World War One

In the book Guns of August it asks a question, what if Germany had taken a defensive posture against the West, and sent the bulk of her army East against Russia? I also read that Russia had 2 armies ready for Germany, the first and second, and 4 prepared to battle Ausrto-Hungary.

I would say for one thing that France was offensive minded at this time, but I gather they depended on Germany, violating Belgian neutrality, to get Great Britain to declare war against the Germans. If there was no violation of territory by Germany, or France, Belgium would have stayed out of it, being a neutral country. Britain may have remained neutral as well. The question is could the German army hold off the French? I believe so, because the front would be much narrower, and the Germans would cover whatever obvious moves the French would venture to try.

In the east the Germans on the offensive would certainly crush Russia, at least early on. The Germans may end up fighting in Russia during the dreaded Winter weather. Also perhaps the Russian Revolution could be avoided, though I doubt it, the people hated the Autocratic government, but they may have overlooked this for defense of the Motherland. I believe the Russians would be pushed back by Germany and her decrepit ally Austro-Hungary. Also with the Ottoman empire coming in November, Russia would have to rely on a French breakthrough in the West. I wonder if the United States would enter the war as an ally of Russia, and what of Italy. Italians were greedy and seem to bite off more than they can chew, however, the Italian people did not want war. Also, they were not ready for war. Anyway, I feel these are some interesting topics to consider, let me know what you think.
 
You covered it. The von Schlieffen "plan" was designed for the First Moroccan Crisis, when Russian armies were weak and really did take that long to get somewhere, and before the British intention to hang with France through thick and thin over Belgium was made explicitly clear. It was woefully poor planning for the 1914 war. For all of the reasons you said, Germany ought to have concentrated against Russia.
 
I can get my Janes 'Fighting Ships of World War One' out if required.
 
I can get my Janes 'Fighting Ships of World War One' out if required.

Yes I am interested in Torpedo boats, what were their capabilities in range and speed, how powerful were their torpedoes, could they sink a dreadnought, and what were they typically used for in combat, were they ocean going or primarily river and coastal defense.

I also, would be interested in differences between displacement, speed, armour thickness, and gun sizes of a dreadnought compared to a pre-dreadnought. I know there are several classes and types, but a generalized idea would be fine if possible, thank you.
 
I would love to know the typical rifles and machine guns, that Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian troops were equipped with at the outset of the war in August 1914. What types of Artillery did these armies use? I have already read that Russia had some really good weapons, but not nearly enough to go around because of this man, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Sukhomlinov(Russia's minister of war from 1909-1914), who did not believe in Modern Warfare and innovation. Thanks for any information.
 
At the outset of war in August 1914, how many Russian, and Austro-Hungarian armies were facing each other on the Galacian front? Who were the commanders and where were they positioned? How many divisions of Infantry and Cavalry did each of the armies have? Thanks for any info you can find.
 
Yes I am interested in Torpedo boats, what were their capabilities in range and speed, how powerful were their torpedoes, could they sink a dreadnought, and what were they typically used for in combat, were they ocean going or primarily river and coastal defense.

I also, would be interested in differences between displacement, speed, armour thickness, and gun sizes of a dreadnought compared to a pre-dreadnought. I know there are several classes and types, but a generalized idea would be fine if possible, thank you.

let me get back to you on that one. That was and is a major interest of mine - how designers optimized their ship displacements to balance out speed, protection, range, seaworthiness, and firepower.
 
At the outset of war in August 1914, how many Russian, and Austro-Hungarian armies were facing each other on the Galacian front? Who were the commanders and where were they positioned? How many divisions of Infantry and Cavalry did each of the armies have? Thanks for any info you can find.
Austrians massed four armies, the First (Viktor Dankl, concentrated around Sandomierz), Fourth (Moritz von Auffenberg, deployed at Jaroslau), Third (Rudolf Brudermann, at Przemysl), and Second (Eduard von Böhm-Ermolli, near Stanislaw). In addition, they had two ad hoc formations, the "Gruppe Kövess" (commanded by Kövess von Kövessháza, loosely deployed around Tarnopol) and the "Gruppe Kummer" (Heinrich Ritter Falkenfeld von Kummer, at Krakau). They amassed between 900,000 and 1,000,000 personnel between them and overall command was given to Conrad von Hötzendorf, chief of the Austro-Hungarian General Staff.

Russia had 1,200,000 men organized in the Southwest Front, commanded by Nikolai Ivanov. They too were split into four armies, with an additional army, the Ninth, held back as a general reserve in the vicinity of Brest-Litovsk. The Fourth Army (Anton von Salza, succeeded by Aleksei Evert, concentrated between Lublin and Krasnik - this was a 'short army', which was less a corps compared to its neighbors), Fifth Army (Pavel Plehve, between Kovel and Kholm), Third Army (Nikolai Ruzski, at Dubno), and Eighth Army (Aleksei Brusilov, originally near Vinnitsa), comprised this Front.

Conrad's basic idea was to attack north with his First and Fourth armies towards Brest-Litovsk, while having Gruppe Kövess, the Second Army, and the Third Army wall off the eastern flank by holding the Galician fortresses, especially Lemberg. The Russians, correspondingly, were to attack towards Lemberg and cut off the First and Fourth from behind. That is basically what happened. Despite tactical successes against the Russian Fourth and Fifth Armies around Krasnik and Komarow, the First and Fourth had to be pulled back after Brusilov and Ruzski mauled the Habsburg southern flank at Gnila Lipa, concurrently with the two northern battles. Now that the Austrian eastern armies were collapsing, the northern armies were judged to be too exposed, and were pulled back, whereupon Evert and Plehve savaged them in the retreat. The upshot was a Russian conquest of Lemberg and the Habsburgs' armies pulling back all the way to the Carpathian Mountains. Przemysl, the other great Galician fortress, was also besieged.

I don't have statistics on infantry/cavalry balance though, sorry, just a general campaign narrative. :undecide:
 
Austrians massed four armies, the First (Viktor Dankl, concentrated around Sandomierz), Fourth (Moritz von Auffenberg, deployed at Jaroslau), Third (Rudolf Brudermann, at Przemysl), and Second (Eduard von Böhm-Ermolli, near Stanislaw). In addition, they had two ad hoc formations, the "Gruppe Kövess" (commanded by Kövess von Kövessháza, loosely deployed around Tarnopol) and the "Gruppe Kummer" (Heinrich Ritter Falkenfeld von Kummer, at Krakau). They amassed between 900,000 and 1,000,000 personnel between them and overall command was given to Conrad von Hötzendorf, chief of the Austro-Hungarian General Staff.

Russia had 1,200,000 men organized in the Southwest Front, commanded by Nikolai Ivanov. They too were split into four armies, with an additional army, the Ninth, held back as a general reserve in the vicinity of Brest-Litovsk. The Fourth Army (Anton von Salza, succeeded by Aleksei Evert, concentrated between Lublin and Krasnik - this was a 'short army', which was less a corps compared to its neighbors), Fifth Army (Pavel Plehve, between Kovel and Kholm), Third Army (Nikolai Ruzski, at Dubno), and Eighth Army (Aleksei Brusilov, originally near Vinnitsa), comprised this Front.

Conrad's basic idea was to attack north with his First and Fourth armies towards Brest-Litovsk, while having Gruppe Kövess, the Second Army, and the Third Army wall off the eastern flank by holding the Galician fortresses, especially Lemberg. The Russians, correspondingly, were to attack towards Lemberg and cut off the First and Fourth from behind. That is basically what happened. Despite tactical successes against the Russian Fourth and Fifth Armies around Krasnik and Komarow, the First and Fourth had to be pulled back after Brusilov and Ruzski mauled the Habsburg southern flank at Gnila Lipa, concurrently with the two northern battles. Now that the Austrian eastern armies were collapsing, the northern armies were judged to be too exposed, and were pulled back, whereupon Evert and Plehve savaged them in the retreat. The upshot was a Russian conquest of Lemberg and the Habsburgs' armies pulling back all the way to the Carpathian Mountains. Przemysl, the other great Galician fortress, was also besieged.

I don't have statistics on infantry/cavalry balance though, sorry, just a general campaign narrative. :undecide:

Thank you for this info, the whole picture becomes much clearer.
 
I would love to know the typical rifles and machine guns, that Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian troops were equipped with at the outset of the war in August 1914. What types of Artillery did these armies use? I have already read that Russia had some really good weapons, but not nearly enough to go around because of this man, Vladimir Aleksandrovich Sukhomlinov(Russia's minister of war from 1909-1914), who did not believe in Modern Warfare and innovation. Thanks for any information.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/rifles.htm
Quick glance shows the overview does not include Russia, where the predominant infantry weapon was, afaik, Mosin-Nagant rifle.
 
Most machine guns in use at the start of WWI were either Maxim clones (i.e. Russia and Germany) or derivatives (i.e. Vickers), converted to fire local ammunition, of course. The Hotchkiss (I believe) and Lewis guns are the two main non-maxims that come to mind.
At least in the case of the German MG-08, there were a number of models produced during the war, that made them more unique. Not sure about Germany

I have read that the Austro-Hungarian machinegun was different from the Maxim gun, with a completely different action. Not sure about it though, as WWI Eastern Front is not a place where I have lots of knowledge. But the other two you stated were definitely very similar to Maxims.
 
nokmirt said:
I also, would be interested in differences between displacement, speed, armour thickness, and gun sizes of a dreadnought compared to a pre-dreadnought. I know there are several classes and types, but a generalized idea would be fine if possible, thank you.

1894 British Battleships (16 1/2 knot): Duncan Class

Magnificent, Majestic, Hannibal, Prince George, Victorious, Jupiter, Mars, Caesar & Illustrious

Displacement 14,900 tonnes. Complement 757.
Length (waterline) 399 feet. Length over all, 413 feet.

Guns:
4-12 inch, VIII., 35 cal. (AAA)
12-6 inch, wire, 40 cal.
16-12 pdr.
12-3pdr.
2 maxims.
2-12 pdr. boat guns.
Torpedo tubes (18 inch):
4 submerged
1 above water stern

Armour (Harvey)
9" Belt (amidships):
14" Bulkheads
4" Deck (on slopes)
Protection to vitals
14" Barbettes
10" Turrets to these
6" Casemates
14" Conning tower

Designed H.P. natural 10,000 = 16.5 knots., forced 12,000 = 17.5 knots.

1896 18 1/4 knots: Queen Class

Canopus, Goliath, Albion, Ocean, Glory, Vengence

Displacement 12,950 tonnes. Complement 750 (flagship 780).
Length (waterline) 400 feet. Length over all, 418 feet.

Guns:
4-12 inch, VIII., 35 cal. (AAA)
12-6 inch, wire, 40 cal.
10-12 pdr., 12 ctw.
2-12 pdr., 8 ctw. boat
6-3 pdr.
2 maxims
Torpedo tubes (18 inch):
4 submerged

Armour (Harvey-Nickel)
6" Belt (amidships):
2" Belt (bow)
1 1/2" Belt (afte)
12" Bulkheads
2 1/2" Deck (on slopes)
Protection to vitals
12" Barbettes
8" Turrets to these
5" Casemates
12" Conning tower

Designed H.P. natural 13,500 = 18.25 knots. [Note: she could have gone faster considering that she's lighter courtesy of the Harvey-nickel and fancier boilers].

... skipping to 1904

1904 18 1/2 knots: Lord Nelson Class

Lord Nelson & Agamemnon

Displacement 16,500 tonnes. Complement 865
Length (waterline) 435 feet. Length over all, 445 feet.

Guns:
4-12 inch, XI., 45 cal. (A^5)
10-9.2 inch, XI., 50 cal. (A^3)
15-12 pdr.
16-3 pdr.
Torpedo tubes (18 inch):
4 submerged (broadside)
1 submerged (stern)

Armour (Krupp)
12" Belt (amidships):
6" Belt (forward)
4" Belt (aft)
12" Bulkheads
2" Deck (on slopes)
Protection to vitals
14" Barbettes
8" Turrets to these
7" Secondary turrets
12" Conning tower

Designed H.P. natural 16,750 = 18.5 knots.

1913-14: Royal Sovereign Class

Sovereign, Royal Oak, Resolution, Ramillies, Revenge

Displacement 25,750 tonnes. Complement 937-997
Length over all, 624 1/2 feet.

Guns:
8-15 inch, 42cal.
146 inch, 50 cal
2-3 inch
4-3 pdr.
5 M.G.
Torpedo tubes (21 inch):
4 submerged

Armour (H.T)
Lets just say her average armour over her superstructure was probably around 8-10" inch with her deck armour averaging 2" inch.

Designed H.P. natural 40,000 = 23 knots.

Note: More to come tomorrow.

Simply put the jump from 1896 to 1904 is significant in terms of armour, the polishing of the superstructure especially with regards to balance with corresponding improvements in accuracy and an improvement in the positioning of the guns. From 1904 to 1914 you might as well be comparing a Sherman to an Abrams (the latter without the benefit of the massive improvement in accuracy mind you).
 
