Enter keywords or a search phrase below:
Well, I have scoured all of my resources with no results so I am abandoning this one. I hope there is someone else out there digging for the answer.
I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
was a warship.
..............bump...............
subfixer The Kriegsmarine heavy cruiser Blucher lies in the Drobak Sound, but I am not sure if that is still considered the Oslofjord.
The Kriegsmarine heavy cruiser Blucher lies in the Drobak Sound, but I am not sure if that is still considered the Oslofjord.
Modeling is an excuse to buy books.
a ship was renamed "Lusitania II", what was that ship's original name?
Otto Von Bulow Your question, DDP.
http://www.airgroup4.com/bulow.htm
25/04/1943 On his last patrol aboard U-404, Kapitänleutnant Otto von Bülow fires two FAT and two G7e torpedoes at British aircraft carrier HMS Biter. All detonate prematurely and HMS Biter escapes without damage. Von Bülow is later decorated by Hitler with Oak leaves to his Knights Cross for his Atlantic successes and German newspapers report the recent sinking of the American carrier USS Ranger as well. Later, USS Ranger commander Gordon Rowe, is photographed aboard his carrier smiling at a photograph of von Bülow and the German report of his vessel's demise.
www.worldwar-2.net/.../battle-of-the-atlantic-index-1943.htm
This U-boat captain won the the Oak Leaves to the Knight's Cross for sinking a US carrier. I wonder if Hitler took them back.
your turn.
what 20th century warship lies on the bottom of the Oslofjord?
We have a winner....over to you ddp.....
Also, someone talked about the troopships. I am referring to the landing operation itself, known as Operation Weserubung. The Norway campaign overall did involve troop ships, but the initial landings were conducted by warships carrying troops into the harbors. The decision was made due to speed--the warships could get the troops into landing much faster.
Sounds like you're referring to the Japanese reinforcement of he Solomons via the "Tokyo Express", and the ramming of PT-109 by the Amagiri during one such mission.
Oops - late at night and I got the 'larger' and 'smaller' transposed. To quote Emily Litella ... never mind.
But there were also troop ships involved, at least in the larger campaign.
There’s an easy trick for filling awkward pauses in conversation.
Occasional factual, grammatical, or spelling variations are inherent to this thesis and should not be considered as defects, as they enhance the individuality and character of this document.
german heavy cruiser admiral hipper sinks british destroyer glowworm. other 2 heavy cruisers were blucher & lutzow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Campaign
One of the three ships I am looking for was on its way to this landing operation when it came across a smaller enemy warship. The smaller ship was heavily damaged in the fight, and ended up ramming the larger one. In doing so, the smaller ship broke apart and sank quickly.....the larger one suffered some damage but was able to continue on to take part in the operation.
no, the decision to use only warships was because the troops would be landing under fire, and warships were faster than troopships. Definitely not a post-war event. in fact, during the actual landing, one of the three ships I am looking for was able to pass herself off as an enemy ship, and so avoided coming under fire from the enemy guns.
occupation of 1 of the japanese ports\harbors at the end of the war?
Looks like you've posted a challenging stumper! Way to go!
yes, a landing and not a raid. The operation was intended to land troops and occupy the territory, not just to take out a specific target. But look at all the clues--the St. Nazaire raid does not at all fit the count or type of ships I mentioned.
A landing and not a raid, I am assuming. That would eliminate the St. Nazaire Raid.
This was a landing operation....I cannot get too specific without giving the answer away. There have not been so many landing operations since WWI that the war and theater are needed in order to find the answer.
The 14 smaller warships were all destroyers....
No, it wasnt Anzac Cove--that operation did rely upon standard transport ships, such as the transport Galeka. The operation I am referring to took place in a later war, and relied solely upon two groups of warships--no troop transports at all. I am looking for the three main ships used in this operation. Incidentally, the three main ships were supported by no less than fourteen smaller warships.
The first troops to land were two companies of each of the 9th, 10th and 11th Battalions of the Australian 3rd Brigade. The companies embarked from three Formidable-class battleships; HMS Queen, HMS London and HMS Prince of Wales. Each battleship dispatched four steamboats towing three row boats (launches and pinnaces)—a total of 48 boats.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Landing_at_Anzac_Cove
Which war and what theater? At least give us something to go on.
OK, sorry for the delay. Should be an easy one.
Amphibious landing operations are well known. But in one particular such operation, no dedicated troop ships or specialized landing craft were used. The troops were transported aboard the warships that would normally provide gun support in such an operation. Name the three main participating ships.
You got it!
Your turn F-8fanatic
Sorry, I mean the Blueback, not Bluejack. The Blueback is currently on exhibit at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry, on the Willamette River in Portland.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
