The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
-
- Member
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: 09 Jan 2004, 00:22
- Location: Georgia USA
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Correct, iffig:
I have attached his obituary here that tells quite a bit of his career.
If I may, I will add a little of my own. His career and that of my Father, MajGen Raymond L. Murray USMC (Ret) were very much connected together.
They served in different commands in WWII but knew each other well from earlier postings together.
In 1950, then Col Krulak was the CO of the 5th Marine Regiment and my father, then a LtCol was his executive officer.
Col Krulak was posted to Marine Headquarters in April or May of 1950 and as the Marine Corps was quite small at the time, it would take a while to find a replacement Col to take over the Regiment. Thus, my father was the temporary CO.
In June, 1950, the North Koreans invaded South Korea and the Ist Marine Division based in California was the only combat ready military force the US had to send there. So.......my father was made the official CO but as he was still not on the normal promotion list for Col, he kept his rank as LtCol.
He took the Regiment to Korea and fought in the Pusan Perimeter, Inchon Landing and Chosin Reservoir campaigns.
He returned to the US in 1951 and was finally promoted to Col.
As you can read in the obituary, Gen Krulak was not made the Commandant of the Marine Corps in 1968 due to his strong objections to the way Gen Westmoreland was conducting the war in Viet Nam and he retired. I should say here that everyone in the Marine Corps expected he would be made the Commandant due to his outstanding record and the choice of another General was not well accepted.
Shortly after Gen Krulak retired, my Father was given the position of Deputy Commander of all Marine Corps forces in Viet Nam.
He too was very critical of the way the war was being fought and had several very serious run ins with Gen Westmoreland. The loss of "His Marines" in what he considered to be senseless operations weighted very heavily on him and although he was scheduled to take over the job of Commander of all Marine Corps forces in Viet Nam, he let it be known that he did not think he could do the job under the conditions imposed by Gen Westmoreland.
This was a depressing time for him and it was decided to send him back to the US for "medical consultations".
This resulted in the end in his forced retirement in 1969.
The point of the story is that if Gen Krulak had been made Commandant of the Marine Corps, this would not have happened to my Father as they both felt the same way about how the war should be conducted. In the end, it resulted in the early termination of both of their careers. Needless to say, I am no big fan of Pres. Johnson nor Defense Secretary MacNamara as they were the ones who were always looking for "Yes Men" to conduct that fruitless war.
Sorry for the long story.
Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/obitu ... .html?_r=1
I have attached his obituary here that tells quite a bit of his career.
If I may, I will add a little of my own. His career and that of my Father, MajGen Raymond L. Murray USMC (Ret) were very much connected together.
They served in different commands in WWII but knew each other well from earlier postings together.
In 1950, then Col Krulak was the CO of the 5th Marine Regiment and my father, then a LtCol was his executive officer.
Col Krulak was posted to Marine Headquarters in April or May of 1950 and as the Marine Corps was quite small at the time, it would take a while to find a replacement Col to take over the Regiment. Thus, my father was the temporary CO.
In June, 1950, the North Koreans invaded South Korea and the Ist Marine Division based in California was the only combat ready military force the US had to send there. So.......my father was made the official CO but as he was still not on the normal promotion list for Col, he kept his rank as LtCol.
He took the Regiment to Korea and fought in the Pusan Perimeter, Inchon Landing and Chosin Reservoir campaigns.
He returned to the US in 1951 and was finally promoted to Col.
As you can read in the obituary, Gen Krulak was not made the Commandant of the Marine Corps in 1968 due to his strong objections to the way Gen Westmoreland was conducting the war in Viet Nam and he retired. I should say here that everyone in the Marine Corps expected he would be made the Commandant due to his outstanding record and the choice of another General was not well accepted.
Shortly after Gen Krulak retired, my Father was given the position of Deputy Commander of all Marine Corps forces in Viet Nam.
He too was very critical of the way the war was being fought and had several very serious run ins with Gen Westmoreland. The loss of "His Marines" in what he considered to be senseless operations weighted very heavily on him and although he was scheduled to take over the job of Commander of all Marine Corps forces in Viet Nam, he let it be known that he did not think he could do the job under the conditions imposed by Gen Westmoreland.
This was a depressing time for him and it was decided to send him back to the US for "medical consultations".
This resulted in the end in his forced retirement in 1969.
The point of the story is that if Gen Krulak had been made Commandant of the Marine Corps, this would not have happened to my Father as they both felt the same way about how the war should be conducted. In the end, it resulted in the early termination of both of their careers. Needless to say, I am no big fan of Pres. Johnson nor Defense Secretary MacNamara as they were the ones who were always looking for "Yes Men" to conduct that fruitless war.
Sorry for the long story.
Bill
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/obitu ... .html?_r=1
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
A long but an interesting story, Bill. Looks as if every US citizen had a Marine among his/her kin.
Thats the same thing in Italy with the "Alpini" and in France with the" Parachutistes".
Now, who can identify this?
Thats the same thing in Italy with the "Alpini" and in France with the" Parachutistes".
Now, who can identify this?
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Incomplete FCM 2Cs?