Masada provided an interesting development of the pre-dreadnoughts, and left a big gap between the last semi-dreadnoughts and the last super-dreadnoughts, when most of the ships at Jutland were built. I'll take the opening with a few classes:

The Dreadnought itself, completed 1906:

displacement: 18,000 tons, full load, 21,845 tons.
length overall: 527 feet
ten 12" 45 cal. (5 twin)
20+ 3" 12 lb. quick-firers
5 18" torpedo tubes
side: belt 8-11" ends 4-6"
deck: upper .75" lower 3"
maint turrets: 3-11" barbettes 4-11"
23,000 hp Parsons turbines, 26,500 on trials
speed 21.6 knots max, range 7,870 miles @ 10 knots
crew: 773

The first concentration of design around heavy guns of the same caliber.
To accommodate this, one wing turret was mounted on each beam. This meant 6 guns forward, the emphasis was on speed and end-on fire rather than broadside (crossing the T). With the low rate of fire of these big guns, the 3" quick-firing gun was soon seen to be inadequate as a secondary armament, and the next step up was to 4" on succeeding classes. It was also the first large warship powered by turbines, and very seaworthy. It was completed in 366 days. Never fired her guns in anger, but rammed a submarine. In many ways the contemporary Lord Nelson class were still a match for it, the ability to use speed to choose the range and heavier guns still had to be exploited by better fire control. Some other countries had started to concentrate on a mixed 10" and 12" armament, but most were like the eight (8!) King Edward VII class pre-dreadnoughts that came before the Lord Nelsons.

Simultaneously, Lord Fisher commissioned the first two battlecruisers Invinvible and Inflexible in 1907. They had one less turret making 8 12" guns, and very light armour for their size, but a speed of over 25 knots. They fulfilled their design intent able to catch and destroy the German armoured cruisers at range in the Falklands, which were tough ships but made obsolete in the same way as the pre-dreadnoughts. But the early battlecruisers could not stand the heat of a battle like Jutland where Invincible blew up.

More 12" gun armed dreadnoughts followed: Bellerophons, St. Vincents, Neptune, Collossus, Hercules. All turrets moved to the centerline, in superfiring pairs. The purist vision of big caliber armament was becoming compromised as the secondary armament move up to 6" where it stayed until WWII, and the ships became larger and better protected. The next big increase in firepower were the Orions , King George V, and Iron-Duke classes with 13.5" caliber main armament, the 'super-dreadnoughts'.

laid down 1911 completed 1914: Iron Duke, Marlborough, Benbow, Emperor of India

displacement: 25,820 tons, full load, 30,380 tons.
length overall: 623 feet
ten 13.5" 45 cal. (5 twin), shell weight about 1,400 lb.
12 6" 50 cal. (casemates)
a few 3 pdrs and 12 pdrs.
4 21" torpedo tubes
side: belt 8-12" ends 2.5-6"
deck: upper 1.25-2" middle 1.5" lower 1-2.5"
main turrets: 4-11" barbettes 7-10"
30,000 hp turbines, speed 21 knots range 7,780 miles @ 10 knots
crew: up to 1,022

German development was similar, but there was a reluctance to adopt higher calibers, perfecting the ones they had including the 5.9" and 4.1" secondary armament that appeared on her successful light cruisers. With less design experience, they produced some well balanced and well protected dreadnoughts. They also moved the secondary gun casemates inboard in a central citadel, making them workable in any weather, and easier to protect. The Kaisers were followed by the Konigs:

laid down 1911, completed 1914: Grosser Kurfurst, Konig, Markgraf, Kronprinz

displacement: 25,390 tons, full load, 28,148 tons.
length overall: 576 feet
ten 12" 50 cal. (5 twin) shell about 1,000 lb.
14 5.9" 45 cal. (casemates)
8 3.4", later removed. AA guns added
5 19.7" torpedo tubes
side: belt 7.9-13.8" ends 5.9"
deck: upper 1.2" middle 1.2" lower 1.2-3.9"
main turrets: 3.2-11.8" barbettes 11.8" casemates 7.9"
31-43,000 hp turbines, speed 22.5 knots max, range 10,000 miles @ 10 knots
crew: 1,150

The higher velocity 12" guns had the same range as the British 13.5" but much less broadside weight. The armor race had not yet made them obsolete though.

