Hitler's high seas fleet

German Kriegsmarine 1935-1945.

Moderator: phylo_roadking

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby lwd » Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:41 am

????
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Wed Oct 27, 2010 1:01 am

lwd wrote:????


Your point is? What?
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby lwd » Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:22 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
lwd wrote:????

Your point is? What?

That your post previous to that seemed to be pointless and a waste of bandwidth as many if not most of your posts are.
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:29 am

lwd wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:
lwd wrote:????

Your point is? What?

That your post previous to that seemed to be pointless and a waste of bandwidth as many if not most of your posts are.


You better search for this one:
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... index.html

@ Victories topic...
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby lwd » Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:24 am

and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Wed Oct 27, 2010 12:13 pm

lwd wrote:and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.


'...non-sense...' Look at your spelling again...converstation
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby lwd » Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:08 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:
lwd wrote:and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.

'...non-sense...' Look at your spelling again...converstation

Thanks for the spelling corrections. Now can you answer the question? You did understand it didn't you?
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:03 am

lwd wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:
lwd wrote:and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.

'...non-sense...' Look at your spelling again...converstation


lwd wrote:
Thanks for the spelling corrections. Now can you answer the question? You did understand it didn't you?

Are they conserving bandwidth now? Thanks for our constructive debate here...At least I have learned something from you. So long
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:55 pm

Was the term 'Battle-cruiser' a derogatory remark?
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby lwd » Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:15 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:Was the term 'Battle-cruiser' a derogatory remark?

Not at all. The British origonally used it for capital ships where armor was sacraficed for speed. In WWI the Germans used it for capital ships where armament was sacrificed for speed. In general it came to mean unbalanced designs which has lead to considerable debate as to which ships were battle cruisers vs battleships. On the otherhand if you go by the way the owning navy designated them there is little confusion. Note in particular if you are quoteing references or worse listing projected ships without listing any sources that using non standard names for things can be very confusing. Say I want to try an reconcile 2 list s of ships and one list says 4 battleships, 3 battle cruisers, and 15 cruisers where another list says 4 battleships and 18 cruisers. Are they the same list or not? If you are looking at US construction during WWII they might well be. While I picked an arbitrary number of cruisers in general the battleships could refere to the Iowa class and the discrepency be due to how one classified the Alaska class (the us considered them large cruisers while some sources call them battlecruisers).
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:10 am

lwd wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:Was the term 'Battle-cruiser' a derogatory remark?

Not at all. The British originally used it for capital ships where armor was sacrificed for speed. In WWI the Germans used it for capital ships where armament was sacrificed for speed. In general it came to mean unbalanced designs which has lead to considerable debate as to which ships were battle cruisers vs battleships. On the other hand if you go by the way the owning navy designated them there is little confusion. Note in particular if you are quoting references or worse listing projected ships without listing any sources that using non standard names for things can be very confusing. Say I want to try an reconcile 2 lists of ships and one list says 4 battleships, 3 battle cruisers, and 15 cruisers where another list says 4 battleships and 18 cruisers. Are they the same list or not? If you are looking at US construction during WWII they might well be. While I picked an arbitrary number of cruisers in general the battleships could referee to the Iowa class and the discrepancy be due to how one classified the Alaska class (the US considered them large cruisers while some sources call them battle cruisers).


So, it defends in the Terminology of the experts of each nation during WW II. In short, it defends upon your understanding and conclusion. Correct me, If I am wrong. I edited some of your spelling, in order to make it good-looking in the net.
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby lwd » Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:25 am

nebelwerferXXX wrote:So, it defends in the Terminology of the experts of each nation during WW II.

I would say rather it uses the defintion of the navy of the operating nation. And not just for WWII.
In short, it defends upon your understanding and conclusion. Correct me, If I am wrong. I edited some of your spelling, in order to make it good-looking in the net.

If you are going to be editing and correcting other peoples post you should consider making sure your own are up to your "standards" as well. In light of the above your first sentence is rather amusing and for that matter confusing.
lwd
Enthusiast
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:07 pm

lwd wrote:
nebelwerferXXX wrote:So, it defends in the Terminology of the experts of each nation during WW II.

I would say rather it uses the defintion of the navy of the operating nation. And not just for WWII.
In short, it defends upon your understanding and conclusion. Correct me, If I am wrong. I edited some of your spelling, in order to make it good-looking in the net.

If you are going to be editing and correcting other peoples post you should consider making sure your own are up to your "standards" as well. In light of the above your first sentence is rather amusing and for that matter confusing.


Then, what else?
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:00 pm

Scharnhorst
displacement: 38,277 tonnes (38,900 tons)
cost: 143,000,000 RM

source:
Battleships and Carriers...Steve Crawford
copyright 1999 Amber Books Ltd
nebelwerferXXX
 

Re: Hitler's high seas fleet

Postby nebelwerferXXX » Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:25 am

battleship Bismarck:
---250.5 meters...41,700 tons (standard)...2,200 officers and men
---eight 15-inch guns (4 x 2)
---twelve 5.9-inch guns (6 x 2)
---sixteen 4.1-inch AA guns (8 x 2)
---sixteen 37-mm AA guns (8 x 2)
---thirty-six 20-mm AA guns (4 x 4)(6 x 2)(8 x 1)
---two float planes

battleship Tirpitz:
---250.5 meters...42,800 tons (standard)...2,530 officers and men
---eight 15-inch guns (4 x 2)
---twelve 5.9-inch guns (6 x 2)
---sixteen 4.1-inch AA guns (8 x 2)
---sixteen 37-mm AA guns (8 x 2)
---fifty-eight 20-mm AA guns (4 x 4)(16 x 2)(10 x 1)
---eight 21-inch torpedo tubes (2 x 4)
---eight float planes

source:
Hitler's War Machine
nebelwerferXXX
 

PreviousNext

Return to Kriegsmarine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests