RE: OT - WWII quiz

RE: OT - WWII quiz (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Norman42 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 1:30:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Q2: What German fieldmarshal was shot down 5 times during WW2? Going to guess Rommel? I know he liked to personally fly recon missions in his Fiesler Storch scout plane. He even accidenally landed at a British airfield once and managed to get airborne again when he realised his predicament.

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 1:35:31 AM)
nope

panzers -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 2:46:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Q2: What German fieldmarshal was shot down 5 times during WW2? Going to guess Rommel? I know he liked to personally fly recon missions in his Fiesler Storch scout plane. He even accidenally landed at a British airfield once and managed to get airborne again when he realised his predicament. I'm gonna guess the obvious only because I know for a fact he got shot down more than once. Hermann Goering

panzers -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 3:03:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 quote: ORIGINAL: panzers Here is something that, although I can tell you as fact(I have read many books on WWII, and can't honestly remember which one, It might have been the swiss series on the world warII Encyclopedia series. I'll have to look), I can't remember where, but it is a reliable source for sure. What happened in the basement of the British parliment as the first bombs were hitting London) I am really curious if anyone knows this one. To say what happened was history altering is a major understatement. Hmm I have no idea, but from the way you phrased the question, my guess is gonna be that the British were thinking about offering peace? well, that is a very good guess on your part. Indeed the fields were being abandoned as London started to ablaze, and Churchill was very aware of the situation with his pilots. He was focused on every little detail on every plane and his precious cargo that was assigned to them. It was for the survival of England. Nobody in England at the time knew more about the plight of his Air Force than him. He, therefore sat his men down and had the discussion he thought he would never have to have. He had his whole General staff sitting in the basement of the parliament and began the process of how to deal with the very real possibility to cave in to Hitler's wishes and set up some sort of peace, along with the very real possibility that Hitler would probably have said: you had your chance. They had been at the table discussing their options for several hours when the air raid sirens sounded. Talk about the "Fog Of War!!!!" This is a true story and it has not been told to too many people. I am wondering if there is anyone else out there that saw that and could possibly remember the reference from which I originally got it from. I am going to have to go back to my Swiss account of the war to see if that is where I got it. I am fairly certain that is where I got it from. It is a fantastic series about the war from a neutral point of view. I would highly recommend it to anyone. It's called: Illustrated world war II encyclopedia. It is the only series of books ever written by a neutral country that I am aware of. You can imagine the things that are in there that you may never have known given the role they played on both sides.

warspite1 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 8:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Carlsberg made their strong lager Special Brew - in honour of which WWII hero? Warspite1 Looks like this one has stumped everone [:)] The answer is: Winston S Churchill [&o]

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 3:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: panzers quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Q2: What German fieldmarshal was shot down 5 times during WW2? Going to guess Rommel? I know he liked to personally fly recon missions in his Fiesler Storch scout plane. He even accidenally landed at a British airfield once and managed to get airborne again when he realised his predicament. I'm gonna guess the obvious only because I know for a fact he got shot down more than once. Hermann Goering Nope, and was he shot down during WW2? Did not know that, but atleast you are in the right branch of the armed forces [;)]

michaelbaldur -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 3:23:56 PM)
kesselring ....

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 3:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur kesselring .... Aye

panzers -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 3:26:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 quote: ORIGINAL: panzers quote: ORIGINAL: Norman42 quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Q2: What German fieldmarshal was shot down 5 times during WW2? Going to guess Rommel? I know he liked to personally fly recon missions in his Fiesler Storch scout plane. He even accidenally landed at a British airfield once and managed to get airborne again when he realised his predicament. Oops! misread the question. I thought the question was:which German Fieldmarshall was shot down 5 times, not 5 times in WW2. Of course that wouldn't be Goering, but he did about that many times in the first world war, so I was missed the boat on that one. I did hear one that he was shot down in a reconnance mission in WW2, now that you mention it. Totally forgot about that I'm gonna guess the obvious only because I know for a fact he got shot down more than once. Hermann Goering Nope, and was he shot down during WW2? Did not know that, but atleast you are in the right branch of the armed forces [;)]

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 3:30:07 PM)
Q1: What orders did the Wehrmacht have if they were oposed during the remilitarization of the Rheinland? (this one is easier than you think) Q2: The sinking of what ship during WW2 caused the most civilian casualties? Q3: What was the biggest tank that had a prototype built during WW2?

wosung -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 4:17:49 PM)
Q1 To hastily withdraw?! Q2 Would be the Wilhelm Gustloff with some 10.000 refugees from East Prussia torpedoed by Russian sub. Q3 Hmmm. Given Nazi Gigantomania I think it was a German tank. Most gigantic projects were "Maus" and "Ratte". Some 300 to 1000 tons?! Heaviest tank used in battle would be the Jagdtiger, with some sixty tons. Don't know about protypes. Regards

