Picture of the day

tumblr_o65udaErHZ1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg

Female Snipers of the 3rd Shock Army, 1st Belorussian Front - 775 confirmed kills in one photograph
 
I was peripherally involved in a similar discussion about the ability of aluminumed hulled warships to handle hits and fires some time ago. Someone brought up that an inquiry was held in Britian to address the apparent tendancy of RN ships not to take damage well. The inquiry found that these concerns were unwarranted. So, is this issue real, or a cover-up?

There are two issues - the ability to take damage and the ability to withstand fire.

The first issue, as it relates to aluminum, is a myth. (And although attributed to the Falklands war, it is entirely misguided.) The Royal Navy's Type 21 frigate HMS Ardent is often put forward as an example of a warship (of aluminum construction) that could take a hit. 9 bomb hits to be exact (two of which failed to explode), and she stayed alive for several hours. The larger Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield, meanwhile, an entirely steel ship, succumbed after a single Exocet missile hit.

The second issue, the ability to withstand fire, holds more water. (No pun intended.) A fire in 1977 aboard the HMS Amazon (sister ship to Ardent earlier mentioned) warped the aluminum ladders aboard ship, complicating firefighting and escape. The collision and fire aboard the US Navy cruiser USS Belknap in 1975, which completely gutted her aluminum superstructure, also brought the issue to the forefront.

Subsequent warship construction began to see a switch toward steel wherever possible/feasible. The Arleigh Burke class Aegis destroyers, for example, are often touted for their heavy use of steel, and ability to take damage, but even these use aluminum in their topside mast structures (to save weight).
 
Pegahmagabow_300.gif


(I am sure this has been posted before -- but it deserves a repeat!)

Francis Pegahmagabow MM & Two Bars (March 9, 1891 – August 5, 1952)

Francis Pegahmagabow was the First Nations soldier most highly decorated for bravery in Canadian military history and the most effective sniper of World War I. Three times awarded the Military Medal and seriously wounded, he was an expert marksman and scout, credited with killing 378 Germans (edit to add: apparently using a Ross rifle) and capturing 300 more. Later in life, he served as chief and a councilor for the Wasauksing First Nation, and as an activist and leader in several First Nations organizations.

Francis Pegahmagabow was born on what is now the Shawanaga First Nation reserve. His father was Michael Pegahmagabow of the Parry Island First Nation and his mother Mary Contin of the Henvey Inlet First Nation, located further up the Georgian Bay’s north shore. An Ojibwa he grew up at the Parry Island (Wasauksing) Band, near Parry Sound, Ontario. He was orphaned at an early age and was raised by the Shawanaga First Nation community. Prior to the war, Pegahmagabow worked as a marine fireman for the Department of Marine and Fisheries on the Great Lakes
 
There are two issues - the ability to take damage and the ability to withstand fire.

The first issue, as it relates to aluminum, is a myth. (And although attributed to the Falklands war, it is entirely misguided.) The Royal Navy's Type 21 frigate HMS Ardent is often put forward as an example of a warship (of aluminum construction) that could take a hit. 9 bomb hits to be exact (two of which failed to explode), and she stayed alive for several hours. The larger Type 42 destroyer HMS Sheffield, meanwhile, an entirely steel ship, succumbed after a single Exocet missile hit.

The second issue, the ability to withstand fire, holds more water. (No pun intended.) A fire in 1977 aboard the HMS Amazon (sister ship to Ardent earlier mentioned) warped the aluminum ladders aboard ship, complicating firefighting and escape. The collision and fire aboard the US Navy cruiser USS Belknap in 1975, which completely gutted her aluminum superstructure, also brought the issue to the forefront.

Subsequent warship construction began to see a switch toward steel wherever possible/feasible. The Arleigh Burke class Aegis destroyers, for example, are often touted for their heavy use of steel, and ability to take damage, but even these use aluminum in their topside mast structures (to save weight).

Interesting--so it'd be safe to say that warships now are mostly steel?
 
Interesting--so it'd be safe to say that warships now are mostly steel?

Yup, steel has definitely made a comeback among warships, except where they are taking measures to save weight, some new-fangled design (like the LCS), or venturing into the realm of "composites" (like the first two Zumwalts). Which, unsurprisingly, have their own pro's and con's.
 
Our tribal class are aluminum are they not?

