final crippling blows.

A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 936
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 10:47:29 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439



A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.



Say what you want about the German Navy, but they sure could build them! Darn shame they never deployed the Graf Zeppelin.

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 937
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 10:53:24 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439

from JGN

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What was the name of the commander who sunk the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow, and what was the name/designation of his vessel?


Sinking of HMS Royal Oak
U-47 became famous when, on October 14, 1939, under the command of Günther Prien, she managed to enter the base of the British home fleet at Scapa Flow through a hole in the defence line, and sank the battleship HMS Royal Oak, which was in Scapa Flow in a largely unprepared state, although World War II had recently begun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What was the name of the US gunboat sunk by the Japanese in 1937?


On December 12, 1937 Japanese naval aircraft were ordered by their Army to attack “any and all ships” in the Yangtze above Nanking. Knowing of the presence of Panay and the merchantmen, the Imperial Japanese Navy requested verification of the order, which was received before the attack began about 13:27 that day. Although there were several large American flags flown on the ship, as well as one painted atop the cabin, the Japanese planes continued strafing and bombing the area around the Panay. Panay was hit by two of the eighteen 60-kg (132 pound) bombs dropped by three Yokosuka B4Y Type-96 bombers and strafed by nine Nakajima A4N Type-95 fighters. The bombing continued until Panay sank at 15:54. Three sailors were killed, and 43 sailors and 5 civilian passengers wounded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What was the name of the infamous Japanese commander in charge of units that committed the worst pre WWII atrocity at Nanking?


The Japanese awaited an answer. When no Chinese envoy had arrived by 1:00 p.m. the following day, General Matsui Iwane issued the command to take Nanking by force. On December 12, 2937 after two days of Japanese attack, under heavy artillery fire and aerial bombardment, General Tang Sheng-chi ordered his men to retreat. What followed was nothing short of chaos. Some Chinese soldiers stripped civilians of their clothing in a desperate attempt to blend in, and many others were shot in the back by their own comrades as they tried to flee. Those who actually made it outside the city walls fled north to the Yangtze, only to find that there were no vessels remaining to take them. Some then jumped into the wintry waters and drowned.
The Japanese entered the walled city of Nanjing on December 13, 1937 and faced little military resistance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire 101
What ship fired the last three torpedoes at the Scharnhorst at the Battle of the Barents Sea?


This must be a trick question, because the Scharnhorst was not at "the Battle of the Barents Sea".

the Battle of the Barents Sea

Commonwealth Order of battle:
Fourteen merchant ships guarded by the destroyers HMS Achates, Orwell, Oribi, Onslow, Obedient, and Obdurate; the Flower class corvettes Rhododendron and Hyderabad; the minesweeper HMS Bramble; and two trawlers Vizalma and Northern Gem.
"Force R" independently stationed in the Barents Sea - the cruisers Sheffield, Jamaica, and two destroyers.

German Order of battle:
The heavy cruiser Admiral Hipper; pocket battleship Lützow; and destroyers Friedrich Eckholdt, Richard Beitzen, Theodor Riedel, Z 29, Z 30, and Z 31.

However, at “the Battle of North Cape”…
On Christmas Day 1943, Scharnhorst and several destroyers, under the command of Konteradmiral (Rear Admiral) Erich Bey, put to sea with the purpose of attacking the Russia-bound Arctic convoys JW 55B and RA 55A north of Norway. Unfortunately for the Germans, their orders had been decoded by the British code breakers and the Admiralty were able to direct their forces to intercept. The next day, in heavy weather and unable to locate the convoy, Bey detached the destroyers and sent them south, leaving Scharnhorst alone. Less than two hours later, the ship encountered the convoy's escort force of the cruisers HMS Belfast, Norfolk, and Sheffield. Belfast had picked up Scharnhorst at 08:40 and 35,000 yards (32,000 m) using her Type 273 radar and by 09:41, Sheffield had made visual contact. Under cover of snow, the British cruisers opened fire. Belfast attempted to illuminate Scharnhorst with starshell, but was unsuccessful. Norfolk, however, opened fire using her radar to spot the fall of shot and scored two hits. One of these demolished Scharnhorst's main radar aerial, disabling the set and leaving her unable to return accurate fire in low visibility. Norfolk suffered minor damage.