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 4:27:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung Q1 To hastily withdraw?! Q2 Would be the Wilhelm Gustloff with some 10.000 refugees from East Prussia torpedoed by Russian sub. Q3 Hmmm. Given Nazi Gigantomania I think it was a German tank. Most gigantic projects were "Maus" and "Ratte". Some 300 to 1000 tons?! Heaviest tank used in battle would be the Jagdtiger, with some sixty tons. Don't know about protypes. Regards Right on everything. Well except for calling the Jagdtiger a tank. No revolving turret=no tank. Maus had 2 prototypes completed with 7 more under way, weighed 188 tons, mounted a 128mm main gun and a 75mm secondary gun.

wosung -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 5:25:31 PM)
You're right about the definition of a tank. I see it the same way. But no rule without exception: What about the M18 Hellcat? It was classified as a TD due to its weak protection. But it had a 360 degr. turnable turret. Questions: Q1: When and where cluster ammo arguably was used for the first time? Q2: To which service did the schwere Sturmgeschütze (heavy assult guns) of the Wehrmacht belong to? Q3: How many persons and who served as general in both wars? (of all participating nations) Q4: How did British and Japanese ship constructeurs go around the tonnage limitations for battle ships in the Washington Treaty? Q5 How much personel did the Luftwaffe need in 1943 on average to keep one fighter plane up? (on average means, day and night fighters are both included. Just guess it) Q6 What was Operation Wilfred? Regards

Orm -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 5:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Right on everything. Well except for calling the Jagdtiger a tank. No revolving turret=no tank. When became revolving turret the definition of a tank? Was revolving turret the definition of a tank during WWII? With that definition the worlds first tank was not a tank. Picture of a British Mark I tank near Thiepval, 25 September 1916. [image]local://upfiles/29130/A9BEDA61424B42EEBAFFB2A6B11319CB.jpg[/image] Photograph by Lt. Ernest Brooks. Imperial War Museum catalogue number Q 2486. And at last. Not all has that definition today. From: Compact Oxford English Dictionary tank • a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous metal track. -Orm

warspite1 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 5:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung You're right about the definition of a tank. I see it the same way. But no rule without exception: What about the M18 Hellcat? It was classified as a TD due to its weak protection. But it had a 360 degr. turnable turret. Questions: Q1: When and where cluster ammo arguably was used for the first time? Q2: To which service did the schwere Sturmgeschütze (heavy assult guns) of the Wehrmacht belong to? Q3: How many persons and who served as general in both wars? (of all participating nations) Q4: How did British and Japanese ship constructeurs go around the tonnage limitations for battle ships in the Washington Treaty? Q5 How much personel did the Luftwaffe need in 1943 on average to keep one fighter plane up? (on average means, day and night fighters are both included. Just guess it) Q6 What was Operation Wilfred? Regards Warspite1 Q.4 I`ll be interested to hear the answer to this. By and large the British did not go around the limitations - I`m intrigued...When you say go around - do you mean how did they get the best solution for the allowed tonnage? Sorry Wosung can you be a bit more specifc?

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 5:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung You're right about the definition of a tank. I see it the same way. But no rule without exception: What about the M18 Hellcat? It was classified as a TD due to its weak protection. But it had a 360 degr. turnable turret. Q6 What was Operation Wilfred? Regards Yea, I agree the M18 could have been classified as a tank. Q6 - the mining of Norwegian waters to prevent German shipping (espesially of Swedish iron ore) through our neutral waters.

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 5:52:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Right on everything. Well except for calling the Jagdtiger a tank. No revolving turret=no tank. When became revolving turret the definition of a tank? Was revolving turret the definition of a tank during WWII? And at last. Not all has that definition today. From: Compact Oxford English Dictionary tank • a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous metal track. -Orm It was used during WWII to make a difference between Tanks and Tank Destroyers. And imo that definition you have there is too vague; -is this a tank? [image]local://upfiles/11504/FE9FDFBC668E4F43909B4A197E23F929.jpg[/image]

wosung -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 5:56:07 PM)
Q4 Well, it’s about treaties. It’s a lawyers question, so to speak, at least concerning some British BB designs after the Treaty signment in Feb. 1922. They fullfilled the words but not the spirit of the treaty. In short, we are searching for constructer’s short cuts. Q6 Yup, thats right. Am just reading Roskills War at Sea, part 1. Sorry, if some of those questions are no simple yes/no questions. Regards