After the Indefatigables, British battlecruisers illustrated even more the emphasis on firepower and speed at the expense of protection.

laid down 1910 completed 1912: Lion, Princess Royal, Queen Mary

displacement: 26,270 tons, full load, 29,680 tons.
length overall: 700 feet
eight 13.5" 45 cal. (4 twin), shell weight about 1,400 lb.
16 4" (casemates), clustered around 2 central batteries
2 21" torpedo tubes
side: belt 4-9"
deck: upper 1" main 1-2.5"
main turrets: 4-9" barbettes 9"
70-75,000 hp turbines, speed 27 knots, range 5,610 miles @ 10 knots
crew: 997

They were good ships and the larger guns should have made up for fewer chances of a hit, but some of the shells were faulty at the time of Jutland. The demise of Queen Mary was faulty flash protection allowing a hit on the turret roof to explode the magazine below in the barbette. The Tiger that followed again reaffirmed the need to increase protection and move up to a 6" secondary armament. What is apparent is that it took a very large ship to house the machinery necessary to achieve these speeds, and hence harder to adequately protect them, and more fuel to run, while having 1 turret ( 2 guns) less than the battleships. The 15" battlecruisers Renown, Repulse, and Hood (their largest warship in WWII) were the last, except for three odd, lightly armored hybrids with only two turrets each; the 15" Glorious and Courageous, and 18" Furious. All three hybrids were converted to aircraft carriers where there speed was sufficient to operate in WWII, (but tied up Britain's treaty displacement in ships not designed as such, and therefore having small plane complements).

By comparison, a German contemporary to the Lion was the Seydlitz, which followed the Moltkes.

laid down 1911, completed 1913: Seydlitz

displacement: 24,610 tons, full load, 28,550 tons.
length overall: 652 feet
ten 11" 50 cal. (5 twin) shell about 725 lb.
12 5.9" 45 cal. (casemates)
14 3.4", later removed. AA guns added
4 19.7" torpedo tubes
side: belt 5.9-13.8" ends 3.9"
deck: upper 1.2-3.1" armour 1.2-3.1"
main turrets: 2.8-9.8" barbettes 3.9-7.9" casemates 5.9"
67-90,000 hp turbines, speed 26.5-29 knots max, range 4,200 miles @ 10 knots
crew: 1,068

The Seydlitz and earlier battlecruisers were similarly arranged as the German battleships, with only 2" less armour in the thickest places, and a lighter 11" main armament. They would have been challenged by the armour of bigger dreadnoughts, but were sufficient for the British battlecruisers and any other ship that could catch them. The sacrifice in firepower was compensated by well distributed protection and underwater sub-compartments. On 3 occasions Seydlitz took heavy shell and torpedo hits. At Dogger Bank two turrets burned out but did not explode due to slower cordite. At Jutland, she survived 21 heavy and 2 medium shell hits, 1 torpedo, and limped back home with 5,300 tons of water in the hull, with the loss of 98 men killed. The 3 Derfflingers followed this with 12" guns, and the Germans planned but never completed the 13.8" Mackensen class.

The best design compromise in WWI was the British Queen Elizabeth class:

laid down 1912, completed 1915: Queen Elizabeth, Valiant, Warspite, Barham, Malaya

displacement: 27,500 tons, full load, 33,020 tons.
length overall: 646 feet
eight 15" 42 cal. (4 twin), shell weight about 1,900 lb.
16 6" (casemates), clustered around 2 central batteries
4 21" torpedo tubes
side: belt 6-13"
deck: upper 1.25-2" main 1.25" middle 1" lower 1-3"
main turrets: 5-13" babettes 4-10" casemates 4-6"
75-80,000 hp turbines, speed 25 knots, range 8,600 miles @ 12.5 knots
crew: 925

Contemporaries of the heavy Royal Sovereign class Masada mentioned, and the Germans tried to match this with a few Baden class ships, but were not as successful. They were the ancestors of the fast battleship, strongly influencing the later Japanese Nagatos. Whereas the older dreadnoughts and super-dreadnoughts were scrapped, all 5 of these ships were modernized before and during WWII, getting superbulges, efficient engines, heavy deck armor, and a dual purpose secondary and AA armament similar to US designs. They had an active service career, and HMS Warspite was one of the most successful battleships in both wars. Only Barham was lost, to U-boat torpedoes, and both survived heavy damage at Jutland. Though Valiant and Queen Elizabeth both spent time in dry-dock after Italian 'human torpedoes' holed their hulls.

