User talk:Dapi89

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] The He-111H-20 internal image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DSCF0938.JPG

Hi Dapi89, Since we both are sticklers for accuracy, the turret was removed after it was captured. In Aero Detail #18, it shows this 111 in RAF colors with the turret in place.

It was the first time I saw your accomplishments page, and it is truly impressive. GREAT JOB! S! --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think I should contact the RAF Museum and tell them they got it wrong. You would think they would know the full story, given they have been responsible for it for the last 63 years!
By the way, incase you were wondering how I managed to get a picture of the fuselage interior, I was down that way last year. I simply asked for permission to go over boundry to take a picture of the other side (as you cannot walk around the entire aircraft). I was expecting a instant "no", but the stewards there said yes, and then asked if I would like them to open the bottom barbette to get some interior shots! So I was actually standing on the floor of the museum standing through the hatch and looking inward.
I was also able to take some photographs of the Ju 88R cockpit as well, although the angle made it difficult (as of course I could not do in) and I was only able to get some good ones of the port side of the cockpit. Dapi89 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You are lucky, but I had similar allowances to peep into the Cavanugh's CASA 2.111. I was thinking, maybe during para missions the turret was removed, but it would not be a easy or quick. I just know that this 111 had the turret when captured.
BTW, in the He111 discussion is a note about the crew, and you see the new photo I uploaded? --Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but I think an original He 111 is more exciting no?

Yes. Very nice. I happen to like the earlier variants of the German bombers better, the Ju 88A, Do 17Z and the He 111P models, for some reason. Dapi89 (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Museum next to the Gardermoen airport, then yet. This and the Ju-52 and 2x Ju-88's The public entity that operates the museum is self serving and has weird hours, HOWEVER everything in it is owned by the Norwegian armed forces, so they have arguments over petty things. Go figure. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fw 190

Thanks for the heads up on the Fw 190 article. --Evil.Merlin (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hans-Joachim Marseille

Do you know if Marseille had a brother? I ran across a reference that is by Hans-Rudolf Marseille and called Mein Bruder Hans-Joachim (My brother Hans-Joachim). When I google I find him referenced on video footage together with Edu Neumann.MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am currently not satisfied with the situation that Russel Brown is such a strong advocate of the JG 27 over-claiming theory. I am not at all saying that No. 239 Wing must have lost more than those 5 + 1 aircraft that are documented for 15 September 1942. This single day is often presented in such a way that the reader gets the impression that German pilots over-claimed deliberately. However I am of the opinion that not only No. 239 Wing flew mission on this day but also aircrafts from US 57th Fighter Group. I found the following bit of information here MEDITERRANEAN THEATER OF OPERATIONS [MTO, US Army, Middle East Air Force (USAMEAF)]: A lone B-24 drops 1 bomb on a tanker in Suda Bay, Crete. B-24s bomb behind the enemy lines while P-40s, along with the RAF, fly escort and carry out a scramble missions over the area W of El Alamein, Egypt.

Could it be that 57th Fighter Group lost P-40s in aerial combat with JG 27 that day and the losses are not reflected in the statistics of No. 239 Wing? I had brought this up once before see Talk:Hans-Joachim Marseille/Archive 2#USAAF. Do you happen to know how to verify this idea? MisterBee1966 (talk)

Great! MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Thanks for trying.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have come across some information that Kurowski is working on a revised and new edition of a Hans-Joachim Marseille biography. From what I hear the work is completed and seems to be a merge of Wübbe's documents and precision to facts and Kurowski's more picturesque depiction of Marseille. For some reason the material is with the publisher but being withheld for unknown reasons, at least unknown to me.

By the way, it seems certain that I. (Jagd)/LG 2 was not stationed at Leewarden at the time Marseille was with LG 2. The article makes reference to an account stated in Kurowski's book page 15. "skipping away over the waves, I made a clean break. No one followed me and I returned to Leeuwarden.". Well it sound very nice but it cannot be factual. Especially since it is linked to his first aerial victory. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Hood - reply

(Original question):

Hello.

I have recently run into a problematic edior on the HMS Hood page (and others), over whether or not the Bismarck sank her. Roger Chesenau and virtually all other Naval Historians have accepted this. Even the Prinz Eugen's war diary said that fire was directed away from Hood by 0600. I wonder if you think "the Bismarck sank Hood" is okay on the article page.

On another note, do you happen to know which "HMS" struck the decisive blow against French battleship Bretagne in July 1940, was it Hood?

Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dapi89; it's good to hear from you.
I went into the loss of the Hood in some detail while drafting the "Modern Thoeries of the Sinking" section. I would say that the only absolute certainties about the loss of the Hood are
a) She was destroyed by the explosion of her aft 15-inch magazines, and
b) Prinz Eugen has ceased firing on Hood some minutes before this explosion (as you say, the testimony of Prinz Eugen's War Diary is unequivocal on this point).
These facts create a very strong presumption that Hood was sunk by Bismarck, in the way suggested in Bill Juren's 1987 article; however, this is not yet a certainty, since we do not know for certain (and probably never will) what caused the magazine explosion. Amonst other authors, Ted Briggs has suggested that the ammunition fire on the Hood's upper deck could have penetrated to the magazines, while the late Anthony Preston claimed that the after magazines of Hood were "surrounded by additional 4 in anti-aircraft {ammunition) outside the armoured barbettes ". This sounds fanciful to me, but I have no evidence to disprove it. Also, Jurens does not entirely dismiss the possibility that Hood was blown up by her own guns. All these theories are discussed in the article.
Remember that the Wikipedia project is based on the consensus of responsible editors. I don't think there is a consensus that it is proven that the Hood was sunk by Bismarck, although I agree that the best authorities consider this by far the most probable explanation. To my mind, the statement in the final sentence of the introduction, that the Hood was sunk "at the hands of the German battleship Bismarck" would be better expressed by saying that she was sunk "in combat with the German warships Bismarck and Prinz Eugen." Looking at the edit history, I do not believe that Kurt Leyman is asking for more than this, so I would hope that this is a reading that would command a consensus.
I hope you will excuse me if I say that I am disappointed that an editor of your experience should resort to calling another editor "stupid". I know from my own experience that Kurt is not the easiest person in the world to work with, but he is entirely justified in protesting against this.
With regard to your question about the sinking of Bretagne, I'm afraid I cannot help you at the moment. If I find out, I will let you know.
I hope this is helpful. You may reply here if you wish; I have added this page to my watchlist.
Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I would point out, that the Bismarck article makes it clear that it was Bismarck that sank the Hood and not Prinz Eugen. I have actually sourced quite a lot of the article, and nobody seems to have contested the information. Given that the article is frequently edited by editors with a main interest in Naval matters, I could say this is consensus. Perhaps I could also say the information is sourced by the best Historian on the Hood, therefore I don't need consensus for it's inclusion?

With regard to Kurt:

The trouble with Kurt Leyman does not extend to the four articles (the others being Gneisenau and Scharnhorst), but other articles as well, so I generally regard his "edits", or should I say "deletions", with contempt. The problem with him is that he will never compromise or even discuss matters. To that end, I don't think the word "stupid" is unjustified. Apparently, an editor who you know and I believe has contacted you about this (I won't of course say here), has made it known to me this editor possesses some suspect political views, which when you look at some of things he puts into wikipedia, seems to be accurate. Perhaps this explains why he edits the way he does. Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I note the Bismarck page has just been changed! Dapi89 (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! Thanks for replying so promptly.
I'm sorry to say that I still don't altogether understand your position. If I were to make the change that I suggested in my last post,would you revert it? If so, what reason would you give? I hope that it would be something more substantive than "John Moore 309 is stupid" or "I am suspicious of John Moore 309's political views". I agree that Kurt has an agenda - probably several - and that his net impact on Wikipedia is probably negative, but this does not make him automatically wrong on everything.
I have a fond hope that, one day, some academics with time on their hands and a few quid to spare will build themselves a virtual Hood, clad it in virtual face-hardened armour, fill its magazines with virtual propellant and bombard it with virtual 38-cm APC from various angles to see what happens. If they succeed in getting a 38-cm shell into Hood's 4-inch magazines, inducing it to detonate, producing a cordite fire which engulfs the engine room and vents through the main-deck ventilators, and also breaks through the aft magazine bulkhead to actuate the 15-inch magazine, then I think that we could close the debate. In the meantime, however, I think that Wikipedia editors to acknowledge the existence of a genuine debate with more than one credible proposition to consider.
I hope we can work something out over this. Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be clearer. Those were not the reasons I would use to revert you. Given the nature of past edits and troubles it does make me suspicious of that particular editor. Given that I have not come across you before, I think it would be impossible, and odd, for me to revert your edits on that basis, the editor in question is the exception to most, if not all, rules. But it should not be forgotten that they were not the only reasons as we have already established. Besides, I had not come to those personal "political" conclusions until prompted by anothers comment, after the event.

But let us stick with the most important aspect of this. I will not go all the way through it for the moment, as I think it would be too much, so let us go through it step by step.

