Surveyor Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Saw this and though the images were good https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/famous-world-war-i-battleship-discovered-at-the-bottom-of-the-atlantic/ar-BBXP2i6?ocid=spartanntp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 Oh yes!! I heard this on the BBC Radio 4 news yesterday. Apparently and I quote - It was sunk by the Brtish Army. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Grundy Posted December 6, 2019 Share Posted December 6, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 (edited) . Maybe who ever wrote the script was a history buff and got confused with this event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Dutch_fleet_at_Den_Helder Just listened again to the broadcast yes, it says 'Sunk one hundred and five years ago by the British Army'. ❌ Edited December 7, 2019 by Tony B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noel7 Posted December 7, 2019 Share Posted December 7, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earlymb Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 Just be happy they don't refer to it as 'a grey German Boaty McBoatface with big scary guns'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johann morris Posted December 8, 2019 Share Posted December 8, 2019 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surveyor Posted December 9, 2019 Author Share Posted December 9, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted December 9, 2019 Share Posted December 9, 2019 The sinking of the Tirpitz is another nonsense talked about by the press and others that should know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 Thanks John! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony B Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 (edited) 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 December 13, 2019 by john1950 correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtskull Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 With all respect, surely you mean Donald Bennett rather than Harold “Mick” Martin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) I did not listen to that little voice of doubt again.Sorry I will remove. Edited December 12, 2019 by john1950 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radiomike7 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surveyor Posted December 12, 2019 Author Share Posted December 12, 2019 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.