SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Sharpest naval engagement of WW II...

7735 views
79 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    September 2008
Posted by Badger on Friday, November 21, 2008 9:52 PM

Brilliant f*** Idiots.  The mercury IS recoverable.  Far better to recover it than cover it, because even underwater mercury will escape capture.  It's a liquid.  And the toxicity really shouldn't be much concern considering the depth.  The colder the mercury the better as it "vaporizes" less.  Yes, it'll vaporize even under water.  But considering the depth and temperature, it's truly minimal.

 

  • Member since
    April 2006
  • From: Denver, Colorado
Posted by waynec on Friday, November 21, 2008 2:21 PM
on 11oct 1944, uss tang (dick o'kane, medal of honor) was sunk by an errant torpedo. he and 8 crew members survived and were held prisoner until the end of the war.

Никто не Забыт    (No one is Forgotten)
Ничто не Забыто  (Nothing is Forgotten)

 

  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: League City, Texas
Posted by sfcmac on Friday, November 21, 2008 1:56 PM
 squeakie wrote:
 Huxy wrote:

I'm not too much into Naval, but a nice one, not surfaced tho', in my opinion, not surfaced tho', is U-864 aginst HMS Venture. U-864 had several tons of alot of different materials onboard, and some scientists. This was all going to Japan via Norway and Russia. It took place in 1945.

 U-864 docked at Bergen, Norway and shortly went out to sea again. HMS Venture got reports of a German uboat in the area of Bergen and started hunting the U-864.

Fedje, just north of Bergen, the two submarines met. Both was surfaced and quickly diving. HMS Venture fired 4 torpedoes, and one did infact hit the U-864 in the middle, blowing away a part of the conningtower.

 

This small clash was the first, and only, time in history One submarine took out another one while both were underwater. And U-864 still lay on the bottom, just outside Fedje, and is an enviromental catasrophy with the different materials it had..

 

Hope it can be to any help, or interest. :)

 

-Huxy 

I thought that there was an incident where a U.S. submarine sank a Japanese sub in late 1942 or early 1943 off the coast of Japan. I know it was kinda early in the war when they were having so much trouble with the torpedos not exploding on impact, and the ones the were using were the latest revision. Fiction?

gary

I have never heard of another "underwater " sub to sub engagement. I was given an old American Legion Magazine back in the 1980's that had a US. Sub in the pacific that sank itself due to a malfunctioning torpedo. Apparently the torpedo came around in a large circle.  Can't find the article though but I remember it being on the cover of the magazine.

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Kristiansund, Norway
Posted by Huxy on Friday, November 21, 2008 11:19 AM

 Haven't heard anything about that nerve agent.. hmm...

 

 

 bbrowniii wrote:
Didn't I read something in the last year or two that the Norwegian government was trying to come up with some sort of plan to cover that U-boat wreck (U-864) with some sort of concrete/sand/gravel concoction to prevent the mercury from leaching out into the environment?

 

Ya, the government came to a desission recently..They are going to seal the entire sub with concrete.... sad... There goes yet another Uboat.. 

"Every War Starts And Ends With An Invasion".

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Friday, November 21, 2008 10:46 AM
 Huxy wrote:

Yes, or 1857 bottles with togheter 65 tons of mercury.

Hitlers plan was with the ME262 plans and parts, Japan could gain airspace, and USA would be forced to get resources out of Europe and to the Pacific.

 

This is what scares the government:

 

The bottles are desintrigating (Think that would be the correct word) and the mercury is leaking. 

 

 

The Uboat, along with 73 men, rests at the bottom, two nautic miles outside Fedje at 152m depth.

 

A shot of the HMS Venturer (Forgot the last letter in the name in my previous post.. so it is Venturer) :

The sub was given to Norway in 1946 and renamed KNM Utstein. It is now at display on the Navymuseum at Horten, just south for Oslo.

 

And for the U-864, it was an Uboat of Type ID-X2.

