Somewhat OT - Isn't youtube wonderful?

[String]

Take a look what I found.

I had no idea the engagement had been captured on film.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: String

Take a look what I found.

I had no idea the engagement had been captured on film.

Great find!


Leo "Apollo11"

[tocaff]

To bad the US was the only country to go to war with color film.  Thanks for sharing this find with us.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: tocaff

To bad the US was the only country to go to war with color film.  Thanks for sharing this find with us.

Both Germany and Japan did make color films during the war (for propaganda and/or newsreels) but they were very very rare...


Leo "Apollo11"

[tsimmonds]

What a royal screwup, for a fast carrier to be engaged and sunk by battleships.

Course they left out the part where Scharnhorst was seriously damaged during the action by a torpedo from Acasta.[;)]

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were incredibly wet forward.

[grumpyman]

Then there is always this fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AJ2CgvBv80

or this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a32BOVCQGD4

[wdolson]

I now see where the makers of Victory at Sea got their inspiration for the sound track.

Bill

[Gregg]

Yes, the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers were very wet forward, and that was even after they both received their "Atlantic Bows".
I hate to think what they were like with their original cruiser bows.
Still they were very fast ships in their day, well armored, but undergunned.
Gregg

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Gregg

Yes, the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers were very wet forward, and that was even after they both received their "Atlantic Bows".
I hate to think what they were like with their original cruiser bows.
Still they were very fast ships in their day, well armored, but undergunned.

Interestingly enough they (Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) had very very successfull mission in "Operation Berlin" in early 1941!

Unfortunately for Germans (and Lutjens who commanded both "Operation Berlin" and "Operation Rhine Watch") the Bismarck sequel later in 1941 was less fortunate...

BTW, Only God know what would happen if Germans were able to put ALL of their capital ships at once and together on a raid (Bismarck + Gneisenau + Scharnhorst + Hipper + Prinz Eugen + eventually Tirpitz)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Gregg

Yes, the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers were very wet forward, and that was even after they both received their "Atlantic Bows".
I hate to think what they were like with their original cruiser bows.
Still they were very fast ships in their day, well armored, but undergunned.

Interestingly enough they (Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) had very very successfull mission in "Operation Berlin" in early 1941!

Unfortunately for Germans (and Lutjens who commanded both "Operation Berlin" and "Operation Rhine Watch") the Bismarck sequel later in 1941 was less fortunate...

BTW, Only God know what would happen if Germans were able to put ALL of their capital ships at once and together on a raid (Bismarck + Gneisenau + Scharnhorst + Hipper + Prinz Eugen + eventually Tirpitz)!


Leo "Apollo11"

All would have been sunk (ehhmmm scuttled) after the attack of a dozen obsolete biplanes carrying torpedoes... [;)]. Or they just would have retired to their homeports after sinking one or two lonely small AKs coming from the US... [:D] Perhaps one would have been sunk by a German U-boat 200 miles off the French coast...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

ORIGINAL: Gregg

Yes, the Scharnhorst class battlecruisers were very wet forward, and that was even after they both received their "Atlantic Bows".
I hate to think what they were like with their original cruiser bows.
Still they were very fast ships in their day, well armored, but undergunned.

Interestingly enough they (Gneisenau and Scharnhorst) had very very successfull mission in "Operation Berlin" in early 1941!

Unfortunately for Germans (and Lutjens who commanded both "Operation Berlin" and "Operation Rhine Watch") the Bismarck sequel later in 1941 was less fortunate...

BTW, Only God know what would happen if Germans were able to put ALL of their capital ships at once and together on a raid (Bismarck + Gneisenau + Scharnhorst + Hipper + Prinz Eugen + eventually Tirpitz)!

All would have been sunk (ehhmmm scuttled) after the attack of a dozen obsolete biplanes carrying torpedoes... [;)]. Or they just would have retired to their homeports after sinking one or two lonely small AKs coming from the US... [:D] Perhaps one would have been sunk by a German U-boat 200 miles off the French coast...

Hmm... not necesserely... [;)]

Please note that in "Operation Berlin" Gneisenau + Scharnhorst sunk and captured 22 merchant vessels totalling 113.690 gross registered tons - this happened January March 1941!

Operation Berlin




Leo "Apollo11"

[ETF]

For the cost and resources these ships cost the Nazi's must have been disappointed for what they accomplished. Most raiders were overall ineffective. Thank God they didn't make Uboats instead   

[bobogoboom]

Yeah but they tied up a lot of resources that could have been used better elsewhere.

[anarchyintheuk]

Would be interesting to calculate how much in the way of British resources were tied up in neutralizing the Kriegsmarine. Would the KGVs have been built w/o German rearmament? What was the usual composition of the Home Fleet or Force H? Would Force Z have been reinforced if teh assets were available? How many fleet destroyers were diverted from convoys to screening? How much did all of that cost in terms of resources and manpower to build and maintain that deterrence force? This doesn't even take into account the number of aircraft used in patrols and raids; intelligence, surveillance and recon capabilities diverted; resources used in closing the English Channel. How vital was the occupation of Norway to Germany's war effort? Would that invasion have been possible w/o the Kriegsmarine?

Sorry for the stream of bs rambling. Once you get started . . .

[Oliver Heindorf]

bad nazi prpaganda - I hate it

but thanks for sharing it

to be on topic ( this is WAR IN THE PACIFIC GUYS !!!! )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuiH_auO3jA

and yes, youtube is gr8 [:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Would be interesting to calculate how much in the way of British resources were tied up in neutralizing the Kriegsmarine. Would the KGVs have been built w/o German rearmament? What was the usual composition of the Home Fleet or Force H? Would Force Z have been reinforced if teh assets were available? How many fleet destroyers were diverted from convoys to screening? How much did all of that cost in terms of resources and manpower to build and maintain that deterrence force? This doesn't even take into account the number of aircraft used in patrols and raids; intelligence, surveillance and recon capabilities diverted; resources used in closing the English Channel. How vital was the occupation of Norway to Germany's war effort? Would that invasion have been possible w/o the Kriegsmarine?

Sorry for the stream of bs rambling. Once you get started . . .

IMHO the RN spend much much more to counter KM threat!

This also includes war when many capital and escort ships were hed to counter RM and were not available to safeguard convoys and defend against U-Boats (even late late in war lone Tirpitz was considered strong threat)...


Leo "Apollo11"