OT - WWII quiz

[warspite1]

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]

ORIGINAL: terje439

ORIGINAL: Orm

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?

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]

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]

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?

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]

ORIGINAL: Orm

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?

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: terje439

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]

I started this since Swedens main battle tank for some 25 years was Strv 103.



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]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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]

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

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wosung

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

Warspite1

Good job then given she was hit by a torpedo in the Med on Operation Halberd.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: terje439

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.

That’s right about treaty class cruisers. That’s what I wanted to point at. Cruiser defintions aren’t very easy. Later “heavy” (by tonnage) British US and Jap cruisers tended to have only but more 6 inch guns.

Regards

[composer99]

The 'kickapoo joy juice' question is still outstanding (Steve's non-WWII answer notwithstanding).
 
I will give the answer next week if no one gets it before then.

[cockney]

thought it was a type of soda
and I found this picture.

[NeBert]

Maybe a picture-Q?
Who knows Type and manufacturer of this nice bird?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: NeBert

Maybe a picture-Q?
Who knows Type and manufacturer of this nice bird?

Warspite1

I remember this from an old airfix model when I was a kid - its a Blohm & Voss BV-something or other reconnaisance plane. Can I have 1/2 point please? [;)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: NeBert

Maybe a picture-Q?
Who knows Type and manufacturer of this nice bird?

Blohm und Voss. Bv141 dude.

[panzers]

ORIGINAL: Orm

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.

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

Actually, because of the many tanks in WWII, there ended up being many different classes of tanks. Where the Brits made the first one back in WWI(actually, I thought it was the French), it was the first armored moving machine, so they called it a tank.
As WWII progressed, Germany was always looking to make bigger and better tanks. In the process they stated to make vehicles that were better served to just sit in a bush or something and use it more for sniper like tactics. Thus a new class of tanks were born. So although you can say the jagdtiger or jagdpanther were tanks, yes they were, but they were not meant to be used in the way a regular tiger or panther because of having the ability to shoot on the run with the mobile turrets. The two tanks I just mentioned were used very late in the war and were so heavy that the Germans simply could not waste whatever precious fuel they had left. So they just placed them in a dense forest and just used it as a platform with a nasty gun. It's main purpose was the armor was virtually inpenetrable while having the ability to fire shells that did nothing but disintegrate anything that got in it's way. It was the ultimate defense weapon. So by definition, yes I guess it would be a tank, but in the way they were is in WWII, was it really a tank? When on defence ( like, for instance, the battle of Berlin) it was clearly the most feared weapon in the entire war except for maybe the ME262 jet,also nothing but a defensive fighter, but because of it's immobility, the allies were very quick to surround it and disable it, but not before it was able to destroy anything around for miles away
Added note. I typed this before reading the rest of the posts on this thread. So sorry if I was sounding redundant.

[Ted1066]

ORIGINAL: terje439

Current unanswered questions:

-Neilster: What strange method of guiding American air-launched weapons was suggested by a famous researcher towards the end of the Second World War?

-Warspite1: Which two naval vessels - one Italian, one German were named after the same historical character?

-Tigercub: when was the worlds first computer made and what for?

I'll take a stab at the computer question: I think its the Enigma Machine you're going for, used in Bletchley Park to decrypt the German ciphers.

Cheers,

Ted

[monkla]

ORIGINAL: Ted1066

ORIGINAL: terje439

Current unanswered questions:

-Neilster: What strange method of guiding American air-launched weapons was suggested by a famous researcher towards the end of the Second World War?

-Warspite1: Which two naval vessels - one Italian, one German were named after the same historical character?

-Tigercub: when was the worlds first computer made and what for?

I'll take a stab at the computer question: I think its the Enigma Machine you're going for, used in Bletchley Park to decrypt the German ciphers.

Cheers,

Ted

I don't know when but I seem to recall from somewhere that it may have been designed in the US and was used to help calculate artillery trajectories?????

Leigh