 

Hope this gives more information you can learn of :) 

-Huxy

 

somewhere in that area there are many containers of Tauben (sp) dumped in the ocean (Allies did this one). That's considered the world's most deadly nerve agent, and sooner or later they're going to have to recover them. I remember that one being discussed many times in the past.

gary

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Friday, November 21, 2008 10:40 AM
 Huxy wrote:

I'm not too much into Naval, but a nice one, not surfaced tho', in my opinion, not surfaced tho', is U-864 aginst HMS Venture. U-864 had several tons of alot of different materials onboard, and some scientists. This was all going to Japan via Norway and Russia. It took place in 1945.

 U-864 docked at Bergen, Norway and shortly went out to sea again. HMS Venture got reports of a German uboat in the area of Bergen and started hunting the U-864.

Fedje, just north of Bergen, the two submarines met. Both was surfaced and quickly diving. HMS Venture fired 4 torpedoes, and one did infact hit the U-864 in the middle, blowing away a part of the conningtower.

 

This small clash was the first, and only, time in history One submarine took out another one while both were underwater. And U-864 still lay on the bottom, just outside Fedje, and is an enviromental catasrophy with the different materials it had..

 

Hope it can be to any help, or interest. :)

 

-Huxy 

I thought that there was an incident where a U.S. submarine sank a Japanese sub in late 1942 or early 1943 off the coast of Japan. I know it was kinda early in the war when they were having so much trouble with the torpedos not exploding on impact, and the ones the were using were the latest revision. Fiction?

gary

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Friday, November 21, 2008 10:29 AM
Didn't I read something in the last year or two that the Norwegian government was trying to come up with some sort of plan to cover that U-boat wreck (U-864) with some sort of concrete/sand/gravel concoction to prevent the mercury from leaching out into the environment?

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Kristiansund, Norway
Posted by Huxy on Friday, November 21, 2008 10:12 AM

Yes, or 1857 bottles with togheter 65 tons of mercury.

Hitlers plan was with the ME262 plans and parts, Japan could gain airspace, and USA would be forced to get resources out of Europe and to the Pacific.

 

This is what scares the government:

 

The bottles are desintrigating (Think that would be the correct word) and the mercury is leaking. 

 

 

The Uboat, along with 73 men, rests at the bottom, two nautic miles outside Fedje at 152m depth.

 

A shot of the HMS Venturer (Forgot the last letter in the name in my previous post.. so it is Venturer) :

The sub was given to Norway in 1946 and renamed KNM Utstein. It is now at display on the Navymuseum at Horten, just south for Oslo.

 

And for the U-864, it was an Uboat of Type ID-X2.

 

Hope this gives more information you can learn of :) 

-Huxy

 

"Every War Starts And Ends With An Invasion".

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Friday, November 21, 2008 8:01 AM
65 tons of mercury, along with jet engine parts, plans for the Messerschmidt 262, etc, etc...
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 21, 2008 7:34 AM
 Huxy wrote:

I'm not too much into Naval, but a nice one, not surfaced tho', in my opinion, not surfaced tho', is U-864 aginst HMS Venture. U-864 had several tons of alot of different materials onboard, and some scientists. This was all going to Japan via Norway and Russia. It took place in 1945.

 U-864 docked at Bergen, Norway and shortly went out to sea again. HMS Venture got reports of a German uboat in the area of Bergen and started hunting the U-864.

Fedje, just north of Bergen, the two submarines met. Both was surfaced and quickly diving. HMS Venture fired 4 torpedoes, and one did infact hit the U-864 in the middle, blowing away a part of the conningtower.

 

This small clash was the first, and only, time in history One submarine took out another one while both were underwater. And U-864 still lay on the bottom, just outside Fedje, and is an enviromental catasrophy with the different materials it had..

 

Hope it can be to any help, or interest. :)

 

-Huxy 

What toxic materials were on board???
  • Member since
    April 2008
  • From: Kristiansund, Norway
Posted by Huxy on Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:54 PM

I'm not too much into Naval, but a nice one, not surfaced tho', in my opinion, not surfaced tho', is U-864 aginst HMS Venture. U-864 had several tons of alot of different materials onboard, and some scientists. This was all going to Japan via Norway and Russia. It took place in 1945.

 U-864 docked at Bergen, Norway and shortly went out to sea again. HMS Venture got reports of a German uboat in the area of Bergen and started hunting the U-864.