In order to try to get around the cruisers to the convoy, Bey ordered Scharnhorst to take a southeast course away from the cruisers. In the late afternoon, the convoy's covering force, including the British battleship HMS Duke of York, made contact and opened fire. Despite suffering the loss of its hangar and a turret, Scharnhorst temporarily increased its distance from its pursuers. The Duke of York caught up again and fired again - the second salvo wrecked the "A" turret, detonating the charges in "A" magazine which led to the same in "B" magazine. Partial flooding of the magazines quenched the explosions. No Royal Navy ship received any serious damage, though the flagship was frequently straddled, and one of her masts was smashed by an 11-inch (280 mm) shell. At 18:00 Scharnhorst's main battery went silent; at 18:20 another round from Duke of York destroyed a boiler room, reducing Scharnhorst's speed to about 22 knots (41 km/h) and leaving her open to attacks from the destroyers. Duke of York fired her 77th salvo at 19:28.

Battered and crippled as she was, her secondary armament was still firing wildly as the cruiser HMS Jamaica and the destroyers Musketeer, Matchless, Opportune, and Virago closed and launched torpedoes at 19:32. The last three torpedoes, fired by Jamaica at 19:37 from under two miles (3 km) range, were the final crippling blows.

A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.

Warspite1

I thought we weren`t looking up the answers??

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 938
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/16/2009 10:54:07 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439



A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.



Say what you want about the German Navy, but they sure could build them! Darn shame they never deployed the Graf Zeppelin.

Warspite1

Why is that a shame exactly?

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 939
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/17/2009 2:17:34 PM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I thought we weren`t looking up the answers??



I am sorry, I did not really read through what JGN posted, if he looked up then that is cheating I agree

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 940
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/19/2009 3:50:14 AM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439



A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.



Say what you want about the German Navy, but they sure could build them! Darn shame they never deployed the Graf Zeppelin.

Warspite1

Why is that a shame exactly?



The Navy (or I guess I should, more specificly say, Submariners) refer to carriers as "bomb magnets" or, alternitively as "targets."
The Germans have always built their ships with a great deal more compartmentalization and survivability than other navies, esp. your namesakes (no offense meant.) There are many examples of this, most particularly shown in the destruction by internal explosion of the three British battlecruisers at Jutland versus what it took to sink the battlecruiser Lutzow (at least 24 heavy-calibre shell hits -- which still weren't enough to sink her. She had to be scutlled after her bow-down list brought her props and rudders out of the water.) Interestingly, Lutzow was the only modern capital ship lost by the Germans during WWI. Then there is Audacious, Irresistable and King Edward VII (each sunk by a single mine,) and of course we all know what happened to Hood. (I could go on and on.)
This was due to a philisophical difference in the goal of ship design dating back to Fischer and Tripitz. Fischer believed in speed and striking power, while Tripitz decreed that the most important quality of a warship was its ability to float. This design philosiphy continued into WWII.
I was just thinking that it would have been interesting to see what would have happened to a GERMAN bomb magnet.


_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 941
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/19/2009 4:12:33 AM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Correct, but what was the name of the vessel??


Didn't see that Micheljq (or anyone else) had answered the second part of this question, so if not Gunther Prien's uboat was the U-47 (I think!)

And, just to keep things going, can anyone identify this? And what on earth is in that turret?





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Michael the Pole -- 1/19/2009 4:13:58 AM >


_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 942
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/19/2009 8:17:47 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101

Correct, but what was the name of the vessel??


Didn't see that Micheljq (or anyone else) had answered the second part of this question, so if not Gunther Prien's uboat was the U-47 (I think!)

And, just to keep things going, can anyone identify this? And what on earth is in that turret?




Warspite1

Looks like a monitor, Erebus, Roberts, Abercrombie or Terror? If so, the turret contains a couple of 15-inchers.

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 943
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/19/2009 8:20:13 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: terje439



A total of 55 torpedoes and 2,195 shells had been fired at Scharnhorst.



