Thumpalumpacus
Major
Distance, mainly. A WWII army has a much larger logistics train, even if the Heer is still using half-a-million horses.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So, in WWII, when the French cave in a couple months why wouldn't you think that the Soviets could be overcome quickly as well?
Use Russian horses ?Distance, mainly. A WWII army has a much larger logistics train, even if the Heer is still using half-a-million horses.
That is an attractive little ship. I'm having trouble reading her name. A little help?Bunker C is about one grade thinner than asphalt. Slight exaggeration
View attachment 794930
It needs to be heated, usually with steam pipes in order to get it to flow, especially in ships operating in cold water.
What they could do with it post WW II is not what they could do with it in the 1930s. Yes with good fuel heating and good filters you run diesels on it.
But at what cost (space and maintenance) in the 1930s.
In the history of marine engineering they often used commercial ships for testing. Once they got something to work in the lab/shop/test bed they stuck it in one or more small ships to see how well it actually worked in service. Ferries and coastal passenger ships were popular. If they broke they weren't too far from shore and/or were not far from regular maintenance.
German navy historically thought their machinery builders could do better than they actually could or at least they hoped they could.
With the needed power rising at exponential rates successful commercial use was no guarantee of successful high speed military use in early adaptations.
First commercial ship with steam turbine.
View attachment 794931
a little under twice the tonnage of the HMS Viper and 1/3 the power, 1901.
It was used for speed, fuel consumption and other performance evaluations like weight and space of engine rooms compared to other steam plants. It also stayed in service until 1951/52. Within 5 years the Cunard line specified turbines on the Lusitania and Mauretania (took about 5 years to complete).
The Steam turbine worked out rather well, but a high powered triple expansion steam engine had some drawbacks, especially for high speed use.
Pushing the boundaries does not always work so well even though the goal does get reached.
King EdwardThat is an attractive little ship. I'm having trouble reading her name. A little help?
If you plan to have a flex fuel (HFO and Diesel) in your boiler, it is relatively easy.
If you heat diesel under pressure it starts separating into even lighter petroleum products...and as the Japanese found when they tried to burn diesel in unmodified boiler, they explode!
But when D class is being laid down, for all intents and purposes, even when Scharnhorst is laid down there isn't an AGNA. There might never be an AGNA in a better naval strategy and/or the class restrictions might be done much differently e.g. much lower carrier limit (say 25%) for higher light cruiser limit (say 45%).
And I'm still sure, I can replace the triple 28cm turrets with dual-twin 20.3cm ones on the Panzerschiffe to get the reclassified as treaty cruiser if capital ship tonnage becomes a problem.Raeder has spent over a 100 million Reichsmarks, and more/less a year's production on Panzerschiffe D. P!$$ing it away is something Germany can't afford.
Use Russian horses ?
Logistics are above a corporal's paygrade, They should have appointed a Sargent to be supreme leader.
Bunker C is about one grade thinner than asphalt. Slight exaggeration
It needs to be heated, usually with steam pipes in order to get it to flow, especially in ships operating in cold water.
Pushing the boundaries does not always work so well even though the goal does get reached.
Not all crude oil is the same. Some of the oilfields in the DEI produced crude that, while not ideal, could be used in ships' boilers.My understanding is that the problems the IJN encountered were due to using raw crude oil, after the Allies destroyed their refineries. Crude oil contains all the light volatile fractions that are refined to petrol, (LPG even?), so that's an entirely different kettle of fish than using diesel oil.
The Hippers were ordered before the AGNA; technically, they could have been built under Versailles as Panzerschiffe D & E (instead of Kreuzer G & H).Sure, I was thinking of the time when they laid down the Hippers, when the AGNA was in effect.
I understand the motivation for scrapping the D's was that they thought they were too weak against the Dunkerques, and they wished to get started with the Scharnhorsts ASAP. In retrospect, a couple of D's could have been useful in WWII, even if that would have meant the Scharnhorsts and Bismarcks were delayed. But I guess they couldn't foresee that at the time.
The Hippers were ordered before the AGNA; technically, they could have been built under Versailles as Panzerschiffe D & E (instead of Kreuzer G & H).