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung Q4: How did British and Japanese ship constructeurs go around the tonnage limitations for battle ships in the Washington Treaty? Regards I believe I've read somewere that British capital ships built during this time was built in such a way that armour could be added later? And Japan, well they withdrew from the treaty [:D][:D]

Plainian -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:08:17 PM)
Q2: To which service did the schwere Sturmgeschütze (heavy assult guns) of the Wehrmacht belong to? A2: Artillery. Guderian mentions this topic in his book Panzer Leader if I remember right? He wanted to take them under his wing as Inspector General of Panzer troops but Hitler? forbid this as how else would the artillery be able to earn medals for destroying tanks.....or something along these lines.

warspite1 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:14:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung Q4 Well, it’s about treaties. It’s a lawyers question, so to speak, at least concerning some British BB designs after the Treaty signment in Feb. 1922. They fullfilled the words but not the spirit of the treaty. In short, we are searching for constructer’s short cuts. Q6 Yup, thats right. Am just reading Roskills War at Sea, part 1. Sorry, if some of those questions are no simple yes/no questions. Regards Warspite1 I`m stumped. [&:] The Japanese simply cheated and ultmately failed to ratify the last treaty before WWII. The British only built two classes. The Nelsons, which I believe were treaty compliant although suffered from reduced range and speed in order to make the weight but keep the 16-inch allowed. The KGV`s were built with 14-inch guns but designed to withstand higher calibre (thinking correctly that other nations may not ratify). Aside from that, the British belatedly did what Japan and America were doing and modernised some of the existing capital ships - although lack of money and resources meant only Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown were modernised to any great extent.

wosung -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:15:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 Right on everything. Well except for calling the Jagdtiger a tank. No revolving turret=no tank. When became revolving turret the definition of a tank? Was revolving turret the definition of a tank during WWII? And at last. Not all has that definition today. From: Compact Oxford English Dictionary tank • a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous metal track. -Orm It was used during WWII to make a difference between Tanks and Tank Destroyers. And imo that definition you have there is too vague; -is this a tank? [image]local://upfiles/11504/FE9FDFBC668E4F43909B4A197E23F929.jpg[/image] Those weapon definition aren’t easy because time, national definitions and combat use matters: The amoured personnel carrier (APC) depicted on the photo is post-WW2, when the term “main battle tank” evolved. The Oxford Companion definition is for WW2 and nothing more. One could also argue: APC’s weren’t used as tanks. And even if most APC’s then carried weapons, they weren’t armoured on the top side and thus weren’t tanks. In WW2 most tank destroyers and assault guns just weren’t purposely built, but more or less, emergency solutions to use old/standard tanks with bigger guns than the turret could hold to compete in the armour race. Germans tended to use every tracked vehickle as tank, as a tactical attck vehicle. In the last year of the war, they were lacking fuel, thus every tank virtually became a bunker. When you look closely, same def. problem you have in the navies with cruisers. What was in WW2 a heavy, what a light cruiser? Does definition depend more on tonnage or on main artillery calibre (6 or 8 inch)? Regards

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung When you look closely, same def. problem you have in the navies with cruisers. What was in WW2 a heavy, what a light cruiser? Does definition depend more on tonnage or on main artillery calibre (6 or 8 inch)? Regards I know this one!! The whim of the guy doing the writeup for MWiF! [:'(]

Orm -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:22:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 It was used during WWII to make a difference between Tanks and Tank Destroyers. And imo that definition you have there is too vague; -is this a tank? [image]local://upfiles/11504/FE9FDFBC668E4F43909B4A197E23F929.jpg[/image] No. It is not a tank with this definition since it do not have heavy armor. tank • a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous metal track. I can agree with that it is a vague definition. I wrote those questions because I found the "revolving turret" definition vague myself. -Orm

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:26:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 It was used during WWII to make a difference between Tanks and Tank Destroyers. And imo that definition you have there is too vague; -is this a tank? [image]local://upfiles/11504/FE9FDFBC668E4F43909B4A197E23F929.jpg[/image] No. It is not a tank with this definition since it do not have heavy armor. tank • a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous metal track. I can agree with that it is a vague definition. I wrote those questions because I found the "revolving turret" definition vague myself. -Orm hehe, well depends upon how you read it, and I read the sentence you posted incorectly then; a heavy, armoured fighting vehicle was how I read it [;)] But I've always learned that a revolving turret is required to call it a WWII tank. But as Wosung states, it is hard to classify all weapons of WWII correctly. And this all started with a Jagdpanther being termed a tank, the Jagdpanther is in all my books termed as a TD.

