The death of the "eagle". The last victims of the Battle of the Atlantic demand justice

Ship

In June 1917, US President Woodrow Wilson invited tycoon Henry Ford to attend a meeting of the United States Shipping Board (USSB). This was a federal agency created in September 1916 to develop measures to increase the number of ships of the Navy and trading fleet, involved in the war with Germany and Austria-Hungary. This concerned, first of all, measures to build new ships. And so Ford, with his enormous experience in mass production, was proposed to be involved in the construction of ships. Naturally, no one expected battleships from him, but the war revealed the need for new types of ships, small ones, of which a lot was also required.

Ford was asked to build patrol vessels, which were primarily supposed to hunt for submarines. The vessel was to be all-metal, two hundred feet (60 meters) long, and superior in all respects to the 1917-foot-long wooden-hulled submarine hunters developed in 110. In fact, the ship became an intermediate link between destroyers and small hunters. Ford agreed to build such ships and took on the project with his usual enthusiasm. True, he was practically not involved in the development of the vessel itself, being more involved in developing the design of the plant and methods for producing ships. The plant was built in the suburbs of Detroit, on the Rouge River, from where ships on rivers and lakes could enter the Atlantic Ocean.

Assembly of the first ship of the series at the Ford plant, June 1918

The plant was built in 5 months, the first ship was laid down in May 1918, and the first finished hull was launched in July. True, problems began to emerge one after another immediately after the start of production. It turned out that the conveyor so beloved by Ford was not applicable for ships with a hull length of 60 meters. The workers at the Detroit plant who were brought in to build the ships had no experience welding large parts (Ford cars simply didn’t have that), so the US Navy officers who received them repeatedly pointed out to Ford the quality of the welds. At the factory, to speed up production, many workers worked on ladders and with hand tools, which led to the fact that they were simply unable to tighten the bolts with sufficient force. And then the war ended...

The future PE-59, partially deflated from the factory building, April 1919. This eagle body set a record; it was assembled in just 10 days. The ship itself was decommissioned and sold for scrap in 1938

The initial order provided for the construction of 100 ships, almost immediately it was expanded to 112, but already in 1918 it was cut down to 60. In 1918, 7 ships were delivered, the remaining 53 already in 1919. The ships received the name “Eagle” (Eagle-class patrol craft) , they didn’t make it in time for the First World War, and the need to build them later became the subject of discussion in the US Congress.

The military, naturally, did their best to prove the correctness of their decision, that the ships were needed at the moment, and the very idea of ​​​​building such ships by an automaker was a unique experience. True, the operation of the ships showed that the performance characteristics themselves included in the project were too modest even for such tasks and that period; the ships have mediocre seaworthiness, and the quality of their manufacture often leaves much to be desired. This determined the future fate of the ships. Already in 1919, 5 of them were transferred to the US Coast Guard, where they received unflattering reviews and were not used for long.

Two Eagle-class patrol vessels PE-35 and PE-58 in Cuba, Guantanamo, April 1927. There are 3 years left before the mass decommissioning of these ships

In 1930, the fleet immediately decommissioned 19 Orel class patrol vessels. Write-offs continued throughout the 1930s. The remaining ships were saved from being sold for metal by the US entry into World War II. In December 1941, there were 8 “eagles” in service. One ship was used as a training ship. Seven vessels were first used for their intended purpose, for anti-submarine patrol of the Atlantic coast of the United States. But quite quickly, more modern ships entered service or were received from the allies, and other occupations were found for the old men.

Tragedy of PE-56

A group of PE-56 sailors next to the ship’s wheelhouse, 1944-1945, photo from the personal archive of the family of one of the surviving sailors

It was April 1945. The Battle of the Atlantic had already been won, and the war in Europe was clearly coming to an end. On April 23, 1945, the Oryol class patrol ship number PE-56 participated as a target tug in dive bomber exercises aviation US Navy near Cape Elizabeth off the coast of New England. Suddenly, the ship was rocked by a powerful explosion; within minutes it broke into two parts and sank under the water. The destroyer USS Selfridge (DD-30), which arrived at the scene of the tragedy 357 minutes later, lifted only 13 out of 62 crew members from the water.

Second Lieutenant John Scagnelli at the gyrocompass on the Eagle's navigation bridge and at the naval hospital in Portland in May 1945. The only surviving officer from the crew of PE-56 and the only survivor of those on the stern of the ship

A week later, an official investigation into the sinking of the ship began in Portland, where five survivors stated that they saw a German submarine after the attack, with a yellow and red emblem on the wheelhouse. On April 24, having already boarded survivors, USS Selfridge (DD-357) attacked a submarine off Cape Elizabeth. The next day, not far from the site of the death of the Eagle, the frigate USS Muskegon (PF-24) detected the submarine with sonar and attacked it with depth charges, but to no avail. On May 5, 1945, off the coast of New England, less than 200 nautical miles from the site of the sinking of PE-56, a German submarine torpedoed the coal ship Black Point, en route from New York to Boston. A group of one destroyer, a frigate, two patrol vessels, supported by two naval airships, discovered and destroyed the submarine. It turned out to be U-853, on the wheelhouse of which there was an emblem in the form of a red horse against a yellow shield.

A series of photographs taken from the navigation bridge of the frigate USS Moberly (PF-63), depicting one of the attacks on the German submarine U-853, May 5, 1945. The first photo shows that the depth charges fired by the Hedgehog bomb launcher just plunged into the water, the second photo shows the result of their detonation. A group of four ships and two blimps (naval airships of soft construction) that joined them later hunted for a submarine for 16 hours on May 5 and 6, 1945. Several times the boat tried to break away from its pursuers, once it fell to the bottom, but was still overtaken

With all these facts before our eyes, the US Navy commission comes to the conclusion that the cause of death of PE-56 was... a boiler explosion. In addition to all the facts described above, Navy officials had before their eyes an act on a routine inspection and repair of the ship’s boilers, which was carried out several weeks before the tragedy. But the case was closed and put away on a distant shelf.

Front page of the Portland Press Herald news about the tragedy of PE-56. The cause of death of 49 sailors is designated as a “mysterious explosion”

Why did it happen? There are only theories regarding this. One of the most plausible sounds like this: the US Navy, which lost two ships off the Atlantic coast of the United States in one day, with catastrophic losses of personnel, decided to embellish the situation a little. The fact is that the day after the death of PE-56, that is, on April 24, 1945, an escort destroyer taking part in Operation Teardrop was killed by a torpedo from the submarine U-546. Like PE-56 the day before, the escort destroyer USS Frederick C. Davis (DE-136) broke almost in half and quickly sank.

115 crew members were killed. These losses were the last and penultimate losses of the US Navy from the actions of the German armed forces in World War II, while the death of PE-56 was also the largest single loss of US Navy personnel off the coast of New England during the entire war. And all this happened within a day, in its own territorial waters, when it was clear to everyone that Germany was about to capitulate. The situation, to put it mildly, is not very pleasant, showing the US Navy in a not very attractive light. And if the death of an escort destroyer participating in the operation to destroy the “wolf pack” off the Atlantic coast of the United States could hardly be attributed to an accident, then the explosion on an old ship built in 1919 could well be explained by technical problems.

Photo taken on the afternoon of April 24, 1945, at the site of the sinking of the escort destroyer USS Frederick C. Davis (DE-136), after all survivors had been picked up

Justice triumphed.

On a cold March evening in a bar in Brockton, Massachusetts, Paul Lawton was drinking with his friends, brothers Bob and Paul Westerlund. After several beers and shots of Yukon Jack, the brothers told history his father, a sailor who was tragically killed by a boiler explosion on an old US Navy ship at the very end of the war. One of the brothers sadly added that their mother never believed in the official version of her husband’s death, and their father’s surviving colleagues said that immediately after the explosion they saw a submarine going under the water with a red and yellow emblem on the wheelhouse.

Lawton points to the map where PE-56 crashed, late 1990s. This photo accompanied one of the newspaper publications of the late 1990s, telling about the tragedy of April 23, 1945 and Lawton's investigation

Lawton, a lawyer by profession, was an amateur historian obsessed with the history of the Battle of the Atlantic. He became interested in the history of PE-56. Arriving home that evening, he took from the shelf the work of the German historian Jurgen Rover, dedicated to the actions of German submarines in the Battle of the Atlantic, and was surprised to find there a mention of the death of PE-56, and that, perhaps, the ship was sunk by U-853 . That is, the dead and wounded sailors from the Eagle did not receive the Purple Heart medal they deserved for death or injury from enemy actions, and the US Navy hushed up this story for so many years? It was the spring of 1998, more than 50 years had passed since the PE-56 tragedy, but Lawton decided to get to the bottom of the truth.

The first official request to the archives of the US Navy received an answer that all documents relating to the service of PE-56 at the end of the war, the tragedy and the official investigation... were lost. We can't help you, goodbye. Then Lawton turned to the archival records of US Navy ships that were in one way or another connected with the tragedy. And every time he came across confirmation that there was a submarine. Here is a record of a sonar contact, here is a destroyer dropping depth charges, here is an airship transmitting to a small hunter that he noticed the silhouette of a submarine. Infected by their friend's enthusiasm, the Westerlund brothers advertise in several newspapers looking for surviving sailors from PE-56. Several people responded to him, including one of the ship's mechanics, John Breese, who said that in 1945 he swore under oath that the cause of the ship's death could not be a boiler explosion, and is ready to confirm this now.

John Breeze photographed during an interview for the American pay-TV channel Smithsonian Channel, 2010s

Collecting more and more new facts, Lawton constantly wrote to Navy officials and constantly received the same answers - all documents relating to the death of PE-56 and the official investigation were lost, the case could not be reconsidered.

Lawton was already ready to give up; it seemed impossible to break through the blank wall of the naval bureaucracy. Coming home from work one rainy October evening in 1999, Lawton saw a heavy package on the threshold, which clearly contained documents or a book. There were no marks indicating the sender on the package itself, nor was there any note or covering letter attached. Entering the house, Lawton tore open the packaging... In front of him lay an official copy of the report of the commission investigating the death of PE-56, dated May 1945. One of the interim results of the investigation was the conclusion that the explosion was caused by "German mine or torpedo" He never found out who sent him the “lost” naval document, but it didn’t matter anymore; the historian-enthusiast set to work with renewed vigor.

A book written by Lawton based on his investigation. The epigraph is rather pompous, but at the same time accurate in content

Lawton Sr., a former state judge, was involved in breaking through the naval bureaucracy, who asked for help from his friend the senator. There were several press publications initiated by relatives of the surviving and dead sailors who wanted the case reviewed. Lawton was inundated with letters from military historians in the United States and Europe, and eventually gained access to German archives, which contained copies of radio messages from U-853, one of which spoke of a successful torpedo attack off the coast of New England on April 23, 1945.