I still don't understand scrapping "D". If they hadn't started, i.e. Panzerschiffe "E", then there is an argument, but with all the material ordered (guns, boilers, turbines); knowing redesign to Schlachtschiff would set both the 'treaty cruisers' and the battleships back 18-24 months, and that the 28cm guns might not be able to penetrate Dunkerques armour (basically round may penetrate caliber so rumours of 280 mm belt would have required perfect hit; actual armour was 240mm, so 28cm gun turns out to be OK) it seems like dumb decision.
That Z-plan included P classKreuzersPanzerschiffe which were more/less warmed over D class says Raeder still wanted the basic ship. Germany wasn't so wealthy that they could afford the scrapping.
maybe from our position but .... in all 1941the UK was alone (and literally harmless to Germany), and the intelligence (wrong) assessment was that they were in Moscow by winter. (and there we can discuss for a long time how wrongly Halder went head on to Smolensk for example) Bottom line without Germany's dangerous eastern enemy and potential (and later actual) ally, and America neutral and turned to itself - what options are left for the UK but a separate peace?Attacking Russia with the UK still standing was Hitler's stupidest decision. He committed at that point to a two-front war.
maybe from our position but .... in all 1941the UK was alone (and literally harmless to Germany), and the intelligence (wrong) assessment was that they were in Moscow by winter. (and there we can discuss for a long time how wrongly Halder went head on to Smolensk for example) Bottom line without Germany's dangerous eastern enemy and potential (and later actual) ally, and America neutral and turned to itself - what options are left for the UK but a separate peace?
It's convenient to be happy when you win in gambling but you can also lose. And Hitler had a long period of obtained 6 (wins)....
Well, that's more or less what happened.
But....
The Battle of the Atlantic was (mostly) won by the Allies only in late 1942. The Western Allies did not land in Europe until three years after the beginning of Barbarossa. After the defeat of the CCCP (or at least the pacification of the eastern front) they would land... when? It's convenient to say this or that should have been done from the armchair after we know what happened. How long could the Germany-CCCP pact last? Would Stalin have considered it convenient to attack from the rear (some have written books that his preparing that in 1940 but fall of France prevented it) in '41 or '42 or after Germany got into trouble in North Africa/Italy? Or would he only continue to pressure, for example, critical Romania with oil? And let's say one question - why Germany spent more steel 41-42 for the production of Coal liquefaction plants for the production of (mainly) aviation gasoline than on tanks and ammunition for the war with the CCCP ? The answer - that they wrongly estimated that they would remove the CCCP from the equation and come to a stalemate with the Western allies (that is, neither side can invade other). And that is also the answer to the declaration of war on USA (and that there was a fairly accurate assessment that by 1943 the USA would not be able to threaten Germany). Without the focus (and all the army/air force) in the east that would probably be true.
Of course we can say... but there is an atomic bomb, Russia would never surrender, but who knows... and if it wasn't a historical fact, would anyone have predicted the fall of France in 1940, or would they say it's impossible?
Don't think that I would quite agree here ... after the fall of France, and before Barbarossa there was an episode in the Balkans, Greece, Crete, Rommel started Sunflower in Africa ... I would say that Churchill's radio speech showed it best (and even more that part off the record).I'm simply pointing out that the UK wasn't in nearly such dire straits as was painted.
Don't think that I would quite agree here ... after the fall of France, and before Barbarossa there was an episode in the Balkans, Greece, Crete, Rommel started Sunflower in Africa ... I would say that Churchill's radio speech showed it best (and even more that part off the record).
UK islands were no longer under the threat of the invasion in 1941 but they didn't know that for shure.
Except it wasn't until about Aug / Sept 1941 that the British Chiefs of Staff were confident enough that an invasion of Britain would not happen at least that year. As a result they could begin to plan to release forces to be redeployed to the region that then had priority - the Middle East. For example the 18th Div and 2 Hurricane fighter wings (7 squadrons).I think the impossibility of invading the UK was amply demonstrated in 1940.
Except it wasn't until about Aug / Sept 1941 that the British Chiefs of Staff were confident enough that an invasion of Britain would not happen at least that year. As a result they could begin to plan to release forces to be redeployed to the region that then had priority - the Middle East. For example the 18th Div and 2 Hurricane fighter wings (7 squadrons).