Panzerlied lyrics in English

[ccc31807]

Searching for this, I could not find one that suited me, so I cooked
up my own. My criteria, in order, were (1) proper metrical scanning,
(2) good idiomatic English, (3) faithfulness to the original German.
Here is my effort. I don't claim any originality or ownership.

I invite comment, criticism, and suggestions. (I don't know German, so
I labored under this as a severe handicap.)

Panzerlied

In rain storm or snow or in sun's laughing light,
In day's scorching heat or in bitter cold night,
Our faces covered with the dust
But hearts with joy are filled (Yes, joy are filled),
Our panzers like whirlwinds advance in the field.

With thundering engine and lightening fast speed
We charge toward the front on our steel sided steed,
And leading on our comrades
In the fight alone we stand (alone we stand),
We break through the ranks of the foe's hostile band.

When foes may appear with their tanks in our sight,
We step on the throttle and race toward the fight.
What value then has life for us?
We serve the Reich's army (Yes, Reich's army),
Our life's highest honor we give Germany.

With trenches and mines the foe seeks to impede,
We laugh in derision and pay him no heed,
And when he trains his guns on us
Emplaced in yellow sand (Yes, yellow sand)
We find other ways that the foe had not planned.

And when fickle luck will desert us at last
Then comforts of home are but memories past,
And when the fatal bullet strikes us
Then no one can save (no one can save)
Our panzer wil be our glorious grave.

CC.

[a425couple]

I could not find one that suited me, so I cooked up my own. ----
Here is my effort. (massive snip to reduce)
---And when fickle luck will desert us at last
Then comforts of home are but memories past,
And when the fatal bullet strikes us ---

In my humble opinion, delightful job.
Interesting reading. Thank you.

It is so much better prose, than what I
heard in the Marine Corps:

"Methinks would smart,
and be quite hot,
if through my bod,
a bullet shot!"

But then, probably near anything is better
literature, than anything Marines chant!

[David Wilma]

Or as the British and Americans sang:

There ain't no promotion
This side of the ocean
So cheer my lads
Bless 'em all.

[David Wilma]

What is interesting to me about this song is that the valiant panzer
crews lose in the end. Is this a Teutonic tradition or some Nazi
influence? How do other German songs of the era go?

[a425couple]

Post by David Wilma
What is interesting to me about this song is that the valiant panzer
crews lose in the end. Is this a Teutonic tradition or some Nazi
influence?

I, and others, have noted that.
"I am indebted to American historian,
Douglas H. Robinson, for this lucid justification for Langsdorff's suicide:
It is entirely consistent with the Gotterdammerung complex. The
Germans have a neurotic and pathological sense of honor which the
British, with their sense of humor, cannot comprehend. -----"
"For a German, the thought of losing a precious symbol of
the Reich implied such overwhelming personal disgrace ---"
"All the mystique with which the German invests such
wooly abstract concepts as volk, reich, blut and boden--"

Certainly seems related, Graf Spee sailing into Montevideo,
Graf Spee being scuttled, Langsdorff's suicide,
Bismark sailing in useless circles with crew singing
songs while the RN fleet converges, Stalingrad, etc.
(reminesce of great Wagner operas)

[e***@yahoo.com.au]

Post by a425couple

Post by David Wilma
What is interesting to me about this song is that the valiant panzer
crews lose in the end. Is this a Teutonic tradition or some Nazi
influence?

"I am indebted to American historian,
It is entirely consistent with the Gotterdammerung complex. The
Germans have a neurotic and pathological sense of honor which the
British, with their sense of humor, cannot comprehend. -----"
"For a German, the thought of losing a precious symbol of
the Reich implied such overwhelming personal disgrace ---"
"All the mystique with which the German invests such
wooly abstract concepts as volk, reich, blut and boden--"
Certainly seems related, Graf Spee sailing into Montevideo,
Graf Spee being scuttled, Langsdorff's suicide,
Bismark sailing in useless circles with crew singing
songs while the RN fleet converges, Stalingrad, etc.
(reminesce of great Wagner operas)

German combat efficiency ratios were over twice that of the allies.
Perhaps the strong sense of honour and a willingness to die for ones
blood gave them the courage to achieve these results; it wasn't just
better officer training. Who can doubt that had the strategic
situation been equal in terms of materials, manpower and resources
would have lost.

Divers on board the Bismark offered to strap explosives to themselves
and blow themselves up against the rudders to detach them. The offer
was rejected. However it made tremendous sense if it would have
worked to do so requires a special commitment and belief system. The
sea state prevented normal methods.

The bizzare pythonesque/spike milligan sense of humour is a recent
myth. The former essentially mocked the very sense of englishness.
Rightly so, the WW1 British Officer corps were more bizzare than
anything the Nazis could come up with in terms of some of their
hardened elitist attitudes.

[David Wilma]

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
German combat efficiency ratios were over twice that of the allies.

What does this mean?

[William Black]

Post by David Wilma

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
German combat efficiency ratios were over twice that of the allies.

What does this mean?

Their ships were really good at sinking...

[Paul J. Adam]

Post by David Wilma

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
German combat efficiency ratios were over twice that of the allies.

What does this mean?

They lost, but someone had fun with the maths and found some numbers
that make the Germans look cool.