Fedje, just north of Bergen, the two submarines met. Both was surfaced and quickly diving. HMS Venture fired 4 torpedoes, and one did infact hit the U-864 in the middle, blowing away a part of the conningtower.

 

This small clash was the first, and only, time in history One submarine took out another one while both were underwater. And U-864 still lay on the bottom, just outside Fedje, and is an enviromental catasrophy with the different materials it had..

 

Hope it can be to any help, or interest. :)

 

-Huxy 

"Every War Starts And Ends With An Invasion".

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Salzburg/Austria
Posted by Hieronymus on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:29 AM

Sign - Oops [#oops] I'm sorry, perhaps I should have taken a closer look at the first topic.

 

But hey what's the matter WWI or WWII what's the difference in such a naval engagement,just as the saying goes:

back in  the old days people shared a much closer companionship to each other.............sure, their weapons lacked the range!

 

Keep on modeling

René

www.usns.biz

keep on modeling: www.usns.biz
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:26 AM
 Hieronymus wrote:

what about that naval battle fought between german and birtish cruiser at Coronel. No aircraft involved just pure gunfight and one hell of it, or how about the following engagement at the Falklands.

Keep on modeling

René

wwww.usns.biz 

Oh yes, that was a helluva fight, but it was also in WW1, not WW2.....
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:25 AM
 searat12 wrote:
....And of course, there were also very ugly incidents as well, like when the Japanese cruisers Mogami, Suzuya, etc. sank a large British freighter in the Indian ocean, rescued all the crew, and then shot them all and shoved the bodies overboard as revenge against the crew for radioing a distress call......
Yeah, the Japanese were good at this type of thing...I think they did a similar thing during Leyte Gulf; maybe the Fuso and Yamashiro picked up some survivors from sunken destroyers and beheaded them...later both Japanese BB's were sunk...
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:21 AM
....And of course, there were also very ugly incidents as well, like when the Japanese cruisers Mogami, Suzuya, etc. sank a large British freighter in the Indian ocean, rescued all the crew, and then shot them all and shoved the bodies overboard as revenge against the crew for radioing a distress call......
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • From: 41 Degrees 52.4 minutes North; 72 Degrees 7.3 minutes West
Posted by bbrowniii on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:20 AM
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 squeakie wrote:
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 squeakie wrote:
 Nelson Ott wrote:

 eatthis wrote:
sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

Let's be fair...they pulled away after a U-Boat periscope was sighted...no responsible Captain would risk the lives of his men to pick up enemy soldiers...They did stop and retrieve 135 survivors until the periscope was seen...

That's not what they said. They just left them there (many were twenty feet away). I think it was an excuse for what they did. (I'm not taking sides here as I have no iron in this fire)

gary

Doesn't matter what one person said in that interview; it is fact that the rescue operation was stopped when a U-Boat was thought to be in the area...The picking up of survivors is in every history I have ever read of the engagement...in fact, there are B&W still photographs of Bismark survivors being yanked outta the sea taken from British ships...If the intention was to let everyone drown, why were over 100 rescued? Let's use some common sense...

With you there Manny.  The brutal reality is there were many incidents during both world wars when crews from sunk or stricken vessels were left to fend for themselves in the water.  At the same time, there are cases where extreme measures were taken to rescue the crews of (enemy) ships that were sunk.  I can't recall the specifics, but I recall a reading about a U-Boat that sunk a British ship, then surfaced to rescue the crews.  There were several lifeboats full of survivors (too many to take on board) so the U-Boat towed the boats to shore, despite being strafed by British planes (I know I am forgetting a lot of the details of this event - I think it happened in the Med or near Gibraltar - but this is the bare bones of it).  Both sides left crews that probably could/should have been saved, and both sides risked their own safety to save crews...

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing' - Edmund Burke (1770 ??)

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:44 AM
 squeakie wrote:
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 squeakie wrote:
 Nelson Ott wrote:

 eatthis wrote:
sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

Let's be fair...they pulled away after a U-Boat periscope was sighted...no responsible Captain would risk the lives of his men to pick up enemy soldiers...They did stop and retrieve 135 survivors until the periscope was seen...