Say what you want about the German Navy, but they sure could build them! Darn shame they never deployed the Graf Zeppelin.

Warspite1

Why is that a shame exactly?



The Navy (or I guess I should, more specificly say, Submariners) refer to carriers as "bomb magnets" or, alternitively as "targets."
The Germans have always built their ships with a great deal more compartmentalization and survivability than other navies, esp. your namesakes (no offense meant.) There are many examples of this, most particularly shown in the destruction by internal explosion of the three British battlecruisers at Jutland versus what it took to sink the battlecruiser Lutzow (at least 24 heavy-calibre shell hits -- which still weren't enough to sink her. She had to be scutlled after her bow-down list brought her props and rudders out of the water.) Interestingly, Lutzow was the only modern capital ship lost by the Germans during WWI. Then there is Audacious, Irresistable and King Edward VII (each sunk by a single mine,) and of course we all know what happened to Hood. (I could go on and on.)
This was due to a philisophical difference in the goal of ship design dating back to Fischer and Tripitz. Fischer believed in speed and striking power, while Tripitz decreed that the most important quality of a warship was its ability to float. This design philosiphy continued into WWII.
I was just thinking that it would have been interesting to see what would have happened to a GERMAN bomb magnet.

Warspite1

I suspect she would have gone the way of Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Graf Spee et al, all courtesy of Britains senior service.
As for the Lutzow, Warspite was hit 29 times at Jutland during her death ride - which weren`t enough to sink her either.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/19/2009 9:02:45 PM >

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 944
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/19/2009 9:42:56 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
Warspite,
Outstanding, I believe she is the Roberts, and you're right again, they are 15 inchers. Had never seen that picture before -- well done!
quote from Warspite:
"I suspect she would have gone the way of Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Graf Spee et al, all courtesy of Britains senior service.
As for the Lutzow, Warspite was hit 29 times at Jutland during her death ride - which weren`t enough to sink her either."

Do I detect a little irritation? There isn't much question that Graf Zeppelin would have been sunk, the question in my mind was how difficult she would have been to sink.
As to Lutzow let's not try to scam the public by comparing apples to oranges! Lutzow was a battle cruiser and Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth class super-battleship. The British battlecruisers were blowing up like party favors!


< Message edited by Michael the Pole -- 1/19/2009 9:46:21 PM >


_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 945
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/19/2009 10:20:13 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Warspite,
Outstanding, I believe she is the Roberts, and you're right again, they are 15 inchers. Had never seen that picture before -- well done!
quote from Warspite:
"I suspect she would have gone the way of Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Graf Spee et al, all courtesy of Britains senior service.
As for the Lutzow, Warspite was hit 29 times at Jutland during her death ride - which weren`t enough to sink her either."

Do I detect a little irritation? There isn't much question that Graf Zeppelin would have been sunk, the question in my mind was how difficult she would have been to sink.
As to Lutzow let's not try to scam the public by comparing apples to oranges! Lutzow was a battle cruiser and Warspite was a Queen Elizabeth class super-battleship. The British battlecruisers were blowing up like party favors!

Warspite1

Irritation - no, just mock indignation .

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 946
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 11:59:01 AM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
OK Warspite, (or anyone else!) what is this?






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 947
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 12:06:01 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
And here's another one. What was the "battleship with her great aunt's teeth?" Why was she called that?

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 948
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 12:12:52 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

OK Warspite, (or anyone else!) what is this?






Warspite1

Is it the 14-inch gun turret from the King George V-class?

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 949
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 12:15:37 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

And here's another one. What was the "battleship with her great aunt's teeth?" Why was she called that?

Warspite 1

HMS Vanguard - because she supposedly used the guns from the old battlecruisers Courageous and Glorious, although in fact it was their turrets - NOT their guns (which came from a pool of 15-inchers).

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 950
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 12:25:46 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
Great job on the Vangaurd!
But the turret is not British!

< Message edited by Michael the Pole -- 1/21/2009 12:27:28 PM >


_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 951
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 12:35:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Great job on the Vangaurd!
But the turret is not British!

