Jump to content
Surveyor

Wreck of Scharnhorst Found

Recommended Posts

Oh yes!! I heard this on the BBC Radio 4 news yesterday. Apparently and I quote - It was sunk by the Brtish Army. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tony B said:

Oh yes!! I heard this on the BBC Radio 4 news yesterday. Apparently and I quote - It was sunk by the Brtish Army. 🤣

Yes I heard that at 2pm on Thursday, I thought that I had misheard it. These BBC types are paid a lot of money to turn out this tripe to the unsuspecting public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind you, MSN weren't doing that much better - their headline refers to a 'battleship', and their text to a 'battlecruiser'. The latter would be correct for the WW2 version, but the WW1 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were armoured cruisers [the nearest WW2 equivalent being a heavy cruiser]. Definitely no match for Invincible and Inflexible, which really were battlecruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just be happy they don't refer to it as 'a grey German Boaty McBoatface with big scary guns'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, earlymb said:

Just be happy they don't refer to it as 'a grey German Boaty McBoatface with big scary guns'...

That's a much better name!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2019 at 9:19 PM, Tony B said:

Oh yes!! I heard this on the BBC Radio 4 news yesterday. Apparently and I quote - It was sunk by the Brtish Army. 🤣

Wonder what the range of the guns would have to be to reach the ship from dry land, the calculations to hit a moving target at that distance must have been interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even in WW1 what are now called primative computers were used for Gunnery calculations. A case study has been made of the flaws in the one used on HMS HOOD. It was known that her main armalment calculations were wrong and she would overshoot, especially at longer ranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, radiomike7 said:

The sinking of the Tirpitz is another nonsense talked about by the press and others that should know better.

So are you ex RAF, who claim they 'Sunk it' , or ex Andrew who claim it wasn't 'sunk' as bits were still above water? l😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2019 at 9:54 AM, john1950 said:

Even in WW1 what are now called primative computers were used for Gunnery calculations. A case study has been made of the flaws in the one used on HMS HOOD. It was known that her main armalment calculations were wrong and she would overshoot, especially at longer ranges.

Do you have a reference for that, John?  I wouldn't mind a look.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 HI Andy, Sorry I do not have a reference, It was in a book I had years ago there were also photos of the machine that did the calculations in the Hood.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tony B said:

So are you ex RAF, who claim they 'Sunk it' , or ex Andrew who claim it wasn't 'sunk' as bits were still above water? l😀

Neither except that my father in law led all three Bomber Command missions which concluded with the Tirpitz capsizing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there is a vested family intrest! I've read the stories, 617 of course and 9 sqaudron, the forgotten ones. Flying long distance over water is now taken for granted.  Not to mention updated accurate met forcast Then to find a tiny little target and drop unguided ordnace right on it. Those men earnt thier pay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has moved a long way in both time and distance. We are closer to the 2nd world war wreck of Scharnhorst now. Those unforgetable pictures of Tallboys in flight heading towards Turpitz with the main armalment sending shells towards the Lancasters. A lot of the original exploritory navigation work flying in and around the Arctic was done by  Pathfinder Bennett.

Edited by john1950
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect, surely you mean Donald Bennett rather than Harold “Mick” Martin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not listen to that little voice of doubt again.Sorry I will remove.

Edited by john1950

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tony B said:

So there is a vested family intrest! I've read the stories, 617 of course and 9 sqaudron, the forgotten ones. Flying long distance over water is now taken for granted.  Not to mention updated accurate met forcast Then to find a tiny little target and drop unguided ordnace right on it. Those men earnt thier pay!

The Tallboys were spin stabilized and dropped in a straight line but when released from c 2.5 miles high still took a bit of luck to hit the target.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, radiomike7 said:

The Tallboys were spin stabilized and dropped in a straight line but when released from c 2.5 miles high still took a bit of luck to hit the target.    

Reading I think Paul Brickhalls book i seem to recall they designed a bomb site which they reckoned as more accurate than the Americans, a challenge was issued by them but nothing cam of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...