That's not what they said. They just left them there (many were twenty feet away). I think it was an excuse for what they did. (I'm not taking sides here as I have no iron in this fire)

gary

Doesn't matter what one person said in that interview; it is fact that the rescue operation was stopped when a U-Boat was thought to be in the area...The picking up of survivors is in every history I have ever read of the engagement...in fact, there are B&W still photographs of Bismark survivors being yanked outta the sea taken from British ships...If the intention was to let everyone drown, why were over 100 rescued? Let's use some common sense...
  • Member since
    December 2006
  • From: Salzburg/Austria
Posted by Hieronymus on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 5:47 AM

what about that naval battle fought between german and birtish cruiser at Coronel. No aircraft involved just pure gunfight and one hell of it, or how about the following engagement at the Falklands.

Keep on modeling

René

wwww.usns.biz 

keep on modeling: www.usns.biz
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:13 AM
 Mansteins revenge wrote:
 squeakie wrote:
 Nelson Ott wrote:

 eatthis wrote:
sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

Let's be fair...they pulled away after a U-Boat periscope was sighted...no responsible Captain would risk the lives of his men to pick up enemy soldiers...They did stop and retrieve 135 survivors until the periscope was seen...

That's not what they said. They just left them there (many were twenty feet away). I think it was an excuse for what they did. (I'm not taking sides here as I have no iron in this fire)

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 3:16 PM
Picking up sailors from sunken ships was hazardous business, especially if there was even a hint of submarines in the area..... In WW1, U-9 sank three British armored cruisers, one after the other.  The second was sunk while trying to rescue sailors from the first, and the third was sunk trying to rrescue sailors from the first two..... During WW2, there were a number of incidents involving convoys under U-boat attack where all the ships in the convoy were forced to continue on, while watching one ship after another get torpedoed and sinking in flames, but nothing could be done for the Merchant Marine sailors jumping overboard....... So maybe THAT's the 'sharpest naval engagement,' the Battle of the Atlantic.......... I remember my mother telling me that through much of WW2, and for a very long time afterwards, all the beaches on Cape Cod were covered in oil from tankers sunk by U-boats offshore......
  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Nelson Ott on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:39 PM

 squeakie wrote:
 Nelson Ott wrote:

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

The British cruiser Dorsetshire and a destroyer picked up some German survivors but stopped doing so and left the local after an alarm (later proven false) about the proximity of German U-boats. Actually an U-boat appeared on the scene much later that day (May 27, 1941), and also a Spanish ship. There were only two remaining survivors, if I remember well, but one of them died some hours later.

Nelson

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:31 PM
 squeakie wrote:
 Nelson Ott wrote:

 eatthis wrote:
sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

Let's be fair...they pulled away after a U-Boat periscope was sighted...no responsible Captain would risk the lives of his men to pick up enemy soldiers...They did stop and retrieve 135 survivors until the periscope was seen...
  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:20 PM
 Nelson Ott wrote:

 eatthis wrote:
sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

I watched an episode on the History Channel about the sinking of the Bismark, and after interviewing many of the British sailors I was sortta horrified! They refused to pick sailors swimming in that forty degree water, and left them to drown. They even admitted it on national TV.

gary

  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Nelson Ott on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:15 PM

 eatthis wrote:
sharpest engagement is a little bit vague tbh. if you mean brutal you could argue the hood vs bismark and the resulting hunt for bismark was borderline tragic. hood exploded killing all but 3 of her crew! over 1400 men gone and when bismark sunk we only rescued 100 or so of her 2200 crew so between the 2 ships around 3500 men were lost which is horrific when you think about ith even spetember 11 wasnt that high

 Back to topic subject ...

This statement is absolutely right. Hood x Bismarck and Bismarck chase were such brutal episodes that British sailors didn't even commemorate it when the Bismarck was sunk; they were horrified by the vision of destruction and hundreds of dead German sailors floating. Everyone was shocked. The few German survivors had a very respectful treatment by the British due to their gallantry in combat.

