Id. warship

[kgvm]

Hello Dido,
in any case it's not a KT.
Might be a submarine hunter or patrol boat, very probably rebuilt from a motor fishing craft or a coaster.
Of course we cannot exclude an Italian vessel, the picture was taken by Aldo Fraccaroli 25.08.42.

[photo-war]

Please help to ID this ship, photo was taken in harbour of Sevastopol, Summer 1942.

Thanks in advance!


Best regards,
Alexander

[igorr]

This is one of ex-hollad RA.51, 52, 54, 56 from 30 R-Flottilla. I have doubt that this is summer of 1942, because 30 R-Fl was organised only in summer 1943. Alas, i don't know exactly when RA-boats was transferred to Black sea.

[photo-war]

igorr many thanks! Photo could be placed wrong with a general time line in this album, actually image might be taken later than summer of 1942/

[Sturm78]

Hi all,

I know that it is a very difficult question but.... can somebody identify these US battleships ?

Image from EBay
Sturm78

[LWD]

The mast structure looks like that of US battleships prior to the early 30's.
Based on the mast structure and twin turrest and looking at the following images the following are possiblities:
Colorado http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h55271.jpg
Oklahoma http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h44401.jpg
and http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h44401.jpg
Nevada http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h50109.jpg
New York http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... n13046.jpg
Texas http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h61713.jpg
and http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h61243.jpg
Wyoming http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h60576.jpg
and http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h73825.jpg
and http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 466464.jpg

Arkansas and Texas http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... h57682.jpg
Arkansas doesn't seem to have the casemated guns of the first ship though. That would also seem to eliminte the Colorados. Which leaves the Nevadas, New Yorks, and Wyomings. Turrets don't look right for the Floridas and the placement of the casemates would seem to eliminate the Delaware and South Carolina classes. Someone esle may be able to get more from these photos.
This painting may also be of interest:
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... 58841k.jpg
Looking at: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/imag ... i05079.jpg and noting the absence of smoke from the stacks the battleships are likely oil burners rather than coal burners. That again would eliminate the South Carolinas and Delawares. The WYomings got oil fired boilers in the 1925-1927 time frame but the masts were changed at the same time so they are probably out. The same likely applies to the New Yorks. However there were only two Nevadas and based on the wake in the front of the lead battleship we are likely looking at a colum of at least 4 battleships. If you have a date for the photo that would help.

[Sturm78]

Thank you very much for your answer, LWD.

Sorry, no date in the photocaption.

Regards Sturm78

[Max]

caption5.jpg

caption.jpg

This is the inscription on the right hand side of the image
The left hand side word includes "Atlantic"

[Sturm78]

Hi LWD,

Nevada-class battleships had three-gun turrets.
I think the battleships of my image are New York-class battleships, probably

Sturm78

[LWD]

.... Nevada-class battleships had three-gun turrets. ...

They also had two gun turrets. The upper turrets which is what is clear in the picture were two gun turrets. The lower ones were the 3 gun turrets.

[bertamingo]

http://www.gyges.dk/kriegsmarine_fumo%2 ... essels.htm
One more ID pls, the website says its the V1601, former ferry-turned patrol ship. Another website says its the Wullenwever, a minelayer. Which one is correct?

[Max]

savera wrote:
Original message # 409418

By almost 100% of the Minelayer WULLENWEVER
However Groener writes that it looks like the SCORPION, and the one with 12.40 became v. 1601, then there was the DWO. 67, vs. and VS 111.61, i.e. just the forpostenbot name. So maybe this is it.

http://tsushima.su/forums/viewtopic.php?id=97&p=78

ALSO

A view of the ex Rouen Wullenwever.


Source: Pierre Froger, french ships under the German flag during the 1939-1945 war. Neptunia No. 79, 3 rd quarter 1965.

http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pa ... _239_1.htm
ALSO
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ ... c_aml2.htm

BUT IS IT THE NEWHAVEN/SCORPION AFTER ALL?

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ ... _samc2.htm

So we still have
Newhaven /Scorpion
or
Rouen/Wullenwever

[kgvm]

It's not the former "Rouen", which became the minelayer "Wullenwever", but the former ferry "Newhaven" as "V 1601"/"Scorpion".
There are some pictures of this vessel clearly showing the triangle, the marking of the 16. Vorpostenflottille, at the bridge.
The (few) pictures of "Wullenwever" show no camouflage, but the best way to distinguish the two ships are the masts:
the foreward mast is directly behind the bridge on "Wullenwever", while on "Scorpion" it was in front of the bridge originally and - after a rebuilding - with some distance behind the bridge, but then there was only one mast!

[Max]

It's not the former "Rouen", which became the minelayer "Wullenwever", but the former ferry "Newhaven" as "V 1601"/"Scorpion".
There are some pictures of this vessel clearly showing the triangle, the marking of the 16. Vorpostenflottille, at the bridge.
The (few) pictures of "Wullenwever" show no camouflage, but the best way to distinguish the two ships are the masts:
the foreward mast is directly behind the bridge on "Wullenwever", while on "Scorpion" it was in front of the bridge originally and - after a rebuilding - with some distance behind the bridge, but then there was only one mast!

Can you post any of your pictures showing the difference?
There certainly is a lot of confusion

Ships.JPG

[kgvm]

Two pictures of "Scorpion", one showing the triangle at the bridge, the other the appearance after rebuilding with one mast only.
Sorry, the pictures of "Wullenwever" I have are very probably still protected by copyright.