Real time Discusion thread

[lordroel]

Dec 1, 2019 9:11:27 GMT stevep said:

lordroel ,

  One typo noticed in the WWII thread today.

During its attacks on Southampton, the Luftwaffe bombs and sinks 235 British paddle steamer Her Majesty. The 250 ton Dutch freighter Friso and 1936 ton Yugoslavian freighter Cetvrti also are damaged in the bombing. The ship are un-manned at the time.

  A 'ton' missing here.

  Also on a technical point while Southampton and Coventry would qualify as moderately sized cities Birmingham is the 2nd largest in England - see Birmingham for more details.

  Steve

As always, thanks for the spotting, will change it.

[stevep]

  lordroel ,

  Not saying its wrong but this bit from the WWII thread sounded a bit odd.

Royal Navy destroyer HMS Havock collides with battleship HMS Valiant in Alexandria Harbour. It requires two months of repairs at Malta.

  Given that there is a major fleet base at Alexandria and Malta is under siege and occasional bombardment so sending a damaged ship there seems like a strange idea?

  Looking at the ship's Wiki entry, see HMS_Havock_in_WWII, it doesn't mention an accident but does actually say that there was "a refit in Malta from 22 December to 20 February 1941" - which does confirm it went to Malta for work so its probably accurate.  That's in paragraph 4 of its WWII career.  Two other times in 1941 the ship was damaged it was repaired in Alex.  Possibly since Malta was the peace-time fleet base ships needed to go there for more serious damage?

  Ironically looking at the Wiki for Valiant there seems to be less detail for it in WWII than for the Havock and nothing about a collision at all.

[lordroel]

Dec 3, 2019 11:45:52 GMT stevep said:

  lordroel ,

  Not saying its wrong but this bit from the WWII thread sounded a bit odd.

Royal Navy destroyer HMS Havock collides with battleship HMS Valiant in Alexandria Harbour. It requires two months of repairs at Malta.

  Given that there is a major fleet base at Alexandria and Malta is under siege and occasional bombardment so sending a damaged ship there seems like a strange idea?

  Looking at the ship's Wiki entry, see HMS_Havock_in_WWII, it doesn't mention an accident but does actually say that there was "a refit in Malta from 22 December to 20 February 1941" - which does confirm it went to Malta for work so its probably accurate.  That's in paragraph 4 of its WWII career.  Two other times in 1941 the ship was damaged it was repaired in Alex.  Possibly since Malta was the peace-time fleet base ships needed to go there for more serious damage?

  Ironically looking at the Wiki for Valiant there seems to be less detail for it in WWII than for the Havock and nothing about a collision at all.

Do you also check Naval history net as i find on HMS Valiant timeline this:

3rd - Battleships VALIANT and BARHAM departed Alexandria for gunnery practices. As the battleships were setting out VALIANT was in collision with one of he escorts, the destroyer HAVOCK. The HAVOCK sustained damage forward. HAVOCK went to Malta for repairs.

[stevep]

Dec 3, 2019 14:57:26 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 3, 2019 11:45:52 GMT stevep said:

  lordroel ,

  Not saying its wrong but this bit from the WWII thread sounded a bit odd.

  Given that there is a major fleet base at Alexandria and Malta is under siege and occasional bombardment so sending a damaged ship there seems like a strange idea?

  Looking at the ship's Wiki entry, see HMS_Havock_in_WWII, it doesn't mention an accident but does actually say that there was "a refit in Malta from 22 December to 20 February 1941" - which does confirm it went to Malta for work so its probably accurate.  That's in paragraph 4 of its WWII career.  Two other times in 1941 the ship was damaged it was repaired in Alex.  Possibly since Malta was the peace-time fleet base ships needed to go there for more serious damage?

  Ironically looking at the Wiki for Valiant there seems to be less detail for it in WWII than for the Havock and nothing about a collision at all.

Do you also check Naval history net as i find on HMS Valiant timeline this:

3rd - Battleships VALIANT and BARHAM departed Alexandria for gunnery practices. As the battleships were setting out VALIANT was in collision with one of he escorts, the destroyer HAVOCK. The HAVOCK sustained damage forward. HAVOCK went to Malta for repairs.

  OK thanks.  I didn't check that so it does sound like the Wiki entry is somewhat inaccurate.  Thanks.

[lordroel]

Dec 4, 2019 19:43:02 GMT stevep said:

Dec 3, 2019 14:57:26 GMT lordroel said:

Do you also check Naval history net as i find on HMS Valiant timeline this:

3rd - Battleships VALIANT and BARHAM departed Alexandria for gunnery practices. As the battleships were setting out VALIANT was in collision with one of he escorts, the destroyer HAVOCK. The HAVOCK sustained damage forward. HAVOCK went to Malta for repairs.

