OT - WWII quiz

[Michael the Pole]

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?

Of course there is not much seeming advantage in knowing that your anti-tank gun is a "6 pounder." Perhaps its not weight, after all. Perhaps thats what it is worth![8|]

[composer99]

Someone not a fan of the British war effort?

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Someone not a fan of the British war effort?

Not at all, not at all. For clarification, please see my posts concerning the French, accordions, the number of Frenchmen required to defend Paris and the (unique) results of their civil war.[:D]

[composer99]

With commentary like that, one would expect you to be English.
 
As one English writer once commented on "diplo-speak", "the strongest term in the diplomat's lexicon is 'unfortunate'. Obviously, this is reserved for dealings with the French". [:)]

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Someone not a fan of the British war effort?

I read my first Len Deighton volume this year. Talk about someone not a fan of the Royal military forces. I look forward to reading some more eventually. It is nice to read stuff based on information that became public decades after the war though.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

ORIGINAL: composer99

Someone not a fan of the British war effort?

I read my first Len Deighton volume this year. Talk about someone not a fan of the Royal military forces. I look forward to reading some more eventually. It is nice to read stuff based on information that became public decades after the war though.

Warspite1

How so? What is his beef?

[brian brian]

I read one of his books that consisted of a number of short pieces on various topics, not a more focused volume like the more well known "Fighter" and some similarly named titles.

iirc, he thought North Africa was a waste of time, the strategic bombing campaign was as well, and that the British Army was terribly slow to adapt to changing tactics and technologies even after the war got rolling. there were more criticisms I can't recall right now; I'll probably re-read the book I read some day. (at my local library, forgot the title)



still intrigued to learn what kind of tanks the Finns might have had. can't recall Crescendo of Doom giving them any. And in that game, it was always hard to get anyone to agree to play the Russians.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: brian brian


still intrigued to learn what kind of tanks the Finns might have had. can't recall Crescendo of Doom giving them any. And in that game, it was always hard to get anyone to agree to play the Russians.

I thought that I answered that one. Was I (gasp) incorrect?

[Grymme]

Here is the very sparse information i havw...
 
"they didnt have any tanks to speak of'(144) and in the entire Karelic front there were only 67 of the excellent Bofors antitank gun. (Edwards, Roberts, the Finnish Winter War, y 2008)

'(144) The fleet of finnish tanks consisted of 20 year old renault models topped of with a couple of Carden-Vickers, of which the latter were mostly unarmed for because of cost.
 
From another book i got the information that the finns had an independent cavalry brigade and that the armoured elements were a part of this. Do you know anything about that? Where did you get your information?

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Here is the very sparse information i havw...

"they didnt have any tanks to speak of'(144) and in the entire Karelic front there were only 67 of the excellent Bofors antitank gun. (Edwards, Roberts, the Finnish Winter War, y 2008)

'(144) The fleet of finnish tanks consisted of 20 year old renault models topped of with a couple of Carden-Vickers, of which the latter were mostly unarmed for because of cost.

From another book i got the information that the finns had an independent cavalry brigade and that the armoured elements were a part of this. Do you know anything about that? Where did you get your information?

On the Net, somewhere, but it was quite a while ago. Might have been wikipedia, I tend to graze that site in a sort of orgy of mindless link-chasing. Thank God I cant access it in the bathroom. I'd never get out.
I'll see if I can't find the article again.
I do highly reccomend winterwar.com

[Grymme]

Thanks Michael
 
Found this in the links section. An entire webpage dedicated to finnish armour use in WWII. Main page is mostly pictures. But there is gold in the forum part of the webpage. http://www.andreaslarka.net/
 
Cut from the webpage.
 
"The Vickers 6-ton tanks were late model VAE 6-ton Mk.E Type B tanks, fitted with the hull and turret arrangement (but not the engine) designed for the prototype Belgian VAE 6-ton Mk.F Type B tank. This arrangement is visible in every wartime and post-war photo I have seen of Finnish VAE 6-ton tanks...extended hull fighting compartment, turret offset to the right-rear. This hull form wasn't designed until 1935, though, so the test model purchased in 1933 had to be of the older hull type (short fighting compartment, turret offset to the left, commonly seen on the T-26 which was based on the older design as well).