The Japanese had also adopted battlecruisers, the only other country to do so, and they liked the Kongo class so much they converted them to fast battleships for WWII, and their service career was every bit as exciting:

laid down 1912, completed 1915: Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, Kirishima

displacement: 27,900 tons.
length overall: 705 feet
eight 14" 40 cal. (4 twin), shell weight about 1,485 lb.
16 6" 50 cal. (casemates), clustered around central battery
8 21" torpedo tubes
side: belt 6-8" ends 3"
deck: upper 1.5" lower 0.75"
main turrets: 3-9" barbettes 10" casemates 6"
64,000 hp turbines, speed 27.5 knots, range 9,520 miles @ 14 knots
crew: 1,221

In 1937:

displacement: 32,156 tons, full load, 36,610 tons.
length overall: 723 feet
eight 14" 40 cal. (4 twin), shell weight about 1,485 lb.
14 6" 50 cal. (casemates), clustered around central battery
8 5" dual purpsoe, light AA
no torpedo tubes, 3 aircraft
side: belt 6-8" ends 3"
deck: upper 1.5" armour 0.75-4.75"
main turrets: 6-9" barbettes 11" casemates 6"
136,000 hp turbines, speed 30 knots, range 11,660 miles @ 18 knots
crew: 1,437

With new machinery and armour these were virtually new ships, with an obvious increase in deck armour against armor piercing bombs and later radar and AA guns. All 4 had active lives before falling prey to US submarines or aircraft except Haruna which was reduced to a hulk in Japanese home waters at war's end.
 
Masada provided an interesting development of the pre-dreadnoughts, and left a big gap between the last semi-dreadnoughts and the last super-dreadnoughts, when most of the ships at Jutland were built. I'll take the opening with a few classes:

Thank you and its amazing how tough the German battle cruiser Seydlitz was. Seems to me like she was almost unsinkable. Do you have any info on light cruisers and their role in fleet operations, oh and submarines, and early aircraft carriers.

I was in the navy and I was on the U.S.S. South Carolina CGN-37 so of course I find this all very fascinating. Of course the best thing were the mock wargames, though we did not fair too well. I remember one time we were sunk by several 16" shells which took out our fantail, fired from the U.S.S Wisconsin BB-64. Of course we were playing the rogue enemy vessel, chased by a carrier battle group, so the odds were against us. I remember I was in GQ in the port side sea whiz control room, when they told us we were sinking and dead in the water. It was a little scary because, you cannot see what would be going on outside. Its one of those things where you would not see it coming, there one moment gone the next. But the sound of a 16" gun going off during gunnery practice was, well there was nothing like it. Our ship was maybe 1-2 hundred yards behind the Wisconsin, when one of these guns went off, it made my ears ring for quite awhile and I was on the port lookout with double hearing protection. It shook our ship very powerfully, just an unbelievable booming sound. Hard to describe but just awesome, its something I will never forget.
 
But the sound of a 16" gun going off during gunnery practice was, well there was nothing like it. Our ship was maybe 1-2 hundred yards behind the Wisconsin, when one of these guns went off, it made my ears ring for quite awhile and I was on the port lookout with double hearing protection. It shook our ship very powerfully, just an unbelievable booming sound. Hard to describe but just awesome, its something I will never forget.

yeah I just can't imagine it. Can I ask about when this took place ?
 
vogtmurr said:
Masada provided an interesting development of the pre-dreadnoughts, and left a big gap between the last semi-dreadnoughts and the last super-dreadnoughts, when most of the ships at Jutland were built. I'll take the opening with a few classes:

It was late at night and I was tired... I'm surprised I managed to do that much :p
 
yeah I just can't imagine it. Can I ask about when this took place ?

The Summer of 1990 right before Desert Storm began, we were on ops in the Carribean. I was reading the article and it says the Wisconsin participated in a fleet excersise in mid 1990, I was there, on the South Carolina. Heres the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wisconsin_(BB-64)#Reactivation_.281986.E2.80.9390.29 God it was beautiful that day and I don't know our exact position had to be somewhere off Guantanamo Bay, naval base, Cuba. Thats where we did our gunnery excersises. The fleet excersise they mention, were wargames, we were picked to be the rogue ship or should I say, the fox. The wargames took place at various places. Well its one of the cooler memories in my life. When I was there women still were not allowed on combat vessels.
 
Back
Top Bottom