3500 men lost in a single episode ... This is almost double the no. of casualties in Pearl Harbor. And this episode doesn't have half of the noise or so many films ... (Sorry).

Regards,

Nelson

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Not sure what the current chart is like these days.... I'd look it up, but it is sure to be filled with so many waivers due to the current wars that it is probably next to useless.... Try to find one from about 2000, and compare it with one from about 1980, and you will see what I have been talking about......!  I think this is one of the things that always upset me about women in the military.  I have no problem with women being in ANY position, and any MOS, as long as they can do the same job to the same standards as the men!  For years there has been all these excuses 'well, women just don't have the upper body strength, blah, blah, blah...'  But that's the whole point!  If the job entails picking up a 122mm sabot round and shoving into the breech of a cannon, then you had best be able to pick up the bloody thing as well as the next guy, and there is just no room there for double standards!  Same goes for the infantry, and every other combat arms branch as well (and even the non-combat arms folks get in positions where they suddenly ARE combat arms more often than you'd care to think about).  Yes, there ARE a few women who CAN do the job to the same standards, and for them, there should be no bar, but this is a very small proportion of women, and really doesn't rate all the exceptions that must be made for them in terms of tentage, barracks, latrines, medical, etc, etc, etc.  It's just that simple; if you can do the job, then you can have the job, otherwise******off!

Another thing that upsets me is the fact that women have a proclivity for getting pregnant at very inconvenient times.... When my unit was notified that we were bound for the First Gulf War, 50% of the women in my office (G2, 2AD(FWD) 'suddenly' became pregant, and therefore couldn't deploy (and another turned up pregnant as soon as we got there, and had to be sent home).  So what does that mean?  It means my unit was suddenly short 25% of it's staffing in a time of war, and these are positions which are not readily filled (good 96B weinies are hard to come by, and harder still to train up to standards)!  Yeah women are great in peacetime, but that's not what an armored brigade/division is about!  And when you multiply that figure for the rest of the military, it suddenly becomes very clear that A; these people have not only entirely wasted the military's money spent in training them, but B; have prevented the promotion and development of people (men!) who could and should have filled these slots that by definition must be deployable!  In other words, I am all for equality, but damn it, the standards must be met, and the job must be done!

  • Member since
    September 2008
Posted by Badger on Monday, November 17, 2008 11:17 PM

This is something I got years ago from a recruiter-

 

This here is, if you wanted to know what the Standards are for these three events.  To help you to stay fit through-out your life.  o stay heathy.


Here it is:...............MALES ONLY CHART
--------------------
PUSH-UP EVENT, 2 minutes

17-21 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 42
Max. requirement - 100% at 71

22-26 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 40
Max. requirement - 100% at 75

27-31 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 39
Max. requirement - 100% at 77

32-36 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 36
Max. requirement - 100% at 75

37-41 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 34
Max requirement - 100% at 73

42-46 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 30
Max. requirement - 100% at 66

47-51 year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 25
Max. requirement - 100% at 60

52- older then dirt year olds
Minimum requirement - 60% at 20
Max requirement - 100% at 56
----------------------------

SIT-UP EVENT, 2 minutes

17-21 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 53
Max. requir. - @ 100% 78

22-26 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 50
Max. requir. - @ 100% 80

27-31 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 45
Max. requir. - @ 100% 82

32-36 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 42
Max. requir. - @ 100% 76

37-41 Y.O's
Min. requir. - @ 60% 38
Max. requir. - @ 100% 76

42-46 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 32
Max. requir. - @ 100% 72

47-51 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 30
Max. requir. - @ 100% 66

52-older then dirt
Min. requir. - @ 60% 28
Max. requir. - @ 100% 66
-------------------------

2 MILE RUN EVENT

17-21 Y.O.'s........TIME
Min. requir. - @ 60% 15:54
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:00

22-26 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 16:36
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:00

27-31 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 17:00
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:18

32-36 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 17:42
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:18

37-41 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 18:18
Max. requir. - @ 100% 13:36

42-46 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 18:42
Max. requir. - @ 100% 14:06

47-51 Y.O.'s
Min. requir. - @ 60% 19:30
Max. requir. - @ 100% 14:24

52- older then dirt
Min. requir. - @ 60% 19:48
Max. requir. - @ 100% 14:42
-------------------------------
I HOPE THIS WILL KEEP YOU HEATHY AND FIT.
HAPPY TRAINING.