A memorial plaque that was installed on an observation deck near the Cape Elizabeth lighthouse, a few miles from the site of the sinking of PE-56

Finally, in 2001, naval bureaucrats capitulated. It was recognized that PE-56 was a victim of enemy action, that the commission's initial conclusions were incorrect, and that the dead and wounded sailors were awarded Purple Heart medals. This marked the only time in the history of the US Navy that the results of an official investigation into the sinking of a US Navy vessel were revised. It was never recognized that the fact of the torpedoing of the ship was deliberately hidden, and there was no point in it - few of those involved in the possible deliberate concealment were alive, there was no one to punish. And it didn’t matter to the relatives of the victims and the survivors; justice had triumphed, even if almost 56 years later, they received the awards and honors due to them. And in 2019, probably the last page in the history of PE-56 was turned: on July 24, five miles from the coast, at a depth of 90 meters, the sunken ship itself was found.

The PE-56 navigation bridge, filmed by divers in 2019

Comments

[Rurikovich]

In the history of any country one can find examples of falsification, concealment of the truth about a ship, its death, examples of bureaucracy that confused the investigation or ordinary sloppiness, which only emphasize imperfect human nature. But black becomes white, and white becomes black. And go figure out where the truth is and where the lies are.
That is life
But a plus to the author for telling the story

[DMB 75]

I join in thanking the author, it was very interesting!

[geniy]

In the history of any country you can find examples of falsification, concealment of the truth about any ship, its destruction, examples

The topic is the secrecy by the state authorities of the circumstances of the sinking of ships. We can start with the fact that the Maine exploded among the Americans in the Cuban harbor. The circumstances of the death of the Titan submersible were classified and falsified.
and the Russian submarine Kursk was lost - all the true circumstances are falsified and classified. The Empress Maria exploded - the main circumstances are still classified - the fact is that all the ammunition in the bow turret remained intact, but in fact the magazine of 130 mm guns exploded. The battleship Marat exploded - what is classified is that the shells of the bow turret remained intact and were later recovered by divers. The battleship Novorossiysk exploded - it is classified that at the bottom of the Sevastopol Bay about 500 Soviet and German bottom mines remained unswept. The diesel submarine B-37 exploded in Polyarny. A captured Romanian boat exploded in the Black Sea after the war. And in the Far East the Soviet Pike exploded.
The circumstances of the death of Armenia are classified - from one torpedo it had to sink for a very long time and managed to transfer all 6 thousand people onto boats, and the shore was just a stone's throw away.
The circumstances of the death of the cruiser "Moscow" are completely classified.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

The Empress Maria exploded - the main circumstances are still classified - the fact is that all the ammunition in the bow turret remained intact, but in fact the magazine of 130 mm guns exploded. The battleship Marat exploded - what is classified is that the shells of the bow turret remained intact and were later recovered by divers.

If in the case of "Marat" everything is sealed, then how do you know that shells were raised? :)
On "Maria" the powder magazine of the 1st tower exploded, if anything - read Vinogradov.
On the Marat, both the powder and shell magazines detonated, and divers recovered shells scattered during the explosion (shells detonate very poorly).

[geniy]

If in the case of "Marat" everything is classified, then how do you know that shells were raised? :)

But in one naval magazine, just one phrase accidentally slipped through that divers lifted shells from Marat.

On the Marat, both the powder and shell magazines detonated, and divers recovered shells scattered during the explosion (shells detonate very poorly).

Can you document this? Well, at least in one phrase? And you don’t notice that you are contradicting yourself: first you say that not only the powder magazines, but also the shell magazines detonated, and then you say that the divers picked up shells scattered during the explosion. I agree with you that shells detonate poorly, unlike powder charges. But the point is that if at least one shell detonates, then all the others must detonate. That is: either all the shells detonated or none detonated.
Personally, I assume that only Marat’s gunpowder exploded, and possibly the bow boiler compartment.

[your1970]

Quote: geniy

But the point is that if at least one projectile detonates, then all the others must detonate as well. That is: either all the shells detonated or none detonated.

Categorical NO, absolute...
Artillery depots exploded in Kushka in the 1980s; I served in 1988, and 152 mm shells were lying on the hills not far from the depot (apparently not noticed right away). At the same time, the boxes were damaged by shrapnel and the fire pit, which was located at a distance on the territory of the warehouse, was chopped into pieces.
That is, the detonation of the shells occurred partially, only a small part exploded and this explosion scattered the remaining

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

Can you document this? Well, at least in one phrase?

What exactly do you need to prove?

Quote: geniy

And you don’t notice that you are contradicting yourself: first you say that not only the powder magazines, but also the shell magazines detonated, and then you say that the divers picked up shells scattered during the explosion.

Do not notice. As I already said, the shells will detonate, but at the epicenter of the explosion, the rest will be scattered around the area.

Quote: geniy

Personally, I assume that only Marat’s gunpowder exploded, and possibly the bow boiler compartment.

If only gunpowder had exploded on the Marat, the destruction would have been similar to that of the Maria, but the bow section was completely destroyed.

[geniy]

What exactly do you need to prove?

On the "Marat" ... and the divers picked up shells scattered during the explosion (shells detonate very poorly).

It is necessary to document that the divers lifted shells from Marat. Moreover, I personally don’t need your evidence at all. This is only necessary to clearly show that everything is classified, and there is no information about the lifting of ammunition anywhere and you will not be able to find anything. I have no doubt about it...

[geniy]

Do not notice. As I already said, the shells will detonate, but at the epicenter of the explosion, the rest will be scattered around the area.

I will explain to you once again that the shells of a ground-based warehouse will scatter, which has a large area and sometimes the shells can lie at a considerable distance from each other.
But in the ship's ammunition magazine, the shells lie on top of each other - at a distance of less than half a meter. therefore, the shells could not have been scattered in Marat’s ship’s magazine - they would have detonated absolutely everything. but that did not happen. which means that either only the gunpowder exploded, or in addition the steam boilers of the bow stoker.

[geniy]

If only gunpowder had exploded on the Marat, the destruction would have been similar to that of the Maria, but the bow section was completely destroyed.

You really don’t understand what happened on these battleships. On Maria, neither gunpowder nor main battery shells exploded at all, but only the magazine of 130-mm caliber ammunition exploded.
and on Marat there is also a strange picture of damage. That drawing that you all of course saw is, in fact, a complete falsification of Soviet authorities. I have a photograph of the bow of the Marat - on which the trunks of the bow turret of the main battery are visible - that is, it was not thrown into the water at all, but stood in its place, which means the explosion was not so strong.
and once again that you are contradicting yourself - after all, you confirm that the divers lifted Marat’s main battery shells from the ground.

[NetKeys]

No, the detonation of one shell or several shells at the epicenter does not necessarily mean the detonation of ALL shells in the magazines, compartments, and throughout the ship. At a certain distance, surrounding objects simply scatter around the epicenter. A considerable number of objects are capable of exploding from the inside.

[geniy]

On "Maria" the powder magazine of the 1st tower exploded, if anything - read Vinogradov.

Personally, I don’t trust Vinogradov - I think that he also maintains secrecy. and unfortunately I held his book in my hands for only a few minutes - I only managed to skim a few paragraphs. Perhaps he either deliberately misinformed readers, or Vinogradov was not allowed into the particularly secret sections of the naval archive.
But then I read the collection Citadel No. 6 and it was said that in each cellar there were instruments measuring temperature. So - after Maria rose, they took out two of these devices and one of them showed a temperature of 61 degrees, and the other seemed to be 93 degrees. and to ignite gunpowder, a temperature of about 170 degrees is required. that is, there was no fire of gunpowder from the main caliber guns in Maria’s bow magazines, despite the fact that they were heated by a fire in the adjacent 130 mm magazine for an hour. And then the divers took out the main battery shells lying at the bottom from the bow cellar. So what did Vinogradov write about this?

[your1970]

Quote: geniy

especially secret departments of the naval archive.

Let me humbly remind you that the USSR had absolutely no point in keeping anything secret in the ImpMaria case - moreover, it was FAVORABLE declassify everything - kick again"rotten royal red."
And the Russian Federation makes no sense at all - everyone who could have died, including Elizabeth. Moreover, we all saw that in the 1990s they began to bring to light everything and there were fables
Even if this is the machinations of the Germans or impudent people, this is no longer compromising evidence. And the states have all changed their status.
So I strongly suspect that if it is not declassified, it is solely because it was placed under the table leg so that the table would not shake.
No more....
By the way, most likely it’s a matter of eternal Russian awesomeness - and it’s impossible to even make a micro-sensation....

[geniy]

Let me humbly remind you that the USSR had absolutely no point in keeping anything secret in the ImpMaria case - moreover, it was BENEFITABLE to declassify everything - to once again kick the "rotten royal redhead".

You can’t imagine the degree of secrecy dating back to Tsarist times. I once read on a forum about nuclear weapons an argument between two naval officers about how a salvo of the main battery guns of battleships like Sevastopol was fired - and I found out that both of them knew nothing at all about how the system for preparing for a shot operated. Just a long time ago, ten years ago, I asked a provocative question to the famous here Andrei from Chelyabinsk. I’ll say right away that I consider Andrey an EXCELLENT researcher and expert on the history of the fleet. But you can’t jump over your head unless you’re a genius, and if the researcher doesn’t have the opportunity to penetrate the secret archives, then you won’t unravel anything, but will only retell what everyone knows. And so I innocently asked Andrei a question about how the aiming device for the main battery guns of the ships of the tsarist fleet was tested, but Andrei immediately dived into the mud and hid - because there is nothing to answer - the information is still absolutely secret! And I could give you many more areas of the navy for which there is no information - for example, photography and even filming during the Russo-Japanese War, As well as acceptance testing of shells.
And if you do not agree with me, and think that there are no secrets, then give me data on the number of main battery shells of the ImpMaria bow turret raised from the bottom. Just don’t think, for God’s sake, that I want to learn something from you - this is simply an attempt to prove to you that this is still classified by Vinogovov too. And you should also remember the book by academician of naval science Krylov “My Memoirs”, who was on the commission that investigated the explosion of the Imp Maria, and that book was published in 1945, but Krylov did not mention a single word about the rise of the battleship and its towers, as well as what was found in the raised bow turret of the main battery.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

I once read on a forum about nuclear weapons an argument between two naval officers about how a salvo of main battery guns of battleships like Sevastopol was fired - and I found out that both of them knew nothing at all about how the system for preparing for a shot operated.

Do you know enough to judge that they are wrong?

Quote: geniy

aiming device for main battery guns of ships of the Tsarist Navy

Are you talking about the Geisler system arr. 1910?

Quote: geniy

give me the data on the number of main battery shells of the ImpMaria bow turret raised from the bottom.

But they were not raised. We removed those shells that remained in the cellars...

