Weird World War 2 Facts

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-02-2005, 03:35 AM

i've always seen it as Spee...........

Smokey · 07-02-2005, 06:08 AM

It sounds like it took some time to sink, allowing search parties to have a look around before it sank.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-02-2005, 03:01 PM

Its Graf Spee.

And it seems they are going through with it.

Quote:

More than 64 years after the Graf Spee's captain scuttled his pocket battleship off Uruguay to stop it falling into British hands, divers have raised part of the vessel.

A part of the Graf Spee is raised
After weeks of failed attempts a 27-ton section of the command tower, including the first embryonic radar antenna installed on a warship, was brought to the surface of the River Plate estuary using a floating crane.

Germany's Graf Spee, equipped with 11-inch guns and a prototype diesel engine, was one of the most advanced vessels of its time. It was smaller and faster than a traditional battleship and caused serious unease in the Royal Navy.

It sank nine commercial vessels in the Atlantic in late 1939 before engaging with British and New Zealand warships in the battle of the River Plate that December, one of the first naval clashes of the Second World War.

Outnumbered and badly damaged, the Graf Spee managed to make port in Montevideo but neutral Uruguay gave in to British pressure and sent it back out. With the British ships Exeter and Ajax and New Zealand's Achilles waiting for him, Capt Hans Langsdorff knew he had no chance so he blew up his ship in 36ft of water.

Now the Graf Spee is being raised in sections over the next three years and will be rebuilt as a land museum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Personally I hope they send it back to Germany and allow it to be rebuilt there. Just my opinion but that is where she belongs.

DaveB.inVa · 07-02-2005, 04:05 PM

I dont know of anyone dying of rupture due to internal gas but I wouldnt doubt that it could happen.

One WWII and Korea vet Ive talked to many times who was a B-17 Top Turret gunner / Flight Engineer stated he knew of a few instances where bombers would turn back because one of the crew couldnt relieve the pressure. He said it happened to him once as well but only slightly. He said they completed the mission but he was in a decent amount of pain the entire time. After that he stated that he altered his diet somewhat.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-03-2005, 04:46 PM

I know that sometimes when we fly at high alltitudes and we are not pressurized just like the B-17 and B-24, if you have a built up of gas it can cause some pain in your abdomen that can feel pretty bad. When this happens we just go back down to a lower alltitude. Most of the time thought it is only noticed when we do a really fast climb or so. Most of the time though you never feel something like this.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-04-2005, 10:38 AM

This's quite remarkable, did you know that the highest known interception by an unpressurized, was made by G. Reynolds breathing only a conventional air supply, at 49,500ft!! This was in a "speacailly prepared" Spitfire VC operating from No.103MU near alexandria in august 1942, when he damaged a pressurised Ju-86P......

cheddar cheese · 07-04-2005, 01:55 PM

Interesting, since the Ju-86P couldnt fly at 49,500ft....

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-04-2005, 02:23 PM

No the Ju-86P could not fly that high however the Ju-86R could. It may have been a Ju-86R which was built in limited production being only a few.

Quote:

In January 1940 the Luftwaffe tested the new prototype Ju 86P that had a longer wing span, pressurized cabin, Jumo 207A diesel engines with twin turbochargers and only two man crew. The Ju 86P could fly at heights of 12,000 m, where it was safe from enemy fighters.

Some 40 old bombers were converted to Ju 86P-1 high altitude bombers and Ju 86P-2 photo reconnaissance aircraft. Those operated successfully for some years over Britain, the Soviet Union and North Africa. In August 1942 a modified Spitfire V shot one down over Egypt, and when two more were lost, Ju 86Ps were withdrawn from service 1943.

The Luftwaffe tried to develop the Ju 86R with even larger wings and prototype engines, that could have flown even higher, at 16,000 m, but production was limited to some prototypes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_86

cheddar cheese · 07-04-2005, 02:25 PM

No the Ju-86R couldnt either. Only a bit higher than the Ju-86P.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 07-04-2005, 03:34 PM

I dont know I have read conflicting reports on that, that say the Ju-86R could climb to 16000m which is about 48,000ft. I have also seen reports that say it was only about 45,000ft.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-05-2005, 10:44 AM

Well CC, the nice people at GUINNESS, the poeple that do all this record stuff, state only that the spitfire intercepted and destroyed a "Ju-86P-2 high altitude pressurised aircraft" and that the altitude the aircraft was intercepted at, 49,500ft, is eqivilant to 15,090m, and quite frankly, i trust them far more than i trust you..........

is it not also possible that the -86, if it was a P and not an R, was also flying higher than normall?? when an aircraft reaches the ceiling used in all the books, it won't suddenly stop, she will be able to gain altitude still.........

plan_D · 07-05-2005, 02:05 PM

Not for very far though. My dad was in Germany with a Wessex and they went out for a buzz with the Luftwaffe SAR Hueys. And they climbed up the side of a mountain in their helicopters and the Wessex had to stop because it reached it's ceiling, the pilot sat one wheel down on the mountain while the Huey kept rising.

Anyway, I believe lanc because I've read reports of Spitfire VI and VII intercepting Ju-86s at altitudes from 45,000 feet to 50,000 feet.

DaveB.inVa · 07-05-2005, 04:12 PM

Im going with Lanc and saying its true. Ive read before that the P and R could get upwards of 52000'!! These were books I was checking out in the library so I dont exactly remember what they were.

Just for example that the listed ceiling isnt the limit the highest flying B-29 was Frank Armstrongs Fluffy Fuzz IV, it went higher than 49000' when the listed ceiling for a B-29 was around 31000'. This was a basic run of the mill B-29 too.

Ive also talked to a few veterans who flew in B-36's during the Cold War. They had Featherweight III's and a few talked about going over 65000' and being required to wear pressure suits!

plan_D · 07-05-2005, 04:24 PM

It's the same with the EE Lightning, it's always reported as having an altitude of 60,000 feet but that's only because it's altimeter only goes up to 60,000!

FLYBOYJ · 07-05-2005, 04:33 PM

I think where the confusion lies here is what type of ceiling are we talking about. "Service Ceiling" is the maximum density altitude where the best rate-of climb airspeed will produce a 100 feet-per-minute climb at maximum weight while in a clean configuration with maximum continuous power. Now as you can see this definition is given in "Density Altitude" which changes with temperature and air pressure. I have found that many publications imply that this is the maximum altitude the aircraft could fly. NOT TRUE. If you notice the key is the ability of the aircraft to still produce 100' per minute in a climb. Now "Absolute Ceiling" is the height that an aircraft horizontal in flight can maintain and ususally this speed is just above the aircraft's stall speed providing the engine is still producing thrust. There's a big difference between the two.