Problem No.1: Prinz Eugen. It would seem to me that it 100% certain that Prinz Eugen did not destroy Hood directly. Meaning it did not fire a shell at 06:00-06:01, directed at Hood, that led to its sinking. Can we agree on this? Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. The only way that the loss of Hood can be attributed to Prinz Eugen is if the fire on the boat deck, caused by an earlier hit which many authorities attribute to Prnz Eugen, somehow spread to the magazines. John Moore 309 (talk) 12:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. But here is the problem with that. Brinkmann and many other observers on PE do say that fire from PE caused the fire on board Hood. However, a significant amount of time elapsed betwen the PE hit and fire, and the fatal explosion. Bismarck's shells struck inbetween those two events. Yet within seconds of the Bismarck hit, Hood blew up within seconds. All that saw it aboard PE, Bismarck and POW confirm that the explosion occurred almost straight after Bismarck's shells hit.

It seems odd to me that the fire raged for so long, and yet no explosion occurred. Within seconds of Bismarck hitting Hood, it blew up. Dapi89 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the duration of the fire, I am not sure that I see the problem. Since the fire was started on the boat deck, it is natural that it would take some time to penetrate to the magazines. As I am sure you know, the behaviour of burning cordite is exceedingly erratic and treacherous. It is typical for a cordite fire, especially in an enclosed space, to smoulder quietly for several minutes and then suddenly flare up with explosive force. If you have seen the famous images of the loss of HMS Barham in November 1941, you will remember that the ship had been quietly sinking for a considerable time (I don't know exactly how long, but probably 5-10 minutes) after being torpedoed before the 15-inch magazines suddenly esploded. This example of delayed detonation is especially striking since the site of the torpedo hits was obviously under several metres of water at the time of the explosion. Also notable is the case of HMS Lion at Jutland, where the explosion that destroyed Q turret (and would have sunk the ship had the magazines not been flooded) took place 28 minutes after the turret was hit. The upshot of all this is that it is at least possible that a fire was initated in the Hood's 4-inch magazines some time before those magazines exploded, and/or that the boat deck fire took several minutes to penetrate to the magazines.
To my mind the strongest argument against this theory is the difficulty of finding a route by which the fire, howver violent, could have penetrated to the magazines. The second Board of Enquiry reported that "regarding the supply of 4-inch ammunition, (it is) practically certain that all the hatches in the train of supply would definitely be closed. The evidence of the expert witnesses also shows that the results of a fire amongst the 4-inch ready Use ammunition and UP ammunition should not be fatal to the ship". Against this, Ted Briggs reports in Flagship Hood that "Captain Leach and Commander Lawson, of the Prince of Wales, are alleged to have given their views to Captain G.H. Oswald immediately after the battle, when interviewed at Scapa. Both claimed: 'The rocket weapons and the unsafely stowed ammunition were the direct cause of the loss of the ship, probably through the explosion of the ready-use cordite penetrating the flash proofing of X turret.'" This claim may be the origin of Anthony Preston's theory which I referred to above, in which case I would conclude that he (Preston) had misunderstood Leach and Lawson's meaning.
As for the arrival of a salvo from Bismarck atriking a few seconds before the explosion: it would certainly be a coincidence if this impact had no effect on the Hood's loss. Bismarck was discharging 8-gun salvoes at intervals of about a minute, so such a coincidence would be improbable but by no means incredible.
Personally, I think that Ted Briggs' attacks on the findings of the second Board, though earnest and well-informed, are misguided. I have read the transcripts of the enquiry myself, and concluded that the Board was diligent, well-advised by its expert witnesses and came to the conclusions most consistent with the evidence. However, at the risk of repeating myself, this does not prove that they were right - or, indeed, that I am. Regards, John Moore 309 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Barnham, it seems almost certain that her magazine rooms were ruptured and exposed to the on board fire for that to happen. The duration of the fire on Hood was, from what I have read, less than two minutes. Would this really be enough time for it to reach, penetrate and explode the 4-inch magazines? Was the Hoods armour that poor? It is also recorded that the Hood crew took shelter and waited for the ammuniton to expend itself to avoid further casulaties. Why would they have done this if it was a serious threat to the ship? Just some questions. Dapi89 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your revision of my quote for equipment of galland's squadron (spitfires etc)

i am going to revert the entry to my original text.

i do not understand your reference to the new york times. i have never used it as a source in this matter and have never quoted it.

here is my original source and citation: i have just revised the line of text referring to "outfit my squadron with spitfires etc etc"

the revision ran like this: 'please equip my squadron with spitfires' bruce (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC) (ich bitte um Ausrustung meines Geschwaders mit Spitfires)

this is the exact translation/dynamic equivalence of the original text as given in 'die Ersten und die Letzen' schneekluth verlag (publishers), 1953, page 97, line 7. this is galland's autobiography, german original text. the word 'rustung' does not mean 'outfit' but means 'equip'. so the translation reads as above: 'please equip my squadron with spitfires'. i am a german speaker and am used to the translation of military texts. bruce (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories

Do you think it makes sense to explain the German point system that was applied to homologize the Awards? I have often come across people that think Germans counted the number of engines, etc. Might be worth to explain this too. What do you think? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)