Quote: geniy

And you should also remember the book by academician of naval science Krylov “My Memoirs”, who was on the commission that investigated the explosion of the Imp Maria, and that book was published in 1945, but Krylov did not mention a single word about the rise of the battleship and its towers, as well as what was found in the raised bow turret of the main battery.

So in his book, Krylov wrote about the investigation of the death, and not about its rise...
And what did they find in the tower? Or is this a terrible secret?

[geniy]

Do you know enough to judge that they are wrong?

Well, first of all, I have my own version of how the still secret fire control system of ships built by the Tsars (starting from the Russian-Turkish War of 1877) actually works.
secondly, if you assume that I have a wrong idea about the structure of this system, then it is very strange that two elderly naval officers are arguing with each other - as if one of them knows nothing at all. in my opinion, their argument resembled an argument among first-graders: what is 2+2 = 1- or 3?
and I forgot that thirdly...
yes, and both of these officers did not mention at all one of the most important devices of this system, which was mentioned by the writer Sobolev in his wonderful book “Major Repairs”

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

Well, first of all, I have my own version of how the still secret fire control system of ships built by the Tsars (starting from the Russian-Turkish War of 1877) actually works.

Well, voice it out... Or is this the worst secret of the Empire?

Quote: geniy

it is very strange that two elderly naval officers argue with each other - as if one of them knows nothing at all. in my opinion, their argument resembled an argument among first-graders: what is 2+2 = 1- or 3?

Where can I read this debate?

Quote: geniy

yes, and both of these officers completely failed to mention one of the most important devices of this system

Which one?

[geniy]

Well, voice it out... Or is this the worst secret of the Empire?

Yes, this is exactly the worst secret of the Empire, and not only the Russian one, but the artillery firing system on ships all over the world is exactly the same: English, German, French, American, Italian, Japanese. but for everyone it is a cruel secret.
officers of the pre-dreadnought Emperor Pavel1 wrote a complete description of this system - but it was immediately classified, and is still kept secret.

[geniy]

it is very strange that two elderly naval officers are arguing

Where can I read this debate?

As far as I remember, this debate ten years ago was on the forum of the Russian-Japanese War - I can’t say more precisely, I don’t remember... I even saved this debate, but I won’t be able to find it in my rubble...

[geniy]

yes, and both of these officers completely failed to mention one of the most important devices of this system

Which one?

This is a system of interconnections.
that is, each sailor, upon completing his action, pressed his pedal and thereby authorized the subsequent action. for example, a sailor sending ammunition from the cellar to the tower pressed the pedal, then the sailor sent the projectile and the charges into the barrel pressed his pedal, and another sailor closed the gun breech and pressed the pedal, then the vertical gunner aimed and while the gun barrel was at a given angle he he kept his pedal pressed, and the horizontal gunner pointed the turret at a given angle and pressed his pedal, and only when all the pedals were pressed did the interconnection system make it possible to supply current to the capsule and fire a shot.
so - absolutely no one who knows the history of the navy knows about this system, and even two elderly naval officers have never mentioned the secret system of interlocking. and as you remember, the 152 mm caliber turrets on the battleship Orel burned out and the Japanese did not bother restoring their interconnection systems, but simply replaced them with single 203 mm guns.

[geniy]

Are you talking about the Geisler system arr. 1910?

Over the years, I have slightly forgotten what exactly was discussed. but the point is that I asked Andrey from Chelyabinsk a provocative question: this important system must have been tested before being put into service. So I asked Andrey what the results of those tests were, and he immediately fell silent. It’s clear that Andrei, in principle, cannot know the test results of a terribly secret system that everyone knows about. The only piquant thing is that he was ashamed to admit his ignorance - although he is a historian of the highest qualifications and the volume of his knowledge is enormous - he knows almost everything, except what is classified.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

a terribly secret system that everyone knows about.

If you know, will you share it with the community or do you think that the Tsarist secret police will get you here too?

[geniy]

If you know, will you share it with the community or do you think that the Tsarist secret police will get you here too?

no, I won't tell you anything. In the future, I am going to work closely in the naval archives, and if I inform everyone that there are absolutely secret departments in which the most terrible secrets are kept, then they will not let me in anywhere.

[geniy]

But they were not raised. We removed those shells that remained in the cellars...

If you know the structure of the artillery towers of battleships, then they are built in addition to the above-deck tower - a well goes down to the cellars. and when the battleship ImpMaria capsized upward with its keel, and then they began to lift it, all four towers fell out and fell to the bottom, and with them the 305 mm shells fell to the bottom. and they were then lifted from the bottom by divers. but they don’t care about the last three turrets, but what happened to the shells of the bow turret. So what did your respected Vinogradov write about them? and what do you think happened to the shells of the bow turret, which WAS HEATED FOR A WHOLE HOUR in the fire of a terrible fire.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

and along with them, 305 mm shells fell to the bottom. and they were then lifted from the bottom by divers.

I repeat, only those shells that remained in the cellars were raised...

Quote: geniy

but what happened to the shells of the bow turret.

And what happened to them?

[geniy]

I repeat, only those shells that remained in the cellars were raised...

that is, what are you saying: are you claiming that all the shells from the bow turret of the Imp Maria remained in the magazines and not a single one of them fell out when the battleship capsized upside down and was raised to the surface? so I will remind you and everyone else that shells from all four towers fell, although maybe not completely. and the divers lifted shells from ALL FOUR TOWERS from the bottom.
*****************************
and on the other hand, you contradict yourself: in the same phrase you claim that those shells that remained in the cellars were raised.
Pay attention, everyone: this means that some of the shells from all four towers fell to the bottom when the battleship was raised, and some of the shells remained in the cellars when the battleship was raised and docked in an upside-down position. that is, you claim that some of the shells of the bow tower remained intact in its magazines when the battleship was already docked, and why then did they not explode, what do you think?

[geniy]

And what did they find in the tower? Or is this a terrible secret?

So you should explain to me what was found there in the bow tower. although I don’t need yours or anyone else’s - I already know this - purely by the power of my thinking.
I remind you of our supposition: you claim that there is no classification, but I claim that everything is classified despite the past hundred-plus years.
From your position, all four main battery turrets are raised and thoroughly inspected, which means that the people should be provided with a detailed description of the bow turret - but there is none!! So I ask you to explain why not? In my opinion, because the bow turret is absolutely intact, and all its shells and even powder charges are intact. But if there had been an explosion of the main battery ammunition magazine underneath it, the bow turret would have been thrown up. but in fact it threw up the conning tower, which stood just above the 130-mm ammunition magazine.
and in the cellar of the bow tower they found two absolutely serviceable thermograph devices - which recorded the temperature in the cellar on a paper tape, and this temperature during the entire fire was very low - less than one hundred degrees and even the paper tape did not burn...

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

So you should explain to me what was found there in the bow tower. although I don’t need yours or anyone else’s - I already know this - purely by the power of my thinking.

So share the fruit of your thoughts: why beat around the bush?

Quote: geniy

I remind you of our supposition: you claim that there is no classification, but I claim that everything is classified despite the past hundred-plus years.

It would be good if you explained your “superposition”: what is the point of classifying information about the explosion on “Maria”.

Quote: geniy

So I ask you to explain why not?

The towers were raised 10 years after the explosion, so it is quite possible to assume that the Krasvoenmors were more interested in the condition of the guns and mechanisms than in the causes of the explosion.

Quote: geniy

But if there had been an explosion of the main battery ammunition magazine underneath it, the bow turret would have been thrown up.

Your reasoning suggests that you are very little familiar with the design of the MK-3-12 artillery turret and its cellars: the main volume of the bow turret cellars is located between the turret barbette and the conning tower.
As for the “flight” of the turret: the turret on the Arizona also did not fly anywhere, despite the explosion of the bow group of magazines.

Quote: geniy

and in the cellar of the bow tower they found two absolutely serviceable thermograph devices - which recorded the temperature in the cellar on a paper tape, and this temperature during the entire fire was very low - less than one hundred degrees and even the paper tape did not burn...

Tell us how the device and the recorder drum in it survived in a zone of complete destruction. after lying in the water for several years?

[geniy]

So share the fruit of your thoughts: why beat around the bush?

I have a huge amount of other work - first of all, I just need to earn money for living. I began to describe the explosion of Empress Maria in detail about 15 years ago and left it unfinished - other things came up. In general, I have a huge number of all these secrets revealed - I don’t know what to grab onto. the effect of shells in the Russo-Japanese War, the heroic death of the battleship Prince Suvorov, the Titan disaster, the explosion of the B-37 submarine, the explosion of Challenger and Columbia, the death of Armenia, the mystery of the disappearance of St. Anna, the secrets of the Battle of Kaliakria, the collision of planet Earth with another planet and theory in general collisions of planets and all cosmic bodies, the general theory of the Cretaceous-Paleogene catastrophe and the death of dinosaurs, the origin of life on earth, and my own version of the origin of humanity, the creation of the BRICS currency, the tactics and strategy of the Northern Military District and many other things...

[geniy]

Your reasoning suggests that you are very little familiar with the design of the MK-3-12 artillery turret and its cellars: the main volume of the bow turret cellars is located between the turret barbette and the conning tower.

Is this something I don’t know well? Yes, I now have in front of my eyes an open book by Eisenberg and Kostrichenko “Dreadnoughts of the Black Sea” with all the drawings and diagrams of the Empress Maria. And not the main volume of the cellars at all, but a small one, and from the barbette to the stern the aft wall of this cellar is only 2 meters away - that is, it is located just under the overhanging rear part of the tower. And if there had been an explosion in this cellar, then the bow tower of the main battery would have been thrown directly into the sea. But on the contrary, it dropped the armored conning tower along with the mast and chimney. exactly where the cellar of 130-mm caliber guns was located.
To prove your point, you cite the example of Arizona.

As for the “flight” of the turret: the turret on the Arizona also did not fly anywhere, despite the explosion of the bow group of magazines.

so the fact of the matter is that I investigated the explosion of Arizona and, according to my version, there was no explosion of the bow magazines of the main battery in Arizona either! according to my version, Arizona's steam boilers exploded, and both bow towers remained standing in their place. And the circumstances of the Arizona explosion are also FALSIFIED and classified! just as Marat’s explosion was falsified and classified - because his bow turret, too, remained standing in its place.

[geniy]

Tell us how the device and the recorder drum in it survived in a zone of complete destruction. after lying in the water for several years?

so why shouldn’t these devices survive? after all, according to my version, there was no explosion at all in the cellars of the bow tower. These are the devices that survived. and the fact that they ended up in salty sea water and inevitably rusted, that is, they completely stopped functioning immediately after the explosion, no one requires them to work after the explosion - the main thing is that both devices completely recorded the temperature on paper tape both before the explosion and after the explosion - when a fire was raging in the neighboring rooms. but the fact that the third thermograph device from the 130 mm ammunition magazine was undoubtedly destroyed - so I did not claim that it remained operational. And if you want to catch me in a lie, they say the thermograph instruments from the bow cellar did not survive - then the sport is not with me but with the military-historical collection Citadel No. 6

[geniy]

It would be good if you explained your “superposition”: what is the point of classifying information about the explosion on “Maria”.

