Re: Hitler's high seas fleet
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 5:41 am
????
Your point is? What?lwd wrote:????
Message forum of the Feldgrau.com research community
https://feldgrau.net/forum/
Your point is? What?lwd wrote:????
That your post previous to that seemed to be pointless and a waste of bandwidth as many if not most of your posts are.nebelwerferXXX wrote:Your point is? What?lwd wrote:????
You better search for this one:lwd wrote:That your post previous to that seemed to be pointless and a waste of bandwidth as many if not most of your posts are.nebelwerferXXX wrote:Your point is? What?lwd wrote:????
'...non-sense...' Look at your spelling again...converstationlwd wrote:and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.
Thanks for the spelling corrections. Now can you answer the question? You did understand it didn't you?nebelwerferXXX wrote:'...non-sense...' Look at your spelling again...converstationlwd wrote:and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.
lwd wrote:lwd wrote:nebelwerferXXX wrote:'...non-sense...' Look at your spelling again...converstationlwd wrote:and how is that relevant to anything here? Simply posting a URL that seems unrelated to the converstation is another waste of bandwidth if not as much as posting lists without context or source.
Not at all. The British origonally used it for capital ships where armor was sacraficed for speed. In WWI the Germans used it for capital ships where armament was sacrificed for speed. In general it came to mean unbalanced designs which has lead to considerable debate as to which ships were battle cruisers vs battleships. On the otherhand if you go by the way the owning navy designated them there is little confusion. Note in particular if you are quoteing references or worse listing projected ships without listing any sources that using non standard names for things can be very confusing. Say I want to try an reconcile 2 list s of ships and one list says 4 battleships, 3 battle cruisers, and 15 cruisers where another list says 4 battleships and 18 cruisers. Are they the same list or not? If you are looking at US construction during WWII they might well be. While I picked an arbitrary number of cruisers in general the battleships could refere to the Iowa class and the discrepency be due to how one classified the Alaska class (the us considered them large cruisers while some sources call them battlecruisers).nebelwerferXXX wrote:Was the term 'Battle-cruiser' a derogatory remark?
So, it defends in the Terminology of the experts of each nation during WW II. In short, it defends upon your understanding and conclusion. Correct me, If I am wrong. I edited some of your spelling, in order to make it good-looking in the net.lwd wrote:Not at all. The British originally used it for capital ships where armor was sacrificed for speed. In WWI the Germans used it for capital ships where armament was sacrificed for speed. In general it came to mean unbalanced designs which has lead to considerable debate as to which ships were battle cruisers vs battleships. On the other hand if you go by the way the owning navy designated them there is little confusion. Note in particular if you are quoting references or worse listing projected ships without listing any sources that using non standard names for things can be very confusing. Say I want to try an reconcile 2 lists of ships and one list says 4 battleships, 3 battle cruisers, and 15 cruisers where another list says 4 battleships and 18 cruisers. Are they the same list or not? If you are looking at US construction during WWII they might well be. While I picked an arbitrary number of cruisers in general the battleships could referee to the Iowa class and the discrepancy be due to how one classified the Alaska class (the US considered them large cruisers while some sources call them battle cruisers).nebelwerferXXX wrote:Was the term 'Battle-cruiser' a derogatory remark?
I would say rather it uses the defintion of the navy of the operating nation. And not just for WWII.nebelwerferXXX wrote:So, it defends in the Terminology of the experts of each nation during WW II.
If you are going to be editing and correcting other peoples post you should consider making sure your own are up to your "standards" as well. In light of the above your first sentence is rather amusing and for that matter confusing.In short, it defends upon your understanding and conclusion. Correct me, If I am wrong. I edited some of your spelling, in order to make it good-looking in the net.
Then, what else?lwd wrote:I would say rather it uses the defintion of the navy of the operating nation. And not just for WWII.nebelwerferXXX wrote:So, it defends in the Terminology of the experts of each nation during WW II.If you are going to be editing and correcting other peoples post you should consider making sure your own are up to your "standards" as well. In light of the above your first sentence is rather amusing and for that matter confusing.In short, it defends upon your understanding and conclusion. Correct me, If I am wrong. I edited some of your spelling, in order to make it good-looking in the net.