terje439 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wosung Q1: When and where cluster ammo arguably was used for the first time? Q3: How many persons and who served as general in both wars? (of all participating nations) Q4: How did British and Japanese ship constructeurs go around the tonnage limitations for battle ships in the Washington Treaty? Q5 How much personel did the Luftwaffe need in 1943 on average to keep one fighter plane up? (on average means, day and night fighters are both included. Just guess it) Regards These Qs still stand (unless my semi educated guess/poor memory) was correct on #4?

warspite1 -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:31:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 quote: ORIGINAL: wosung When you look closely, same def. problem you have in the navies with cruisers. What was in WW2 a heavy, what a light cruiser? Does definition depend more on tonnage or on main artillery calibre (6 or 8 inch)? Regards I know this one!! The whim of the guy doing the writeup for MWiF! [:'(] Warspite1 The term heavy and light did not really exist at the time of the 1922 Naval Treaty. Essentially "Treaty Cruisers" were set at 10,000 max tonnage (anything over counted against battleship limits) and 8-inch guns (The British had 7.5-inch ships in existence it wanted to keep). Initially anything with 8-inch guns was a Heavy and 6-inch was a light. Overtime the distinction probably got blurred. I see that WIF has the British Neptune class as a heavy cruiser type - although if built they would have been 6-inch gunned. The Town class was well over 10,000 tons but with 6-inch guns and they were officially a light cruiser. As a general rule therefore I think it depends on gun size.

Orm -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:37:58 PM)
I started this since Swedens main battle tank for some 25 years was Strv 103. [image]local://upfiles/29130/D04117A568664024968515C7992572E5.jpg[/image] Sweden classified it as a tank. Internationally it has had different classifications. It was designed primarily for defence and had a rearward placed driver/signalist that could drive it backwards at full speed. Since it did not see combat it is still in question if it was a seccessful design. Long time ago I talked with an officer that had been an observer in a international wargame where a few of these tanks defended. He said that the attacking tank commanders complained on that it was impossible to see them before they opened fire. -Orm

wosung -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:39:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: wosung Q4 Well, it’s about treaties. It’s a lawyers question, so to speak, at least concerning some British BB designs after the Treaty signment in Feb. 1922. They fullfilled the words but not the spirit of the treaty. In short, we are searching for constructer’s short cuts. Q6 Yup, thats right. Am just reading Roskills War at Sea, part 1. Sorry, if some of those questions are no simple yes/no questions. Regards Warspite1 I`m stumped. [&:] The Japanese simply cheated and ultmately failed to ratify the last treaty before WWII. The British only built two classes. The Nelsons, which I believe were treaty compliant although suffered from reduced range and speed in order to make the weight but keep the 16-inch allowed. The KGV`s were built with 14-inch guns but designed to withstand higher calibre (thinking correctly that other nations may not ratify). Aside from that, the British belatedly did what Japan and America were doing and modernised some of the existing capital ships - although lack of money and resources meant only Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown were modernised to any great extent. Q4 Thats right for the Japanese: They didn’t ratify the 1936 following treaty and thus abrogated the Washington Naval treaty system for the year 1940. But their constructeurs began to plan and build the Yamaoto class ships from 1934 onwards. Their quite sophisticated solution for the next six years was: Bamboo-curtains. Start to build them bigger and hide them. If nobody sees the ships nobody can complain and thus no treaty is violated. For the British: Well it’s a question of how to define tonnage. Nelson class (nelson and Rodney) were completed in 1927 as first British treaty BB’s. Their standard displacement was even 1300 tons below treaty obligations. But they also had vertical bulkheads under the water line, which, in war time, could be filled with 2800 tons of water as an additional anti-torpedo armour. But compared with Japanese and German treaty violations this was only a minor short cut. Regards

wosung -> RE: OT - WWII quiz (7/26/2008 6:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Plain Ian Q2: To which service did the schwere Sturmgeschütze (heavy assult guns) of the Wehrmacht belong to? A2: Artillery. Guderian mentions this topic in his book Panzer Leader if I remember right? He wanted to take them under his wing as Inspector General of Panzer troops but Hitler? forbid this as how else would the artillery be able to earn medals for destroying tanks.....or something along these lines. Q2 That's right.When Guderian became Generalinspekteur der Panzertruppe in 1943 he wanted to have all tanks and Sturmgeschütze under his wing. But the artillery arm protested, for their heavy Sturmgeschütze were seen as the only possibility for artillery soldiers to earn the iron cross. So much for “Alle Räder rollen für den Sieg” (all wheels are rolling for victory). As far I remember, the tracked weapon production and belonging was streamlined when the Speer program came in 1944. Regards

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375