Some sources state that only 26 of the "new" Vickers tanks were in service during the Winter War. The others, presumably seven in number, were in transit/still being completed.

Some suppositions I have, and would like comments on:

1) 13 tanks were armed for the Winter War, this being one company's worth of tanks. Coincidentally, 14 FT-17 tanks were "out of service" at the start of the Winter War, probably because these were the tanks which had their mantlets removed so the mantlets could be fitted to the 6-ton tanks for training purposes. Is this assumption reasonable? I assume that the same tanks that were outfitted for training would be the easiest to ready for combat as they had been fitted with at least some of the parts left off for cost-savings reasons.

Note that I have seen at least one photo attributed as a Finnish FT-17 captured by the Russians which had it's entire mantlet removed...the attribution seems to indicate this was one of the eight FT-17 captured still on board the train moving them to the front-lines. Therefore it is quite possible that the "out-of-service" FT-17 did see service...I cannot imagine why the Russians would remove the entire mantlet of an ancient FT-17 after capture.

2) Kimmo's post indicates the Vickers tanks were given registration numbers R-646 through R-677 (32 numbers inclusive). www.winterwar.com gives one of the Vickers tanks damaged at the battle of Honkaniemi as R-644; could this possibly be the testing tank purchased in 1933? If one assumes a theoretical (but never accomplished) issuing of the registration numbers R-600 through R-645 to the existing FT-17 tanks and the various prototype tanks purchased and/or considered during the 1930's, this numbering seems reasonable.

As for the T-26 tank, one of my sources (translated from Russian) indicates that the following numbers of T-26 tanks were repaired in 1940-1941 in time for the battle: 10 T-26 M1931, 20 T-26 M1933, 2 T-26 M1937/1939, 2 OT-26 and 4 OT-130. The same source indicates 70 non-flamethrower T-26 were captured during the Winter War - assuming a similar ratio of M1931 (two-turret) to other models, this gives almost exactly the correct number of too-damaged T-26 tanks so as to provide 45mm guns and mantlets for the Vickers tanks.

The same source quotes 102 T-26 tanks in service in 1942. Some appear to have been converted from existing tanks; the source states that six M1931 were converted using turrets from broken T-26 M1933 and BT-5 tanks, while two more were converted with turrets from broken M1937/1939 tanks. Similarly the OT-26, OT-130 and OT-133 tanks were converted. The source states that the OT-26 tanks which had their new turrets mounted to the right were the ones which received bow machine guns, while some OT-130 and OT-133 conversions received the same.

The source also notes that several of these Finnish OT-tank conversions used turrets from BT-5 and BT-7 tanks (which apparently have different pistol port closure types?). Since these conversions were done in 1942-1943, it seems possible that some of these turrets may have come from the hulls used to make the BT-42 SP guns. Any thoughts on this?

Aside from this, if anyone has any suggestions on books to purchase regarding the use of tanks in Finland, I would appreciate a posting of this information. I already have "Wehrmachtin Panssarit Suomessa" and plan to purchase the book Kimmo listed. I have also found information in David Glantz's book on the battles of 1944 in Lapland and the US Army Special Series on the Northern Theatre of Operations. Russian language books I have found info in include the Frontline Illustrations books on the T-26, BT and KV series, Armes Militaria magaine (in French) and the Osprey book on the T-34. I have also dug up some Russian language references on Russian tank forces arrayed against Finland. "

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I read one of his books that consisted of a number of short pieces on various topics, not a more focused volume like the more well known "Fighter" and some similarly named titles.

iirc, he thought North Africa was a waste of time, the strategic bombing campaign was as well, and that the British Army was terribly slow to adapt to changing tactics and technologies even after the war got rolling. there were more criticisms I can't recall right now; I'll probably re-read the book I read some day. (at my local library, forgot the title)



still intrigued to learn what kind of tanks the Finns might have had. can't recall Crescendo of Doom giving them any. And in that game, it was always hard to get anyone to agree to play the Russians.