Warspite1

Oh bum!! In which case I will go for the French Richelieu (15-inch) or Dunkerque (12 or 13-inchers)

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 952
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 3:47:48 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Great job on the Vangaurd!
But the turret is not British!

Warspite1

Oh bum!! In which case I will go for the French Richelieu (15-inch) or Dunkerque (12 or 13-inchers)



Beautiful! Richelieu's 15 inchers! I'm going to have to give up trying to stump you -- you're too good!
Only the French could design a ship with 2 quad turrets forward and none aft. This of course is to insure that there would be no confusing interruptions to running away such as firing back!


_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 953
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/21/2009 4:15:13 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

Great job on the Vangaurd!
But the turret is not British!

Warspite1

Oh bum!! In which case I will go for the French Richelieu (15-inch) or Dunkerque (12 or 13-inchers)



Beautiful! Richelieu's 15 inchers! I'm going to have to give up trying to stump you -- you're too good!
Only the French could design a ship with 2 quad turrets forward and none aft. This of course is to insure that there would be no confusing interruptions to running away such as firing back!

Warspite1

After 6-7 months of naval write up research its obviously starting to sink in

Re the French comment, don`t let Patrice see that Our Nelson-class had a similar idea, but of course that had nothing to do with running away from battle - to the RN (in the days when we actually had a Navy) this was an unheard of concept.

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 954
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/22/2009 3:18:10 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
The "all turrets forward" idea was an attempt at weight saving.

The ship's main armor belt has to cover the magazines and engineering spaces, which are vital in insuring that a ship can still move and fight. Other spaces, like berthing, mess decks, and supply storage are not as critical, and can be considered secondary in importance.

One of the things that increased a ship's length is trying to arrange the magazines and engineering spaces below decks. The Japanese Fuso/Ise types, and the British battlecruisers, had issues in trying to accomodate the steam lines from the boiler rooms (which will generally be located underneath the stacks), heading aft to the turbines, and routing them around the magazines. [That itself brings up another issue. Propellent charges need to be maintained in a cool, dry place (high temps make the powder a little unstable), and steam lines routed through (or even around) a magazine complicates the issue.]

So, for example, you could have the magazine for A & B turrets, boiler room, magazine (C turret), boiler room, magazine (X & Y turret), turbine/generator room.

By clustering all the main guns forward, the French Richelieus and British Nelsons were hoping to save waterline length, hence reducing the amount of waterline length that needed to be armored, and thus weight. Weight saving is important in meeting treaty obligations, and potentially reducing the amount of power a ship requires to move and a desired speed, and overall cost in steel and money.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 955
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/22/2009 6:38:52 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline
The Nelson/Rodneys battleships also had a particular type of protection under the belt. Being ballasts full of marine water that would diminish the impact of torpedoes by distributing the force of the impact thourough the hull. Probably at the cost of some speed.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 956
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/22/2009 9:13:49 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline
I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 957
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/22/2009 9:52:22 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.


If I remember correctly, the Finn's had a TOE of thirty Vickers Mark E's (or "6 ton tank" -- perhaps Warspite could enlighten us about the weird English prediliction of naming their weapons systems by how much they, or their shells, weigh!)


_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 958
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/22/2009 10:05:10 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.


If I remember correctly, the Finn's had a TOE of thirty Vickers Mark E's (or "6 ton tank" -- perhaps Warspite could enlighten us about the weird English prediliction of naming their weapons systems by how much they, or their shells, weigh!)

Warspite1

Ugh?

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 959
RE: OT - WWII quiz - 1/22/2009 10:08:01 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grymme

I will post a question and at the same time see if i can get a little research done.

The finnish army during the winter war did have a number of tanks. What manufacturer(s) equipped the finnish army with tanks. And what else is known about the OOB of the finnish armoured unit(s)?

I do know part of the answer to this question, but would like to know more.


If I remember correctly, the Finn's had a TOE of thirty Vickers Mark E's (or "6 ton tank" -- perhaps Warspite could enlighten us about the weird English prediliction of naming their weapons systems by how much they, or their shells, weigh!)


Perhaps if you ship everything overseas to fight, knowing how much it weighs is one of the most important things to know about the weapon?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 960
Page:   <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: OT - WWII quiz Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.875