  • Member since
    June 2007
Posted by squeakie on Monday, November 17, 2008 3:27 PM
 searat12 wrote:
 Badger wrote:

I don't recall what PT stands for, but I know it's the physical test.  Sit ups, push ups, pull ups (do they do those anymore?), running, ect.

 

PT!  It stands for 'Physical Training.'  PT takes place five days a week at 0600 hrs in garrison (be there or be square, troop!). The standard when I started as a 24 year old was 30 situps in two minutes, 40 pushups in two minutes, and a 2-mile run in no less than 16 minutes, 30 seconds, plus a weigh-in.  This test is administered twice a year, and if you fail, you were barred from promotion and barred from reenlistment.  Your test of marksmanship at the rifle range was likewise cause for bar to promotion and reenlistment, if you fail (I shot expert ten years running). The last PT test I did, as a 38-year-old SFC, I managed 60 pushups in two minutes, 52 situps in two minutes, and a 2-mile run at 14 minutes, 30 seconds.  Too much for this old man, time for somebody younger to do all that running around!  Of course, these days, my guess is all you have to do is show up fer the blasted test (then again, all that hoofin' around in all that personal armor in the desert probably keeps you in pretty slim, and in good shape!).  Point is, I was not an infantryman, or any sort of 'Combat Arms,' but a 96B Military Inteligence Analyst (a 'weinie'), but was ordinarily attached to combat arms units, and thus had to go and do everything the combat arms guys did (like route march 20 miles with the Light Infantry under full combat load, rappel out of helicopters with the Airborne guys, and sweat in the desert with a tank with the Armor boys).  The same standards were in effect across MOS-types, and clerks and jerks as well as the infantry troops all had to meet the same standards.  God knows what the standards are now.......... 

first of all everybody in the military is an 11B10 first! I don't are if your a full bird col. or a cook. In Vietnam most artillary units furnished their own F.O. and radio men; plus a couple others on many occassions. Samething for guard duty and listening posts. So everybody really does need to be fit. I well remember when two squads if infantry were encircled on the far north end of the Hiep Duc ridge, and the only thing keeping them off their backs was a near constant barrage from 155's; 24/7. The guns rapidly went thru a lot iof ammo and they couldn't just drop it off by air to the gun pits. So there was line of folks that looked like ants humping rounds to the guns (24/7). In that line you saw every rank imaginable, as well as every MOS. There were at least two Majors from that infantry unit in that line as well as anybody they could find back in the rear. That unit's Col. went so far as to bring in a platoon to help carry ammo the two hundred fifty yard trek thru the mud. Took 72 hours to get them outta there. Rank has no priviledge when in dire straits.

gary

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:18 PM
 squeakie wrote:
 searat12 wrote:

Yup.... And you know, the situation is not that much different right now, and there is no draft to get the warm bodies!  I got out as an E7 back at the end of 1996, even though I was offered promotion to E8 with a fast-track to SGM, but after almost 13 years, I had had enough.  Shortly after we seized Afghanistan, and were gearing up for Iraq, I ran into some recruiters in the supermarket, and just on a whim, I thought I'd see what they were offering at the time.... And even though I had been out on beat street for like six years, and was well into my 40's, they said they would give me my old rank back, a bonus of $30K, and promotion to E8 within a year if I didn't get killed or screw up!  By this time, I coulda made about $90K in bonuses, on top of combat pay, etc......!  That was my first clue just how hard-up the current Army is.  I have since found out they will take just about anyone these days, while I recall you had to have at least a high-school diploma or equivalent and no criminal record, and in fact, they were really looking for people with college, and I recall a PFC with a Doctorate in an ADA Battalion I was assigned to back in the 80's!  The PT test minimum requirements kept going up, and I recall when I got out in 1996, that my PT requirements for age were the same as what they were when I joined up in 1984!  Boy, has THAT all been thrown out the window!