This is your general ignorance as if the classification concerns only the explosion of the "Empress Maria". In fact, total classification began in 1870 - then the prototypes of the latest artillery fire control devices were invented, which were installed on all warships of the world, but all this is still classified. At that time, completely new rules for aiming and controlling artillery fire were introduced. But ordinary laymen, connoisseurs and lovers of naval history know absolutely nothing about this.
In view of the massive introduction of two-gun turrets, the operation of firing the guns was introduced (that is, so that they all fired at almost the same point - but since then, for more than a hundred years, this operation has been strictly classified.
Then, from about the 1880s, experiments were carried out on armor penetration in which Russian officers completely rejected melenite-picric acid and adopted ship shells with wet pyroxylin. But all this is classified. Then, around 1890, flexible photographic films began to be widely used and cameras began to be used on all large ships, and after the invention of cinema in 1896, movie cameras were also used on ships. so during the Russo-Japanese War, during naval battles and battles, thousands of photographs and films were taken (and from both sides - Russian and Japanese), but all this was classified. in the middle of that war, the Japanese changed the design of the fuses of their shells - but all this is still classified.
Every year BEFORE THE RUSSIAN-JAPANESE WAR, new batches of ship shells were manufactured at the factories - but the rules for their acceptance are still strictly classified - what percentage of the shells did not explode - do you know? What was the radius of the fragments? according to my calculations it should be about 1,5 kilometers...Is this true or not? How many fragments did Russian 305-mm shells produce? It's classified. Why did the ships of the first Pacific squadron not have optical sights on half of their guns? And what instruments and methods of artillery shooting then made it possible to shoot accurately from guns without sights? Do not know?
And in 1905, the Tsarevich fired at Sveaborg and most of his shells did not explode, so there should be a report on the results of the shelling, and a report from the commission on the results of testing those shells, but have any history buffs seen these reports? no, because these reports are still strictly classified - this is since 1905! So is it that the Tsarist secret police still do not give permission?
And then the explosion of Empress Maria. If I’m wrong, and there is no secrecy, then ask Vinogradov, Eisenbarg and Kostrichenko - why didn’t they write anything about the shells and cellars of the bow tower after the explosion and rise of the ship? exactly how many shells and powder charges were raised?
and if you all don’t know anything, then I inform you that after each ship receives damage, ship engineers MUST draw up a drawing of the damage. So - I ask a question: has anyone seen a drawing of the destruction of the Empress Maria's ammunition magazines? Of course not! and why? I think everything is classified. Eisenberg and Kostrichenko actually included a picture of external damage in their book, but no one gave any information about internal damage to the cellars. I believe that everything is classified. If you do not agree with this, provide me with this drawing.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

Personally, I don’t trust Vinogradov - I think that he also maintains secrecy.

Quote: geniy

Perhaps he either deliberately misinformed readers,

But why? 100 years have passed...

Quote: geniy

and unfortunately I held his book in my hands for only a few minutes - I only managed to skim a few paragraphs.

That is, I haven’t read it, but I condemn it... :)

Quote: geniy

So - after Maria rose, they took out two of these devices and one of them showed a temperature of 61 degrees, and the other seemed to be 93 degrees.

The bow cellars were completely burnt out; what instruments could have survived there?

Quote: geniy

And then the divers took out the main battery shells lying at the bottom from the bow cellar. So what did Vinogradov write about this?

Tell us how to dig them out of the mud?

[geniy]

Perhaps he either deliberately misinformed readers,
But why? 100 years have passed...

And then, he hides the fact that in addition to archives open to all, apparently there are also strictly classified departments of military archives. And there is no doubt that Vinogradov tried to get there, but he was forbidden - so that he would not declassify the very existence of secret archives. But it’s better for you to ask him personally. But not only him. I think that absolutely all Russian maritime historians (except Andrei from Chelyabinsk) tried to get into these archives, but they were strictly forbidden to even mention it. This is, for example, the already departed Melnikov, and Suliga and all our other historians.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

And then, he hides the fact that in addition to archives open to all, apparently there are also strictly classified departments of military archives.

You still haven’t explained the reason for keeping secret the causes of the disaster that occurred more than 100 years ago.
Your talk about secret archives is nothing more than speculation and an attempt to avoid a direct answer...

[geniy]

Tell us how to dig them out of the mud?

Well, if you don’t remember, there was such an enthusiast - Ernest Cox - who in 1924 began to raise the sunken German fleet and, among others, he used a device for eroding the soil - a water-jet monitor, with the help of which he even lifted battleships with a displacement of 24000 tons, and lifting a projectile weighing 0,5 tons was not difficult.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

and lifting a projectile weighing 0,5 tons was not difficult.

Look for information about the thickness of the silt layer in Sevastopol Bay...

[geniy]

and lifting a projectile weighing 0,5 tons was not difficult.

Look for information about the thickness of the silt layer in Sevastopol Bay...

A special feature of Sevastopol Bay and adjacent harbors is their “double bottom”. Above the rocky bottom there is a layer of silt, which in deep places reaches 13-15 meters, in some places even more. This layer can be compared to hardened clay, which for centuries absorbs what falls to the bottom from above.
So - with increasing depth, this initially soft silt becomes harder and harder, and therefore Maria’s shells could not sink deep into it - in my estimation - a maximum of one or two meters.
Here I open the book “Dreadnoughts of the Black Sea” by Eisenbeg and Kostrichenko, 1998, page 97: “... the ground around the towers was heavily littered with shells, pieces of iron, and fragments of wood.” So Eisenbeg and Kostrichenko are good writers, but after a hundred years they also maintain secrecy. And ask not me, but them - why do they need this? Are they really threatened by the Tsarist secret police or the bloody Soviet KGB? How can I prove this? Yes, because these writers described in great detail the entire process of lifting the Maria Group of Companies from the bottom of the towers, but did not say a single word about the lifting of the shells that were lying next to the towers.
So - if you think that there was no secrecy, then answer me - how many shells of the bow turret were lifted from the bottom? Moreover, keep in mind that during the fire the shells were heated and, in principle, could explode from shocks and impacts during lifting, but the divers ignored this danger. And again I ask you uselessly - where are the descriptions of these operations? I believe that everything has been classified for more than a hundred years. And for what and why - guess for yourself.

[geniy]

The bow cellars were completely burned out, what kind of equipment could have survived there?

That’s exactly what your general delusion is! apparently the cellars of the bow tower not only did not burn out, but everything in them remained absolutely intact, including the thermograph instruments and the paper tape on them. and if you don’t believe me, then read the collection “Citadel”, I think No. 6, 1996.
but the bow magazine of 130 mm ammunition actually burned out and there were many shell explosions.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

That’s exactly what your general delusion is! apparently the cellars of the bow tower not only did not burn out, but everything in them remained absolutely intact, including thermograph instruments and paper tape on them

Don’t you assume that the explosion of the magazines of 130-mm shells would be enough to destroy the hull of a battleship between 20 and 35 structural frames and “launch” the conning tower into space?

[geniy]

Don’t you assume that the explosion of the magazines of 130-mm shells would be enough to destroy the hull of a battleship between 20 and 35 structural frames and “launch” the conning tower into space?

You inattentively looked at the drawing of the core of this dreadnought in the area of ​​20-35 sp. because frame 20 is the very front wall of the bow tower cellar. This means that the thermograph would definitely not have survived the explosion (if you believe your version) and the paper on it would definitely have burned. but the thermograph survived and the paper on it did not burn. and if the building in this area had been destroyed, then the central pins of the tower would also have been distorted. But in this case, when Maria was turned upside down by the keel, the bow turret with the distorted central pin would definitely catch on the hull, and when the battleship rose, all three other turrets would remain at the bottom, and the bow turret, caught by the mangled pin on the hull, would definitely float up with it. which means that neither the hull nor the pin were destroyed in the area of ​​35-20 frames and your version is erroneous.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

and the bow turret, caught by a mangled pin on the hull

You, as I understand it, do not fully understand what a pin of a rotating tower structure is.
A pin in a circle... :)

As for damage to the bow, Vinogradov gives the following diagram.
If you can: refute...

[geniy]

well, I made a slight reservation: not the central pin, but the central supply pipe. and therefore my question remains - if this supply pipe was deformed, the bow tower would not be able to fall to the bottom and would remain in the hull of the battleship.
Secondly, you, like the comrade who followed you, completely ignored and were unable to explain the fact of the presence of two devices recording the temperature in the cellars, and especially the safety of their paper tape, which could not have happened in the event of a gunpowder fire in the main caliber cellars.
thirdly: as I already said - these historians often falsify drawings of damage - so the drawing of the damage to the bow of Kursk is completely falsified, and the drawing of the destruction of Marat, whose bow tower remained standing in its place. in the same way, Vinogradov completely falsified the drawing of the destruction of Imp Maria.
Further: you chose not to notice the contradiction: it means that the bow tower of Empress Maria remained standing in its place even after the explosion of the cellars. But Marat’s bow turret was allegedly thrown upward from exactly the same cry from the cellar. So who is lying - take the trouble to explain!
Well, if you continue to try to explain something that didn’t happen, then I’ll give you more counterarguments that you don’t suspect.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

well, I made a slight reservation: not the central pin, but the central supply pipe. and therefore my question remains - if this supply pipe was deformed, the bow tower would not be able to fall to the bottom and would remain in the hull of the battleship.

The supply pipe has a conical shape with a large diameter at the top, the tower in the ship's hull is fixed only by its own weight, so even the deformation of the supply pipe will not hold the tower in place when the ship turns over...

Quote: geniy

Secondly, you, like the comrade who followed you, completely ignored and were unable to explain the fact of the presence of two devices recording the temperature in the cellars, and especially the safety of their paper tape, which could not have happened in the event of a gunpowder fire in the main caliber cellars.

I could not find the source you indicated, so for now I am forced to consider all your arguments not entirely reliable...

Quote: geniy

thirdly: as I already said - these historians often falsify drawings of damage - so the drawing of the damage to the bow of Kursk is completely falsified, and the drawing of the destruction of Marat, whose bow tower remained standing in its place. in the same way, Vinogradov completely falsified the drawing of the destruction of Imp Maria.

Evidence to the studio, so to speak...

Quote: geniy

Further: you chose not to notice the contradiction: it means that the bow tower of Empress Maria remained standing in its place even after the explosion of the cellars. But Marat’s bow turret was allegedly thrown upward from exactly the same cry from the cellar. So who is lying - take the trouble to explain!

Regarding “Marat” and “threw it away”... Guess WHAT’S in the mug. ;)

Quote: geniy

then I’ll give you more counterarguments that you don’t suspect.