  OK thanks.  I didn't check that so it does sound like the Wiki entry is somewhat inaccurate.  Thanks.

Well i use that side for everything related to the Royal Navy and its movement in World War II, it better than Wikipedia regarding that matter.

[lordroel]

As we get closer and closer to the Battle of the Falklands, it seems that SMS Scharnhorst has been discovered off Falklands

Photo: A radar image shows the wreckage of the SMS Scharnhorst, sunk by British battlecruisers during the Battle of the Falklands on December 8th 1914

[stevep]

Dec 5, 2019 16:24:42 GMT lordroel said:

As we get closer and closer to the Battle of the Falklands, it seems that SMS Scharnhorst has been discovered off Falklands

Photo: A radar image shows the wreckage of the SMS Scharnhorst, sunk by British battlecruisers during the Battle of the Falklands on December 8th 1914

  Very interesting and looks like the wreak is in good condition for a ship that was pounded so heavily and sunk over a century ago.

[lordroel]

Dec 6, 2019 9:57:19 GMT stevep said:

Dec 5, 2019 16:24:42 GMT lordroel said:

As we get closer and closer to the Battle of the Falklands, it seems that SMS Scharnhorst has been discovered off Falklands

Photo: A radar image shows the wreckage of the SMS Scharnhorst, sunk by British battlecruisers during the Battle of the Falklands on December 8th 1914

  Very interesting and looks like the wreak is in good condition for a ship that was pounded so heavily and sunk over a century ago.

Could this mean Gneisenau, the light cruisers SMS Nürnberg, Dresden and Leipzig are also nearby and might be found in the near future.

[stevep]

Dec 6, 2019 14:05:31 GMT lordroel said:

Dec 6, 2019 9:57:19 GMT stevep said:

  Very interesting and looks like the wreak is in good condition for a ship that was pounded so heavily and sunk over a century ago.

Could this mean Gneisenau, the light cruisers SMS Nürnberg, Dresden and Leipzig are also nearby and might be found in the near future.

  Possibly although might depend on the water depth, water conditions and how badly they were hammered before they went down.  Also something sunk in shallow water might suffer worse, either from more biological impact or possibly even damage from say trawling if in a fishing area say.

  Actually the Dresden escaped, albeit being caught the following year.

[lordroel]

Dec 6, 2019 16:57:59 GMT stevep said:

Dec 6, 2019 14:05:31 GMT lordroel said:

Could this mean Gneisenau, the light cruisers SMS Nürnberg, Dresden and Leipzig are also nearby and might be found in the near future.

  Possibly although might depend on the water depth, water conditions and how badly they were hammered before they went down.  Also something sunk in shallow water might suffer worse, either from more biological impact or possibly even damage from say trawling if in a fishing area say.

  Actually the Dresden escaped, albeit being caught the following year.

A forgot about the Dresden, should have known as she will appear for a while in the upcoming updates, but it will end almost 120 days of German raiding for a while.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  On the WWII site today's entry seems to be a copy of that for the 28th Nov.  It was the death of Helmut Wick that rang a bell and having located his death on the 28th Nov it looks like most/all of today's post is a copy of that?  Remember you saying you set thing up about a week beforehand so wondering if wires have been crossed and you posted it again today?

  Steve

[lordroel]

Dec 7, 2019 10:35:16 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

  On the WWII site today's entry seems to be a copy of that for the 28th Nov.  It was the death of Helmut Wick that rang a bell and having located his death on the 28th Nov it looks like most/all of today's post is a copy of that?  Remember you saying you set thing up about a week beforehand so wondering if wires have been crossed and you posted it again today?

  Steve

Will change it, thanks for the notice.

[stevep]

   lordroel ,

  On the WWI thread there is a small typo.  In the last paragraph you have

For the British, it is a matter of concern that only 5% of their shots, but it is overshadowed by the sheer scale of the victory

  I suspect it should be only 5% hit? 

  Thanks for fixing yesterday's WWII thread.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Dec 8, 2019 11:20:39 GMT stevep said:

   lordroel ,

  On the WWI thread there is a small typo.  In the last paragraph you have

For the British, it is a matter of concern that only 5% of their shots, but it is overshadowed by the sheer scale of the victory

  I suspect it should be only 5% hit? 

  Thanks for fixing yesterday's WWII thread.

  Steve

Will fix it.

[stevep]

lordroel ,

  On the WWI thread you have:

With reinforcements from X and XXI Corps, the Russian 3rd Army assaults the centre of the Austro-Hungarian 4th Army, and succeeds in pushing the enemy lines back several milometres

 

Suspect you mean either miles or kilometers?  Otherwise millimeters would be a very limited advance indeed.

  Steve