Markus
Markus
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
5 FCM 2Cs on their production lline in the eaarly 20's. But they were still in use in 1940 althought their operational efficiency was nul. Over to you.
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Thanks Iffig,
To continue the line of questioning: Two German AT weapons went ballistic on this FCM 2C in the summer of 1940 as evidenced by the multiple penetrations. What were their official calibres? (Picture source eBay.de)
Markus
To continue the line of questioning: Two German AT weapons went ballistic on this FCM 2C in the summer of 1940 as evidenced by the multiple penetrations. What were their official calibres? (Picture source eBay.de)
Markus
- Attachments
-
- AHF22.jpg (47.51 KiB) Viewed 775 times
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Hint: The penetrator of the larger gun's HVAP shot was of significantly smaller diametre than the nominal calibre unlike the gun's AP shell; The smaller weapon's projectiles always were noticeably smaller out of the barrel than the nominal calibre.
-
- Member
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: 09 Jan 2004, 00:22
- Location: Georgia USA
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Hi Markus:
As the saying goes, I know "Dink" about artillery, but I do remember things sometimes from earlier research.
I can only guess at one weapon, the Pzb41 anti tank weapon which was 28mm pushed down to 20mm at the end of the barrel.
I think there was another weapon that was around 40mm pushed down to 28mm at the end of the barrel but I cannot find any evidence of that just yet and I have to go out for the moment.
Bill
As the saying goes, I know "Dink" about artillery, but I do remember things sometimes from earlier research.
I can only guess at one weapon, the Pzb41 anti tank weapon which was 28mm pushed down to 20mm at the end of the barrel.
I think there was another weapon that was around 40mm pushed down to 28mm at the end of the barrel but I cannot find any evidence of that just yet and I have to go out for the moment.
Bill
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Hi Bill,
The gun that was eventually standardized as 2,8 cm s.Pz.B. 41 was indeed the smaller weapon used. Any takes on the other one?
Markus
The gun that was eventually standardized as 2,8 cm s.Pz.B. 41 was indeed the smaller weapon used. Any takes on the other one?
Markus
-
- Member
- Posts: 6341
- Joined: 09 Jan 2004, 00:22
- Location: Georgia USA
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Well, Markus, I am always game if nothing else.
How about the 4.2cm LePak 41.
Projectile started at 40.3mm and left the barell at 28.4mm.
I gather there was a third such weapon at 75mm or so but it seems to have been abandoned due to the lack of tungsten for the shot.
Bill
How about the 4.2cm LePak 41.
Projectile started at 40.3mm and left the barell at 28.4mm.
I gather there was a third such weapon at 75mm or so but it seems to have been abandoned due to the lack of tungsten for the shot.
Bill
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Hi Bill,
The second weapon used on the 2C tank on 11 July 1940 at railway tracks in Meüssi was not a taper bore gun but fired full calibre projectiles smaller than 75 mm but bigger than 42 mm nominal calibre. It was part of a shoot-em-up tour armament from the test centres of Kummersdorf and Hillersleben. The other weapons used during the tour were 2 cm Flak, 2,8 cm Pz.B., 3,7 cm Pak and 8,8 cm Flak according to Heeresversuchstelle Kummersdorf, Band 2 by Wolfgang Fleischer.
Markus
The second weapon used on the 2C tank on 11 July 1940 at railway tracks in Meüssi was not a taper bore gun but fired full calibre projectiles smaller than 75 mm but bigger than 42 mm nominal calibre. It was part of a shoot-em-up tour armament from the test centres of Kummersdorf and Hillersleben. The other weapons used during the tour were 2 cm Flak, 2,8 cm Pz.B., 3,7 cm Pak and 8,8 cm Flak according to Heeresversuchstelle Kummersdorf, Band 2 by Wolfgang Fleischer.
Markus
- John Hilly
- Member
- Posts: 2618
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
My guess is the only one gun left: the 5 cm Pak!?
Greets
Juha-Pekka
Greets
Juha-Pekka
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Hi Juha-Pekka,
Yes, the 5 cm Pak 38 was the gun the 2C penetration tests were started with followed by an early 2,8 cm s.Pz.B..
Over to you,
Markus
Yes, the 5 cm Pak 38 was the gun the 2C penetration tests were started with followed by an early 2,8 cm s.Pz.B..
Over to you,
Markus
- John Hilly
- Member
- Posts: 2618
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Question:
This allied pilot got his civil aviation licence in Brazil, so who?
Greets
Juha-Pekka
This allied pilot got his civil aviation licence in Brazil, so who?
Greets
Juha-Pekka
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Could be Pierre Clostermann. But maybe there are many pilots falling under such a large description.
- John Hilly
- Member
- Posts: 2618
- Joined: 26 Jan 2010, 10:33
- Location: Tampere, Finland, EU
Re: The official AHF Allied & Neutral Armies quiz thread
Well, you hit the big-time, Pierre Clostermann it is!iffig wrote:Could be Pierre Clostermann
I made an easy question, cause I couldn't figure out better.
Still, you knew, so congratulations. The buck stops at you!
Greets
Juha-Pekka
"Die Blechtrommel trommelt noch!"