You can start right now: I’m all about attention...

[geniy]

The supply pipe has a conical shape with a large diameter at the top, the tower in the ship's hull is fixed only by its own weight, so even the deformation of the supply pipe will not hold the tower in place when the ship turns over...

[Center]
I can’t understand whether the image of the main battery tower has loaded or not? It shows 6 bottlenecks where the supply pipe is very close - literally centimeters from the hull structures - and around the circumference. and you hope in vain that this pipe is conical - in fact, in its upper part - where the working compartment is cylindrical - and the gaps there are very small. now we read: “... the bow tower was moved from its place,” which means it hit the hull structures and its supply pipe from being perfectly round probably became oval. therefore, after tipping over, it would not be able to fall out of the housing.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

therefore, after tipping over, it would not be able to fall out of the housing.

But it still fell out... :)

[geniy]

therefore, after tipping over, it would not be able to fall out of the housing.

But it still fell out... :)

Fathers! she still fell out. and why did it fall out - you don’t have enough reason to guess? after all, the bow tower was able to fall out of its socket only because it did not catch on the edges of the hull structures, although the gaps there were minimal. This means that the bow tower and its supply pipe had virtually no damage from the explosion. which means that the explosion did not occur under the bow turret at all, but in another place - for example, in the magazine of 130 mm guns.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

after all, the bow tower was able to fall out of its socket only because it did not catch on the edges of the hull structures, although the gaps there were minimal.

Have you studied strength of materials? If you have been taught, you should understand that hull structures, moreover, damaged by an explosion, will not withstand the load applied to them in the direction opposite to that for which they were designed...
Let me remind you that a structure weighing 1080 tons lies freely on a ball chase...

[geniy]

Have you studied strength of materials? If you have been taught, you should understand that hull structures, moreover, damaged by an explosion, will not withstand the load applied to them in the direction opposite to that for which they were designed...

And you contradict your own arguments and contradict Vinogradov, and he, in turn, contradicts Amirkhanov and Titushkin - in general, everyone has lied.
So you are saying that the hull structures damaged by the explosion would not have been able to withstand the weight of the tower, which means that these hull structures - in particular the armored barbette of the tower made of armor up to 150 mm thick - would not have withstood it and, having come off, fell to the bottom of the bay. But in this you completely contradict Vinogradov - in whose drawing, in the area of ​​the bow tower, both the upper deck and the living deck and even the third armored deck from above remained intact! That is, one of you two is lying a lot.
But on the other hand: this Vinogradov completely contradicts Amirkhanov and Titushkin, who, in the 1993 brochure of the main caliber of battleships on page 13, claimed that Maria’s deck was allegedly opened “... from the stem to the second tower.” No, personally, I stand by the fact that Titushkin and Amirkhanov are shamelessly lying - the entire deck was intact up to the conning tower. and this is just the beginning of the revelation.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

which means these hull structures - in particular the armored barbette of the turret made of armor up to 150 mm thick - would not have survived and, having come off, fell to the bottom of the bay.

As before, I’m telling you that you don’t know the hardware: the barbette is in no way connected with the rotating structure of the turret and cannot hold it in the hull in any way.

Quote: geniy

But in this you completely contradict Vinogradov - in whose drawing in the area of ​​the bow tower the upper deck, the living deck and even the third one from above remained intact

Believe it or not, the turret structures (inside the barbette) are also part of the ship's hull.
But your attempts to pull the owl onto the globe are amusing. :)

PS By the way, I have not yet seen your evidence that Vinogradov falsified the facts...

[geniy]

Have you studied strength of materials? If you have been taught, you should understand that hull structures, moreover, damaged by an explosion, will not withstand the load applied to them in the direction opposite to that for which they were designed...

I remind you that you seemed to agree that the supply pipe of the bow tower was deformed from the explosion, which means it turned from a circle in cross-section into an oval and therefore in no case could it fit into the round barbette, which would also be deformed from the explosion. And you confirm this by the fact that despite the jamming of the tower in the hull structures and, consequently, in the barbette, they would not be able to withstand the load in an inverted position, which means every smart person should believe that if the hull structures could not withstand the load, then they were simply torn out from the damaged hull and these hull structures would have remained at the bottom during the rise of the Empress Maria. BUT since, according to Vinogradov’s drawing, the hull structures (three decks) and with them the barbette of the bow tower remained completely in place, it means that one of you two is lying (well, or is mistaken) - either you or Vinogradov. so choose who you like best.

PS By the way, I have not yet seen your evidence that Vinogradov falsified the facts...

Well, wait a little - I still have a lot of evidence.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

I remind you that you seemed to agree that

At what point did I agree?

Quote: geniy

was deformed and therefore turned from a circle in cross-section into an oval

You can roughly imagine how many explosives must explode in order for the rotating part and the 150 mm barbette to deform into an oval.

Quote: geniy

And you confirm this by the fact that despite the jamming of the tower in the hull structures and, consequently, in the barbette, they would not be able to withstand the load in an inverted position

Naturally... I repeat, if you didn’t understand the first time, the turret rests freely on the ball chase and is centered by the central pin, which is essentially an axis inserted into the bearing. Because the design lies free, when turned over, it will fall out. even if some of the structures are deformed.

Quote: geniy

which means every intelligent person should believe that if the hull structures could not withstand the load, then they were simply torn out of the damaged hull and these hull structures would have remained at the bottom during the rise of Empress Maria.

Read "Warshipbuilding" by Evers and you will stop talking nonsense... :)

Quote: geniy

BUT since, according to Vinogradov’s drawing, the hull structures (three decks) and with them the barbette of the bow tower remained completely in place, it means that one of you two is lying (well, or is mistaken) - either you or Vinogradov. so choose who you like best.

How can I explain it to you more simply... “Hull structures” are not necessarily, as you see it, a piece of a ship’s hull with a barbette and decks, but also a ring structure of a ball ring inside the barbette...

Quote: geniy

Well, wait a little - I still have a lot of evidence.

I already wrote that I was looking forward to....

[geniy]

I can’t understand whether the image of the main battery tower has loaded or not? It shows 6 bottlenecks where the supply pipe is very close - literally centimeters from the hull structures - and around the circumference. and you hope in vain that this pipe is conical - in fact, in its upper part - where the working compartment is cylindrical - and the gaps there are very small. now we read: “... the bow tower was moved from its place,” which means it hit the hull structures and its supply pipe from being perfectly round probably became oval. therefore, after tipping over, it would not be able to fall out of the housing.

Have you refuted this in any way? No!
And silence means a sign of consent.

You can roughly imagine how many explosives must explode in order for the rotating part and the 150 mm barbette to deform into an oval.

But I don’t need to imagine - if you remember, I claim that not a single gram of explosives or gunpowder exploded under the bow turret. But all of you - the rest of us - think that 600 half-charges of gunpowder exploded under the turret - that's about 15 tons of gunpowder. And now Amirkhanov and Titushkin claim that the bow tower was allegedly moved by this explosion. and you did not contradict this. And if the tower was moved, then it would inevitably be deformed. Do you agree with this or not?

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

Have you refuted this in any way? No!
And silence means a sign of consent.

You see, I have a desire to retell Unkovsky or Rimsky-Korsakov in my own words. You still haven’t read the materiel, and you won’t read it...

Quote: geniy

I don't need to imagine

This is your problem... :)

Quote: geniy

And now Amirkhanov and Titushkin claim that the bow tower was allegedly moved by this explosion. and you did not contradict this. And if the tower was moved, then it would inevitably be deformed. Do you agree with this or not?

It could well have been moved by an explosion (you rejoice early) - upward in the axial direction. :)
You do not know/understand the design of the tower, so in your imagination the tower moves in a horizontal plane. In fact, during detonation or deflagration of the cellars, the tower, to a rough approximation, plays the role of a bottle of champagne: powder gases will lift it in pursuit, and when the pressure drops, it will sit in place.
So I agree with the fact that it was shifted in the vertical plane, but not with the critical deformations... :)

[geniy]

It could well have been moved by an explosion (you rejoice early) - upward in the axial direction. :)
You do not know/understand the design of the tower, so in your imagination the tower moves in a horizontal plane. In fact, during detonation or deflagration of the cellars, the tower, to a rough approximation, plays the role of a bottle of champagne: powder gases will lift it in pursuit, and when the pressure drops, it will sit in place.
So I agree with the fact that it was shifted in the vertical plane, but not with the critical deformations... :)

Yes, I understand perfectly well that you are trying to deceive everyone (together with Vinogradov and other historians). Therefore, I explain to other readers who do not have to dodge to hide the truth.
So, the word “move” is always used only for horizontal movement of the Main Caliber turret object. And to raise the tower up, the words “lifted” or “kicked up” are used. So you're trying to string an owl onto a globe. So Amirkhanov and Titushkin said that the tower was MOVED precisely in the horizontal direction. And since this movement was hampered by as many as three decks, it would undoubtedly have been deformed.
And how do you imagine - the rapid combustion of 15 tons of gunpowder and the release of a huge amount of gases through which holes? If you think that the tower was lifted up, then let me remind you that you yourself showed the central pin, which is about half a meter long. This means that if it were lifted half a meter up, then under no circumstances would it be able to fall again with the pin into the cylindrical socket of this pin with a millimeter gap.
So - you continue to insist that the version of Titushkin and Amirkhanov is erroneous and the tower was not moved horizontally, but according to your version it was thrown up.
I would like to humbly remind you that, according to my version, there was no explosion (deflagration) under the bow turret at all and it was not moved or tossed up.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

Yes, I understand perfectly well that you are trying to deceive everyone (together with Vinogradov and other historians).

Excuse me... I haven't laughed so much for a long time.

Quote: geniy

So Amirkhanov and Titushkin said that the tower was MOVED precisely in the horizontal direction. And since this movement was hampered by as many as three decks, it would undoubtedly have been deformed.

Would it be difficult for you to say exactly what documents these comrades relied on when drawing their conclusions?
By the way, can you tell me how you can move the tower horizontally without destroying the hull of the ship?

Quote: geniy

And how do you imagine - the rapid combustion of 15 tons of gunpowder and the release of a huge amount of gases through which holes?

Unlike you, I imagine...
I suggest you read about how a British shell hit the rear turrets of the Seydlitz in the Battle of Dogger Bank and about how a British bomb hit the cellar of Tower A of the battleship Gneisenau.
Although I know in advance what you will say... :)

Quote: geniy

If you think that the tower was lifted up, then let me remind you that you yourself showed the central pin, which is about half a meter long. This means that if it were lifted half a meter up, then under no circumstances would it be able to fall again with the pin into the cylindrical socket of this pin with a millimeter gap.

Why did it have to be raised half a meter?

Quote: geniy

So - you continue to insist that the version of Titushkin and Amirkhanov is erroneous and the tower was not moved horizontally, but according to your version it was thrown up.