My guess is that when all the current wars are done, it will take about six-ten years for the Army to get back to anything like the standards we had back in the '80's..... Just like after Vietnam!

there is an Army Reserve training center about twenty minutes south of me, and this is one of the major training spots for all people going to Iraq and Afganistan. Some are going, and some are returning, but it's steady. There's also a SEAL team posted out in the middle of now where down there, and we happen upon them from time to time. Otherwise the place is dead. Used to be very busy place every weekend, and really busy during the summer months. Now the most activity during the week is bombing runs from F16's. Miss the A10's. Three years ago there was a waiting line to get in the National Guard and Reserves here, but with all of them heading overseas I doubt there still is. Still I see alot of upper NCO's getting their ticket punched.

    When Carter was president (I guess that's what some folks called him anyway, but count me out) the place was completely dead. And this was the same on most regular Army bases as well. Then Reagan had to ramp up military spending just to make an attempt to catch up. Then we went into Kuwait and Iraq, and of course everbody knows what happened. The Bush Sr. promptly went to work on the military budgit, only to be followed by Clinton. Now you see a lot of canibalized equipment everywhere due to the lack of money for spares. I often wonder how well the Army would be equiped if those clowns in congress had one of their kids in and SPG! In 1997 there was enough deisel to fuel each and every truck up at Ft.Bragg. There was less that two rounds per tube (155mm). There were canibalized choppers and C130s everywhere. Are you ready for that situation again? Or better said is your kid ready for that scenero again?

gary

Well, a lot of people don't realise that it was Carter that actually started the re-arming and re-organization of the US military after Vietnam, got the funding, etc.  But it took close to six years for that money and reorganization to start to take effect, clear out the Vietnam dopers, etc).  Reagan kicked it up a couple more notches, and by the time the first Gulf War kicked off, we had the most professional and well-equipped military in the world, by a long shot!  Saddam was so stupid, as if he had just waited a year to invade Kuwait, the US military would only have been half as powerful (this was the military designed to fight WW3!) due to drawdowns.  We also expended the ENTIRE ammo supply for Europe that had been stockpiled to fight the Warsaw Pact for the previous 30 years, and who knows how much that cost?  Note, most of it wasn't used in combat (because the Iraqi Army wisely surrendered for the most part), but the Saudis insisted that when we came back from Iraq, we could not bring ammo with us, so EVERY unit, before returning across the line, had a 'mad minute' that lasted for an hour or two, burning off all the ammo they had carried into Iraq and Kuwait.... Talk about a waste!!
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Sunday, November 16, 2008 10:04 PM
 Badger wrote:

I don't recall what PT stands for, but I know it's the physical test.  Sit ups, push ups, pull ups (do they do those anymore?), running, ect.

 

PT!  It stands for 'Physical Training.'  PT takes place five days a week at 0600 hrs in garrison (be there or be square, troop!). The standard when I started as a 24 year old was 30 situps in two minutes, 40 pushups in two minutes, and a 2-mile run in no less than 16 minutes, 30 seconds, plus a weigh-in.  This test is administered twice a year, and if you fail, you were barred from promotion and barred from reenlistment.  Your test of marksmanship at the rifle range was likewise cause for bar to promotion and reenlistment, if you fail (I shot expert ten years running). The last PT test I did, as a 38-year-old SFC, I managed 60 pushups in two minutes, 52 situps in two minutes, and a 2-mile run at 14 minutes, 30 seconds.  Too much for this old man, time for somebody younger to do all that running around!  Of course, these days, my guess is all you have to do is show up fer the blasted test (then again, all that hoofin' around in all that personal armor in the desert probably keeps you in pretty slim, and in good shape!).  Point is, I was not an infantryman, or any sort of 'Combat Arms,' but a 96B Military Inteligence Analyst (a 'weinie'), but was ordinarily attached to combat arms units, and thus had to go and do everything the combat arms guys did (like route march 20 miles with the Light Infantry under full combat load, rappel out of helicopters with the Airborne guys, and sweat in the desert with a tank with the Armor boys).  The same standards were in effect across MOS-types, and clerks and jerks as well as the infantry troops all had to meet the same standards.  God knows what the standards are now.......... 
JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.