Sounds like Deighton's book "Blood, Tears and Folly", subtitled "An Objective Look at World War II". Have it on my bookshelf but its been quite awhile since I read it.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: Grymme

Thanks Michael

Found this in the links section. An entire webpage dedicated to finnish armour use in WWII. Main page is mostly pictures. But there is gold in the forum part of the webpage. http://www.andreaslarka.net/

"

very interesting... really amazing what you kind find on the internet. Whatever did we do before it? (Played incredibly long, intricate and pointless board games, interspersed with all night FRP sessions while the frat boys were chasing tail.)

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Sounds like Deighton's book "Blood, Tears and Folly", subtitled "An Objective Look at World War II". Have it on my bookshelf but its been quite awhile since I read it.

Wanted to thank you very much for the info about "Blood, Tears and Folly", I recieved my copy Friday, and it seems excellent and informative. I had never heard of it until you mentioned it even though I have copies of "Fighter" and "Blitzkrieg."

And just a quickie from the first chapter to keep things going ---

Why is anti-aircraft artillery called "flak?"

[cockney]

Flak refers to anti-aircraft gunfire, derived from the German Flugabwehrkanone, for "aircraft defense cannon",

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cockney

Flak refers to anti-aircraft gunfire, derived from the German Flugabwehrkanone, for "aircraft defense cannon",

Absolutely correct![&o]

[JagWars]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


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!)

Not actually unique to the British. The US Civil War guns were called 10lb Parrots, 20lb Parrots, 12lb Howitzers, etc. Of course, they were not consistant, because there was also the 3" Ordinance or 3" Rifled and the Napoleon. Throughout history, there were probably others that used weight rather than size as a way to differentiate their ordinance. All of the Napoleonic war era cannons are usually rerfered to in pouldage, but that is probably because they were writtne by English speakers or translated into English.

Actually, it seems more logical to me to call them by poundage. A 6lb er has a given weight and an impact expectation based upon that weight. But 57mm simply states the diameter of the shell, but gives no idea of its total size or likely impact value.

[terje439]

Was not the weight of the guns used to figure out the relativity between broadsides in the sail-ship era? After all 20x18pounders would usually do more damage than 20x6pounders.
Either I read it in some history book, or it might have been the Hornblower-series, whichever it stated their gun value in ammo-weight per broadside. That actually makes sense to me, more than "well we have the same number of guns, but their guns have a larger diameter of shells..."

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: terje439

Was not the weight of the guns used to figure out the relativity between broadsides in the sail-ship era? After all 20x18pounders would usually do more damage than 20x6pounders.
Either I read it in some history book, or it might have been the Hornblower-series, whichever it stated their gun value in ammo-weight per broadside. That actually makes sense to me, more than "well we have the same number of guns, but their guns have a larger diameter of shells..."

Usually true. It was called broadside weight and was a good indicator of combat strength until the advent of rifled artillery.
Churchill makes a great deal of broadside weight, both in his communications with Admiral Jellicoe when serving as First Lord of the Admiralty, and in his books on WWI. His arguement with Jellicoe concerned the relative strengths of the German and English fleets, and Churchill goes into great detail comparing the relative weights of broadsides of the various ships, esp the 15 inchers that were mounted on the Queen Elizabeth class super dreadnaughts (such as our friend Warspites namesake) versus the shells thrown by the German 12 inchers. However, the comparison was flawed due to other factors such as the higher muzzle velocity of the German guns, the superior penetration of their shells and the superiority of their optics and gunnery.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Orm


There is at least one WWII general who has a minor planet named after him.
(maybe more than one?)

1) What is his name?
2) In what country was the very first monument to him erected?


-Orm

This was a bit tough so I give you some more to go on.

He is one of the most highly decorated in WWII. Among his decorations you find: 2 of the Order of Victory (one of the rarest awards in the world. Only 20 has been awarded - The only American to recive it was Dwight D. Eisenhower). He was four times Hero of the Soviet Union. Commander grade of the American Legion of Merit. Order of the Bath - Knight Grand Cross (Military Division), United Kingdom.

He commanded the winning side in The Battle of Khalkhin Gol.


-Orm