In order for the turret to be moved in the horizontal direction (on a ball shoulder strap), it must first be raised above the shoulder strap and then this displacement will be minimal: simply because the turret will lie unevenly on the shoulder strap.

Quote: geniy

I would like to humbly remind you that, according to my version, there was no explosion (deflagration) under the bow turret at all and it was not moved or tossed up.

Once again I am convinced that you are unfamiliar with hardware and use terminology without understanding the meaning of the words. ;)

[geniy]

Would it be difficult for you to say exactly what documents these comrades relied on when drawing their conclusions?

So the fact of the matter is that Amirkhanov and Titushkin did not indicate which documents they relied on regarding this disaster (just like Vinogradov). And I’m sure that they were just shamelessly fantasizing about moving the tower and tearing the deck from the stem to the second tower. And they did not provide any evidence for their version, most likely because they absolutely do not have any evidence. And since these are very respected historians, it cannot be that when writing their book they did not turn to the naval archives, but they did not see anything concrete there. And the reason for this - as I explain to you - is COMPLETE SECRET, still a hundred years later.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

(as well as Vinogradov).

You yourself said above that you have not read Vinogradov’s work on “Maria,” then how can you argue what the author relied on?

Quote: geniy

And the reason for this - as I explain to you - is COMPLETE SECRET, still a hundred years later.

IMHO, this is complete nonsense...

[geniy]

By the way, can you tell me how you can move the tower horizontally without destroying the hull of the ship?

But the fact of the matter is that a tower weighing 1008 tons cannot be moved horizontally unless its supply pipe, made of relatively thin metal, is deformed against the 150 mm barbette armor. And because of this shift, the tower would be jammed in the hull and it would not be able to fall out of it. But I claim that nothing exploded under the bow turret and it didn’t move anywhere - that’s why it was able to fall freely after capsizing.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

But the fact of the matter is that a tower weighing 1008 tons cannot be moved horizontally

Perhaps... As I described above...

[geniy]

So you personally decided that the bow turret was raised, and how much is the second question. Personally, I claim that there was no explosion under it and therefore, in my opinion, it was not lifted at all.

... In fact, during detonation or deflagration of the cellars, the tower, to a rough approximation, plays the role of a bottle of champagne: powder gases will lift it in pursuit, and when the pressure drops, it will sit in place.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

So you personally decided that the bow turret was raised, and how much is the second question. Personally, I claim that there was no explosion under it and therefore, in my opinion, it was not lifted at all.

Your word against mine is a fighting draw...

[geniy]

I came across your old counterargument

And how do you imagine - the rapid combustion of 15 tons of gunpowder and the release of a huge amount of gases through which holes?

Unlike you, I imagine...
I suggest you read about how a British shell hit the rear turrets of the Seydlitz in the Battle of Dogger Bank and about how a British bomb hit the cellar of Tower A of the battleship Gneisenau.

No, you don’t correctly imagine how the processes of gunpowder combustion and its explosion (deflagration) occur. I remind you that Empress Maria stored 300 tons of gunpowder in the forward cellar of the Civil Code. And in the neighboring cellar 130 mm is also several tons. And the first Explosion (deflagration) occurred simultaneously of all charges in one cellar. But with Seydlitz everything was completely different - he had no explosion of gunpowder charges at all. The British shell at Seydlitz ignited only the charges in the working area of ​​the turret lying on his preparation table. But the fire did not penetrate into his powder magazine - the flaps went off. And moreover, Seydlitz’s charges did not light up simultaneously - but sequentially - one from the other. I remind you that on German battleships the front half-charge was only in a fabric shell, but the rear half-charge was in a metal sleeve, which for a short time protected the gunpowder of the rear half-charge from ignition. and at Seydlitz, the burning lasted quite a long time - as much as 7 minutes, so the fire of the gunpowder was released through the holes of the turret and there was no damage to the hull. And although it is believed that Seydlitz burned 6 tons of gunpowder - but this is based on 2 towers, which means for one tower 3 tons, and if we take into account that half of these 3 tons are in metal casings, then only 1,5 tons ignited at the same time - compared to Maria 15 tons. And if Seydlitz's charges caught fire in the working room of the tower, then Empress Maya's - in the cellar.
And in order to cause a simultaneous explosion of all the charges in the cellar, they must first be heated there to about 170 degrees. So if you give the example of Seydlitz, it means you don’t understand at all what happened with Maria. However, like all other historians...

[geniy]

and about a British bomb hitting the cellar of Tower A of the battleship Gneisenau.
Although I know in advance what you will say... :)

[geniy]

and about a British bomb hitting the cellar of Tower A of the battleship Gneisenau.
Although I know in advance what you will say... :)

In fact, the 454 kg British bomb was unable to penetrate the main armored deck of Gneisenau and exploded above it, causing a fire that lasted 25 minutes. And during this time the Germans managed to flood the cellar. The fact is that each tower must have ammunition for the first shots. Such ammunition was in the turrets on the starboard side of the battleship Orel in Tsushima, and their gunpowder caught fire. And such ammunition exploded in the Gneisenau tower. “The force of the explosion threw off the roof of the tower, and raised the entire rotating structure by half a meter, and then threw it onto a roller ring. This was found out during an inspection of the damage, when it turned out that some combat posts, which usually did not interfere with the rotation of the tower, were damaged. Further inspection showed that the rollers on which the turret rolled when turning jumped out of the stationary clip and lay on it in disarray. The ammunition in the cellars did not explode, "
Thus, by comparing the explosion of the first shots in the Gneisenau tower with the explosion of the 130 mm Empress Maria’s cellar, you show that you have absolutely no idea what happened to them. By the way, Maria’s tower was not destroyed by the explosion of gunfire, which means there was no fire in it at all, and in fact the explosion occurred in the cellar of 130 mm ammunition.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

In fact, the 454 kg British bomb failed to penetrate the main armored deck of Gneisenau and exploded above it

I was quite able to: You just had to read the German report (it contains a photo of the hole), and not Suliga’s free retelling of the book by Dulin and Garzke.

Quote: geniy

The fact is that each tower must have ammunition for the first shots.

Once again I am convinced that your equipment is poor...
In the fighting compartment of the turret, the Germans only had one or two salvos of shells. The charges were stored exclusively in cellars; they were forbidden to be kept even in the reloading compartments of the cellar.

Quote: geniy

and then threw it onto the roller strap.

The Drh LC/34 turret had a ball chase...

Quote: geniy

The ammunition in the cellars did not explode

Naturally, it did not explode, since the shell magazines were flooded, and the powder magazines located above burned out.

Quote: geniy

Thus, by comparing the explosion of the first shots in the Gneisenau tower with the explosion of the 130 mm Empress Maria’s cellar, you show that you have absolutely no idea what happened to them.

I came up with it myself - I believed it myself. What a familiar picture. :)

[geniy]

In fact, the 454 kg British bomb failed to penetrate the main armored deck of Gneisenau and exploded above it
I could do it quite well: you just had to read German

the bomb exploded on
the main armor-piercing deck - and therefore ABOVE IT. And that means she couldn’t penetrate it, here’s the quote: it exploded on the armored deck next to the uncovered ventilation hole in the non-commissioned officer’s mess. And apparently the hole was mistaken for a bomb hole. And your delusion is very easy to expose - after all, if a British bomb had exploded right in the powder magazine of Gneisenau, then he would have exploded in exactly the same way as Marat. So little of this - after all, next to the bow tower A there was a cellar of the second tower B, and then at Gneisenau the cellar of tower B would also explode! but this did not happen - which means there was no explosion in the cellar of the bow tower.
And you are also trying to implicitly deceive those readers who do not know enough about the structure of ships

In the fighting compartment of the turret, the Germans only had one or two salvos of shells. The charges were stored exclusively in cellars; they were forbidden to be kept even in the reloading compartments of the cellar.

so - there are 3 guns in the turret, and if you remember the multiplication, then 2 shots x 3 = 6 large-caliber shells simultaneously exploded in the bow turret of Gneisenau, and it was they who destroyed it, and not the explosion of the magazines. But you all forget that Empress Maria also stored shells for 3 guns in the turret in the fenders of the first shots. and the fire at Maria did not last 25 minutes like at Gneisenau - but longer than an hour - so a huge explosion of the tower with the release of its roof should also have occurred. But this explosion did not happen, which means there was no fire in the bow cellar of the Empress Maria Civil Code, but in fact there was an explosion in the 130 mm cellar...
Whether it's a ball or roller shoulder strap - it has nothing to do with the explosion, I just copied it without looking.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

the bomb exploded on
the main armor-piercing deck - and therefore ABOVE IT. And that means she couldn’t penetrate it, here’s the quote: it exploded on the armored deck next to the uncovered ventilation hole in the non-commissioned officer’s mess.

Once again: read the German report (it is available online), and not a copy of the American book.

Quote: geniy

And your delusion is very easy to expose - after all, if a British bomb had exploded right in the powder magazine of Gneisenau, then he would have exploded in exactly the same way as Marat.

German and Soviet gunpowder have different chemical compositions and react differently to external influences.

Quote: geniy

So little of this - after all, next to the bow tower A there was a cellar of the second tower B, and then at Gneisenau the cellar of tower B would also explode!

The bow part of it was burnt out...

Quote: geniy

so - there are 3 guns in the turret, and if you remember the multiplication, then 2 shots x 3 = 6 large-caliber shells simultaneously exploded in the bow turret of Gneisenau, and it was they who destroyed it, and not the explosion of the magazines.

I repeat: the shells were stored in fighting compartment towers...

Quote: geniy

and the fire at Maria did not last 25 minutes like at Gneisenau - but longer than an hour - so a huge explosion of the tower with the release of its roof should also have occurred. But this explosion did not happen, which means there was no fire in the bow cellar of the Empress Maria Civil Code, but in fact there was an explosion in the 130 mm cellar...

Or the explosion found an easier path, into the bow boiler room...

Quote: geniy

Whether it's a ball or roller shoulder strap - it has nothing to do with the explosion, I just copied it without looking.

This just shows knowledge of the subject of the dispute in general... ;)

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

that means you don’t understand at all what happened with Maria. However, like all other historians...

Before you make such a statement, understand the terms... :)
Otherwise you create a clever word, but you don’t understand what it means.

Quote: geniy

But with Seydlitz everything was completely different - he had no explosion of gunpowder charges at all.

The question was through which holes could the pressure of the burning gunpowder be relieved... Seydlitz is a good example.
In the case of "Maria", due to the larger volume of gunpowder, the gases found another weak point: the bow bulkhead of the front KOs. For this reason, the bow superstructure flew away.

[geniy]

The question was through which holes could the pressure of the burning gunpowder be relieved... Seydlitz is a good example.

It’s precisely that you don’t understand the fundamental difference: after all, Seydlitz’s gunpowder burned for 7 minutes - which is equal to 420 seconds, while Empress Maria’s first explosion lasted less than 1 second! And you deign to compare these two fundamentally different processes!