I don't know the tribal class but it was quite common practice to use aluminum in warship superstructures up to the Falklands war. If I remember correctly 5 British ships were severely damaged due to aluminum fires from what would otherwise have been relatively minor damage. Long time ago now so my memory is a bit hazy.
 
I don't know the tribal class but it was quite common practice to use aluminum in warship superstructures up to the Falklands war. If I remember correctly 5 British ships were severely damaged due to aluminum fires from what would otherwise have been relatively minor damage. Long time ago now so my memory is a bit hazy.

See what I mean by the myth being prevalent.
 
Patton once said " We have fought the wrong enemy". Communism was a bigger concern to him than the NAZIS. History is written in the eyes of the Victor. If you do a little more digging about the truth of WWII, It can really open your mind to a better understanding.

Wow.... someone on this site actually has a clue to the truth of WWII.
 
For nothing? How about to stop the spread of Fascism around the world and the annihilation of the Jewish race from Europe?

Total load of ignorant bulls**t. This is NOT where the EVIDENCE lays.

Never ceases to amaze me how people swallow all the lies without investigating.
 
Total load of ignorant bulls**t. This is NOT where the EVIDENCE lays.

Never ceases to amaze me how people swallow all the lies without investigating.

I'm puzzled with the caps on 'evidence'?
Are you a member of the Jim Keegstra fan club?
An actual question, not trying to provoke a unwinnable interweb p*ssing contest. Just would like a little clarification is all
 
The military insiders have weigh in on this one, a lot of anger. You guys should no better than to state an opinion that is different than the truth. You are all ignorant ass hats.
 
Instead of the usual CGN ranting, flaming and baiting, how about one of you armchair historians illuminating us poor, ignorant souls, giving the official version (short form, please) of the root causes of WWII, other than the severe reparations that Germany was saddled with post WWI.

That coupled with the devastating post-war depression set the stage for a strong man to emerge as national saviour. Hitler restored German pride and sense of honour, reawakening the latent Teutonic militarism of the country.

The fracas was not started as an anti-holocaust Crusade, but in response to the invasion of Poland and the Low Countries after the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland. It became evident that Hitler had to be stopped. Had the war gone on any longer, the "Final Solution" may well have been a fait accompli and European Jewry annihilated, along with a host of other "untermenschen".
 
WWII was WWI continued. Several nations late to the game (Japan, Italy, Germany, and many Balkan nations) wanted colonies and power that had been denied to them either do to time (i.e. being late to the colony game, as there nations didn't exist or weren't involved in international politics) or other nations (examples being things like the breaking apart of like Germany post WWI). The only way to get a empire at that point in time was to take it from another 'modern' nation. Of course just like WWI the Entente (or Allies) didn't want that as they were the nations that stood to lose a empire.

A interesting theory is that Germany never intended to start WWII (a theory we cannot prove or disprove). If you look at the countries they were taking over, they had historically belonged to Germany and until recently had belonged to Germany (or Austria-Hungary). Czechslovakia was divided between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. Poland was divided amongst Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Germany. And Austria was a Germanic state (as in the people not who it originally belonged to).

I am not saying any side didn't commit atrocities (all sides are guilty of some), just the 'take over the whole world because I am pure evil' narrative doesn't hold much water with me.
 
Be what it may, the Germanic leaders sure ' Jumped the shark ' with the concentration camps and their attempt at genocide.
Pretty tough to put a good shine on that.
 
Be what it may, the Germanic leaders sure ' Jumped the shark ' with the concentration camps and their attempt at genocide.
Pretty tough to put a good shine on that.

Definitely, however many countries in the world were guilty of the same or worse. One is demonized, however the others are given a free pass. I treat all empires and nations equally, and as such I recognize that all nations (I challenge someone to find one that isn't) are built on someone elses death and misfortune. Those of you deluded enough to only believe that one nation is guilty of such crimes really need to get a good lesson in history.

Here are some rough numbers and nations/people guilty of genocide (in no way is this complete). Stalin (34 million being a low quote), Mao (60 million), the British Empire (29+million in India, plus how many others killed in North America and elsewhere), Spanish Empire (roughly 8 million in Central America), Ottoman Empire/Turkey (1.5 million Armenians), Yugoslavia and the nations which spawned from it (Bosnia in the 90s and genocide after WWII), Italy (80,000 at the low end), America (Native Americans), France (150,000+), Canada (happening until 1996 within our own borders), etc. etc.

No one is innocent and acknowledging that is the only way anyone can move forward. One of my favourite quotes "There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt".
 
Back
Top Bottom