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

whereas the Empress Maria's first explosion lasted less than 1 second!

Did you personally hold the stopwatch? :)

[geniy]

Yes, and please explain - who is lying after all: Titushkin and Amirkhanov or Vinogradov?
After all, Tutushkin and Amirkhanov claim that Maria’s deck was allegedly opened “... from the stem to the second tower.” And in Vinogradov’s drawing, all three decks are intact from the stem to the rear wall of the bow tower...

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

Yes, and please explain - who is lying after all: Titushkin and Amirkhanov or Vinogradov?
After all, Tutushkin and Amirkhanov claim that Maria’s deck was allegedly opened “... from the stem to the second tower.” And in Vinogradov’s drawing, all three decks are intact from the stem to the rear wall of the bow tower...

And in this place I cannot help you: why should I do your work for you?
If you are so interested in who is wrong, start comparing archival documents used by the authors. :)

[geniy]

[quote] thirdly: as I already said, these historians often falsify drawings of damage - so the drawing of damage to the bow of Kursk is completely falsified,
[/ Quote]
[quote][quote][quote]Evidence to the studio, so to speak...
[/quote][/quote][/quote][quote=Macsen_Wledig]
documentary - with drawings and video frames - I will not prove this - it is too troublesome for me, I can’t even insert Marat’s drawing yet. But this is where the salt lies. in 2000, the sunken submarine was shown hundreds of times on television. and while millions of ordinary people stupidly stared at the screen, I recorded all the video frames into a computer (but I have a different one now) and almost always the scoundrel TV people showed the sunken Komsomolets instead of Kursk. And I can perfectly distinguish these two submarines at first glance in a second - they have a different configuration of the bow end, a different wheelhouse and a different number of torpedo tubes, and Kursk even has 650 millimeter ones, which Komsomolets does not. And once I was lucky - they really showed Kursk with its 650 mm. I recognized it instantly and wrote it down. It’s amazing that almost all of the outer covers of the torpedo tubes were open, and the entire bow on the outside was practically intact. but INSIDE the durable case - there was complete scrap metal. and they have never shown the wheelhouse from the side - because the admirals ordered the British to cut off all the retractable devices. so when the design bureau draftsmen drew the Kursk lying on the bottom with the bow end crumpled like an accordion - this is their shameless deception - in fact, on the outside this submarine is practically undamaged.

[geniy]

It is very difficult to see the photograph you provided, but I believe that it shows the main battery guns of Marat’s bow turret. that is, Marat’s bow tower, according to documentary evidence from photographs, was not thrown into the water at all. and by this you seem to be trying to refute me. Yes, I specifically wrote that it was reset. but look at the drawing

[center][thumb]https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2023-10/vzorvannyj-marat-
and in this drawing we see that Marat does not have a bow tower!
which means that government draftsmen drew a falsified drawing, which is what I’m telling you! and in exactly the same way Vinogradov drew falsified [b][/b]drawing of the Empress Maria.

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

but look at the drawing

This is not a drawing, this is a damage diagram from a popular science publication. :)
Damage drawings look something like this: for example, damage to the Bodriy EM

Quote: geniy

and in the same way Vinogradov drew a falsified drawing of the Empress Maria.

How can you justify your withdrawal?
So far, only I see unsubstantiated accusations...

[geniy]

This is not a drawing, this is a damage diagram from a popular science publication. :)

what are you saying! You just forgot to add one key word: this is a FALSIFIED scheme of Marat’s damage. And you also didn’t add that no one has refuted this falsified scheme for decades - not a single so-called “professional”. And thousands of laymen have been looking at this falsified scheme with emotion for decades, naively thinking that it is true. In the same way, Vinogradov drew a falsified scheme, but laymen do not have enough intelligence to understand how they are being deceived...

[Macsen_wledig]

Quote: geniy

This is a FALSIFIED scheme of Marat’s injuries.

Quote: geniy

In exactly the same way, Vinogradov drew a falsified diagram

I repeat, for now you are only shaking the air with unfounded accusations.
Not a single significant piece of evidence was presented on your part.
One word...

[mmaxx]

The version with thermometers is funny. What design were the thermometers? What was their measuring range? When you got them, were they good? What is the inertia of the readings during their operation? It depends on the design. At what stage could they break? After all, they could break before they reached the measured temperature values. If they were working properly, then they should have shown the temperature of the water or air. There are some pointer instruments that have a witness arrow. This arrow is pushed by the main arrow and remains in place, indicating the maximum value reached. But such explosion devices can show anything.
Consequently, relying in your version on the readings of instruments without knowing their design, operating features and location on the ship is frivolous.

[kor1vet1974]

Breaking through the bureaucracy is not a “shit” to buy.

[Frettaskyrandi]

Ford agreed to build such ships and took on the project with his usual enthusiasm. True, he was practically not involved in the development of the vessel itself, being more involved in developing the design of the plant and methods for producing ships.

An interesting point - the Ford shipyard was designed by the famous Albert Kahn.

[your1970]

Quote from Frettaskyrandi

Ford agreed to build such ships and took on the project with his usual enthusiasm. True, he was practically not involved in the development of the vessel itself, being more involved in developing the design of the plant and methods for producing ships.

An interesting point - the Ford shipyard designed famous Albert Kahn.

It is a everywhere I managed to chop the dough and plan cabbages...

[Frettaskyrandi]

The workers at the Detroit plant who were brought in to build the ships had no experience welding large parts (Ford cars simply didn’t have that), so the US Navy officers who received them repeatedly pointed out to Ford the quality of the welds.

A few technical details.

The hulls of Eagle-class ships were riveted (each hull required 260 rivets). Welding was used only when installing watertight bulkheads, but to make seams of such lengths and in such spatial positions there were not only welders of the required qualifications, but also the appropriate equipment.
One more point - for the Russian-speaking reader, in relation to the power plant of ships, the term “boiler” and not “boiler” is still more familiar.

[Bookworm]

Thank you very much for the illustrations and clarifications, otherwise I thought “boiler” - probably a desalination plant, but what kind of desalination plant is on such a small ship...)

[VicktorVR]

Voice of reason!
When will the translations be done correctly...

[Frettaskyrandi]

gained access to German archives, where copies of radiograms from U-853 were preserved, one of which spoke of a successful torpedo attack off the coast of New England on April 23, 1945

Interestingly, USS Eagle 56 was the first ship that U-853 sank, and in total it had two ships sunk.

[solar]

In front of their eyes, Navy officials had a report on a routine inspection and repair of the ship's boilers, which was carried out several weeks before the tragedy.

It was precisely because the boiler was repaired just two weeks before the tragedy, taking into account the antiquity of the ship, that the commission considered that it was it that caused the explosion, and not a torpedo or mine (at the time of the commission’s work, it had no information about a specific German submarine. With taking into account the fact that the torpedoing of such an old training ship by the Germans at the end of April 1945, just 5 kilometers from the US coast, was complete nonsense from a military point of view, the version with the explosion of the boilers was considered more likely). And not because of the conspiracy theory that the author put forward.
Not to mention, the author fails to mention the critical role played in bringing justice to the US Navy itself in the person of Bernardo Cavalcante, senior archivist at the Naval History Center (NHC), through his extensive research into the records of the US and German Navy (and before that he 10 worked with Jurgen Rover for years on his book, and knew information about the boat). It was Cavalcante who directly raised the issue of changing the cause of the boat's death.

Based on Lawton's and his own research, Cavalcante sent a letter and documentation to Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Vern Clark in May 2001. In this package, he recommended changing the record to attribute the sinking of Eagle 56 to enemy action.
After careful review, the CNO agreed and handed the package over to Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England.
After checking it, England also agreed with this conclusion.
...
In June 2001, in a special ceremony aboard the museum ship USS Salem (CA 139) in Quincy, Massachusetts, the Navy presented the Purple Heart award to three survivors and the immediate family of those killed.

PS USS Eagle 56 (PE-56) is still a ship, not a vessel.

[lisikat2]

Interesting stuff. You can say: the results of the last attack _ WWII

[lisikat2]

Auto, do you have materials: about the actions of the Russian “Russian sea hunters in WWII?”
It seems to me that the topic is little known and will be interesting to the public

[Frettaskyrandi]

Auto, do you have materials: about the actions of the Russian “Russian sea hunters in WWII?”

During the First World War, Russia did not have “sea hunters” as a class.

[lisikat2]

Viktor Nikolaevich, even if not a “sea hunter”, there were ALREADY special anti-submarine fighters.
Looks like corvettes?

[Glory1974]

I was interested in the awards system in the USA. If you suffer from enemy influence, you are awarded the Purple Heart medal. It’s easy and clear how soldiers are awarded, and civilians understand why. Not like ours, you need to come up with a story, describe the feat, the higher headquarters will not accept it, it’s either poorly described, or the feat is small, etc.
When will our award system be brought into line with reality? A rhetorical question. Everyone complains about her, soldiers, officers, and generals. Moreover, they have been complaining since the 1st Chechen War. General Troshev also writes about this in his book. But things are both now and there.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: glory1974

It’s easy and clear how soldiers are awarded, and civilians understand why. Not like ours, you need to come up with a story, describe the feat, the higher headquarters will not accept it, it’s either poorly described, or the feat is small, etc.

So for the Americans, for “big” awards it’s the same: a presentation to headquarters with a justification - a description of the feat. For example, replacing a wounded regimental field surgeon, he entered into battle with the enemy who had broken through to the operating tent, after which he remained alone to cover the withdrawal of medical personnel and the wounded, destroyed about a hundred enemy troops and died at a combat post. And at the headquarters sits a stubborn dogmatist who does not know the laws - and rejects the idea. For example, under the pretext that "According to the Geneva Convention, medical personnel do not have the right to take up arms"And military doctor Benjamin Lewis Salomon ("dentist-machine gunner") received his posthumous Medal of Honor only in 2002 - for the fourth time.

[solar]

And at the headquarters sits a stubborn dogmatist who does not know the laws - and rejects the idea. For example, under the pretext that “according to the Geneva Convention, medical personnel do not have the right to take up arms.”

And so it was. But after the war, the provisions of the convention were changed and it allows the use of personal weapons by military medical personnel for self-defense and the protection of the wounded. Salomon took up arms when he saw that the Japanese had killed the wounded man with a bayonet.
Post-war problems with awards were due to the fact that the deadlines for awards had passed. Nevertheless, specifically for this case, the provision on the timing was canceled and after that he received the Medal of Honor posthumously.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from solar

And so it was. But after the war, the provisions of the convention were changed and it allows the use of personal weapons by military medical personnel for self-defense and the protection of the wounded.

This provision was in the text of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, as amended in 1929:

Article 8 The following conditions shall not be considered as grounds for depriving a medical unit or institution of the protection guaranteed by Article 6:

1. That the personnel of the formation or institution are armed, and that they use weapons for self-defense or for the sick and wounded;

So Benjamin Lewis Salomon acted in strict accordance with the 1929 Convention. And what about the machine gun... so he was a machine gunner in the first specialty of the Marine Corps (and, EMNIP, a sergeant-instructor) and switched to medics out of reluctance to become a field officer.

[solar]

switched to medics out of reluctance to become a field officer

conversely

In 1942, however, it was decided to transfer him to the army dental service. Salomon applied to remain in the infantry, and his direct commander reported to his superiors to promote him to the rank of second lieutenant in the infantry, but these applications were rejected, and Salomon was sent to Hawaii, where he received the rank of first lieutenant in the medical service.

As for the convention, the machine gun was considered not a personal individual weapon, but a collective weapon and did not fall under the provisions of the convention on self-defense. There were instructions for awarding the Medal of Honor to medical personnel, which prohibited awards for active direct participation in hostilities. He continued to participate in hostilities after the personnel and wounded of his first-aid post had retreated to the rear. In addition, judging by what has been written about this case, the medical personnel were divided into those who wore the Red Cross patch and those who did not wear it. The award presentation was made at the request of Brig. General Ogden J. Ross, assistant commander of the 27th Division. Wherein

We were walking through piles of corpses when the general suddenly flinched, and then walked up to the figure of a man bending over the barrel of a heavy machine gun. Very quickly, almost before I saw what he was doing, the general took out a knife and cut the Red Cross badge from Ben Salomon's arm. Then he straightened up and looked around. Ninety-eight Japanese bodies lay in front of this artillery position. Salomon killed so many people that he had to move his machine gun four times to clear the field of fire.

The division commander who rejected the submission justified it as follows:

The recommendation for the award to Captain Salomon was returned without any action to the 2nd Battalion with a handwritten note from Major General George Greener, commander of the 27th Division: "I am very sorry that I cannot approve the award of this medal to Captain Salomon, although he fully deserves it. At the time of his death, this officer was on medical duty and was wearing a Red Cross badge on his arm. According to the rules of the Geneva Convention, which the United States signed, no medical professional can use weapons against the enemy."
Captain Love tried unsuccessfully to persuade General Greener to reconsider his decision. The commanders of the 105th Infantry Regiment and the 2nd Battalion were new, unaware of Salomon's heroic actions, and showed little support for Love's efforts. When the 27th Division entered the battle on Okinawa, the matter was closed.

After the war, it took a legal opinion from the Attorney General's Office to find that Salomon's actions were not contrary to the convention. After the war, the problem with the awarding was that there was too little evidence of the battle, the papers were lost, the fighting on Saipan was very brutal, everything was mixed up there.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170812024743/http://history.amedd.army.mil/moh/Salomon.html

[Glory1974]

For example, under the pretext that “according to the Geneva Convention, medical personnel do not have the right to take up arms.” And military doctor Benjamin Lewis Salomon (“dentist-machine gunner”) received his posthumous Medal of Honor only in 2002 - for the fourth time.

I read with interest both your comment and your opponent “solar (Sergey)”. I came to the conclusion that the above case once again proves the rigor and thoughtfulness of the award system. Clearly stated requirements for awards, references to the Geneva Convention, legal interpretations, etc.
I’m telling you how it is with us. According to Yeltsin’s instructions, back in the 1st war in Chechnya, if a serviceman is wounded, he should be nominated for a state award. It doesn’t matter how wounded, where, in fact. That is, it is already handed over to local political officers and commanders. who, to the best of their experience and imagination, write a performance, “based on a presidential decree.....” and compose a feat in accordance with the statute of a particular award.
A special forces group is ambushed, a machine gunner, wounded in the stomach, throws down the machine gun, runs 3 km, swims across the river, runs a few more kilometers, resorts to his own. As a result, according to the presidential decree, he should be awarded, in fact he is a coward, abandoned the battlefield and his comrades, but was wounded. Battles begin, like with Salomon, only in the opposite direction. In the end, the matter came to Moscow, and they were allowed not to reward.
Troshev writes that many military personnel fought, but were not in direct combat, for example, car drivers, cooks, signalmen, etc. But they risked their lives, went to serve and honestly fulfilled their duty, and the state should recognize them.
But unfortunately we don’t have such awards. Therefore, attempts begin to invent a feat and reward a worthy fighter, debunkers immediately appear, etc. The Internal Troops introduced the “Combatant” insignia, but this is a departmental award. The Ministry of Defense did not have this either.
We probably need to study the systems that have developed in our country at different times, abroad, and make changes. For example, introduce a state award “For participation in hostilities”, award some equivalent of the “Purple Star” to those injured in battles, etc.

[Doctor]

The main takeaway is to think ahead. What ships and in what quantity are needed. And not just ships.

Take the story of our boats on the Dnieper. Is it really not possible to build 1000 river boats and store them in grease in some old mine?
Every war it’s the same thing.

The price of the issue is a pittance compared to the restoration of a pre-aircraft carrier.

[mmaxx]

They will do the boats. And the motors will be stolen. Or the bosses will go fishing on boats. This is not a tank))). Yes, and now we don’t have engines for boats. At all. Neither suspended nor stationary. The country has been relying on imports for 30 years.

[Catfish]

The Poles had no luck with "bird" ship names. The submarine "Eagle" went missing in June 1940. It is believed that she hit an unknown mine.

In 1959, the Poles removed the film. The film "Eagle" is about the escape of this submarine after internment in Tallinn.

[lisikat2]

Konstantin, welcome back. Vera would be glad, but today she went on shift. When will she be able to log into the site now?
PS
I read about "The Eagle" in some magazine, but didn't watch the film.

[Catfish]

Thanks, Kate!
If possible, greetings from me to Vera.

[ArchiPhil]

Quote: Sea Cat

Hello from me.

It's nice when an old friend returns. Welcome back, amigo!

[Catfish]

Thank you, Seryozha!
"I'll be back..."

[depressant]

Kostya, I’m extremely glad to see you! ))))))...

[Tests]

Slava1974 (slava), dear, during the USSR there was an order “For Personal Courage”. One of the last awards in 1991 was the award of 6 police officers from the Arkhangelsk region, all senior officers, five from the regional department and one from the Internal Affairs Directorate of the city of Severodvinsk. For many years they have not used knives, have not stood under an ax or a gun, and have seen metal nunchucks only after forensic experts have printed a certificate of research. What kind of army firearms or grenades are pointed at them in the hands of a criminal! None of them went on business trips throughout the USSR to the emergency zones, this was not the tsar’s business... Where, when and how they showed personal courage is a mystery to everyone. I keep dreaming that I will live to see brighter days, when it will be possible to read the award documents for these “courageous” ones... Although...
Today they would give me, as they once did in a Soviet school, an essay topic: “The Order Bearer is an example for a Pioneer,” I WOULD not know which order and which order bearer to write about... In the Russian Federation there is the “Order of Friendship” and the Order Bearer - Maxim Aleksandrovich Galkin, there is the “Order of Honor” and the order bearer - Evgenia Nikolaevna Vasilyeva, there is a holder of the Order “For Merit to the Fatherland”, IV degree (Decree of June 16, 2010) - “for his great contribution to the implementation of state policy in the field of nanotechnology and many years of conscientious work" - Anatoly Borisovich Chubais, there is a holder of two orders, Andrei Vadimovich Makarevich... Who to write about, how to make a choice?
“Everyone complains about her, soldiers, officers, and generals.”... Mr. Shoigu was neither a soldier nor an officer and does not complain! He showed personal courage somewhere (I wish I could read the award sheet, apparently he carried children out of the fire during a fire in a gasified house, with the immediate threat of an explosion of a 50-liter gas cylinder) and accomplished a heroic feat (I wish I could read the award sheet, apparently, during the EBN election campaign)...

[Glory1974]

You write about PuGalkin and Chubais, people want to know their heroes. And we will discuss. And the problems with the award system will come out.

[your1970]

Quote: Tests

In the Russian Federation there is an “Order of Friendship” and an order bearer - Maxim Aleksandrovich Galkin, there is an “Order of Honor” and an order bearer - Evgenia Nikolaevna Vasilyeva, there is a holder of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland, IV degree (Decree of June 16, 2010) - “for great contribution into implementation

I’m embarrassed to remind you, but this didn’t come out yesterday; it came out back in the 1950s, when they began to award orders and medals for length of service.
And only after some time they came up with medals for long service.
And the nonsense with the “Patriotic War” in 1985 is the same in general...
My grandfather never wore his own - when he found out that an acquaintance who spent the entire war in Samara in the commandant’s office, and when he learned that he would be sent to the Japanese, he crushed his little finger with a hitch.
And my grandfather, an artillery spotter, was blown up by a mine in 1943....
And both are war invalids with 1st degree...

[mmaxx]

Nevertheless, Shoigu has personal presence and leadership in all significant emergencies in the country. Where he was almost the first. And the Ministry of Emergency Situations under him worked clearly and built and did a lot for itself.
What Shoigu is now being charged with is not at all clear. The position of the Ministry of Defense is mostly economic.

[Tests]

my 1970 (Sergey), I have to correct you a little. Started earlier:
PRESIDIUM OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE USSR
DECREE
from 4 June 1944 of the year
On awarding orders and medals to generals, officers and non-commissioned officers of long-term service for long service in the Red Army

1. Establish the awarding of orders and medals of the USSR for long service in the Red Army to generals, officers and non-commissioned officers of long-term service:
a) for 10 years of service - the medal “For Military Merit”;
b) for 15 years of service - the Order of the Red Star;
c) for 20 years of service - the Order of the Red Banner;
d) for 25 years of service - the Order of Lenin;
e) for 30 years of service - the second Order of the Red Banner.
2. In case of negative performance and behavior, the award for long service may be delayed.
3. Submissions for awards for length of service should be made in the established order twice a year - by May 1 and November 7.

Chairman of the Presidium
Of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR M. KALININ
Secretary of the Presidium
Supreme Soviet of the USSR A. GORKIN"
DECREE of the PVS of the USSR dated September 14, 1957 "ON THE PROCEDURE FOR AWARDING ORDERS AND MEDALS OF THE USSR TO MILITARY SERVANTS OF THE SOVIET ARMY AND NAVY, TROOPS OF THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AFFAIRS OF THE USSR, TROOPS AND BODIES OF THE STATE SECURITY COMMITTEE UNDER SO VETA OF MINISTERS OF THE USSR" authorized the establishment of special medals "For impeccable service ", but left, upon transfer to the reserve or retirement, the awarding of marshals, generals, admirals, officers with a calendar service of 25 years or more: "... can be awarded if they have high performance indicators in their official activities with the Order of the Red Banner, and those with particularly important services to the Armed Forces of the USSR and the Soviet state - the Order of Lenin."