An example is the usual argument that a Panther or Tiger was far better
than a Sherman or Cromwell... true if they met, but irrelevant because
the most important job a tank does is helping the infantry to take and
hold their objective, and US and BCE troops were *much* more likely to
have effective tank support and an effective anti-tank screen. So, while
Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills struggled to outshoot their German
opponents in tank-versus-tank battles... they routinely and regularly
shot their supported troops onto the objective, and German panzers
getting past the armour regularly broke and died on the AT screen.

German tanks were better at killing Allied tanks, than vice versa... but
that's not actually what tanks are for, and that's part of why Germany lost.

[William Black]

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au

Post by a425couple
Certainly seems related, Graf Spee sailing into Montevideo,
Graf Spee being scuttled, Langsdorff's suicide,
Bismark sailing in useless circles with crew singing
songs while the RN fleet converges, Stalingrad, etc.
(reminesce of great Wagner operas)

German combat efficiency ratios were over twice that of the allies.

Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?

You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger than
an 8"" gun between them.

Graf Spee should have quickly sunk them and moved on.

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
Perhaps the strong sense of honour and a willingness to die for ones
blood gave them the courage to achieve these results;

Are we still talking about the Graf Spee?

it wasn't just

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
better officer training.

German naval officer training in WWII.

Would that be training how to sink?

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
The bizzare pythonesque/spike milligan sense of humour is a recent
myth.

No, it's very real, and Milligan's humour is a direct result of WWII.

British conscript armies are very odd beasts indeed and old conscript
soldiers still tell stories about saluting traps and major units where
nobody wore rank badges or saluted anyone.

[Bill Shatzer]

William Black wrote:
-snip-

Post by William Black
Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?
You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger than
an 8"" gun between them.

By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

[William Black]

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black
Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?
You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger
than an 8"" gun between them.

By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

Graf Spee should have won easily.

[Dave Anderer]

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

Exeter was certainly armored consistent with other early-treaty CAs.

Easy to just to admit the mistake rather than start trying to shift to
something like "..I meant it wasn't EFFECTIVELY armoured.." Easier
still to not overclaim - what Force G did was impressive enough without
being exaggerated.

[William Black]

Post by Dave Anderer

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

Exeter was certainly armored consistent with other early-treaty CAs.

And on looking it up you're absolutely right, I always thought those
'Leander' class cruisers only had 'rain plating' but it seems they even
had some 3 inch armour.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black
Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?
You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger
than an 8"" gun between them.

By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

HMS Exeter had 3" main belt armor. The Graf Spee's main belt armor was 3.1".

I doubt the extra 0.1" made a significant difference.

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should have won easily.

It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.

Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

[William Black]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black
Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?
You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger
than an 8"" gun between them.

By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

HMS Exeter had 3" main belt armor. The Graf Spee's main belt armor was 3.1".
I doubt the extra 0.1" made a significant difference.

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should have won easily.

It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

Naval victory isn't ever determined by who got sunk and how many men died.

If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.

Graf Spee should never have broken off action and run.

Doing so means she lost.

All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

[Louis C]

Post by William Black
All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

Graf Spee was commanded by a captain, not an admiral.

No British captain found himself in exactly the same circumstances,
but Commander Lonsdale is one British example of a skipper
overestimating the extent of the damage dealt to his command.

By all accounts, Langsdorff was a decent man, who decided to surrender
when confronted to a hopeless situation rather than drag things on a
bit with no chance of altering the outcome and every apparent chance
of killing large numbers of the men under his care. Think Percival.

I don't think generalizations on national lines are particularly
useful, one eunometic is enough.


LC

[William Black]

Post by Louis C

Post by William Black
All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

Graf Spee was commanded by a captain, not an admiral.
No British captain found himself in exactly the same circumstances,
but Commander Lonsdale is one British example of a skipper
overestimating the extent of the damage dealt to his command.

Are you referring to the captain of HMS Seal?

Post by Louis C
By all accounts, Langsdorff was a decent man, who decided to surrender
when confronted to a hopeless situation rather than drag things on a
bit with no chance of altering the outcome and every apparent chance
of killing large numbers of the men under his care.

I think he should have pressed his attacks home.

He did not do so and did not act in an aggressive manner.

Post by Louis C
I don't think generalizations on national lines are particularly
useful, one eunometic is enough.

My position is that there are undoubtedly cultural differences between
nations and that these produce differences in behaviour.

Eunometic's position is that some cultures, religions and nationalities
are inferior to others.

[Bay Man]

Post by William Black

Post by Louis C
By all accounts, Langsdorff was a decent man, who decided to surrender
when confronted to a hopeless situation rather than drag things on a
bit with no chance of altering the outcome and every apparent chance
of killing large numbers of the men under his care.

I think he should have pressed his attacks home.
He did not do so and did not act in an aggressive manner.

..
..

Post by William Black
My position is that there are undoubtedly cultural differences between
nations and that these produce differences in behaviour.

There is also different cultures in services. The German navy was a
defensively minded navy - hit and run away. The RN is gung-ho and will steam
right in, and will ram enemy ships if need be, as they did in WW2.

If Graf Spee was an RN ship it would not have been scuttled and would have
fought on. That does not mean Graf Spee would have won any subsequent
battle.

[Bill Shatzer]

-snip-

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

Naval victory isn't ever determined by who got sunk and how many men died.
If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.

How then would you "score" Savo Island? A smashing Allied victory?

After all, Mikawa failed in his mission to get in among the transports.

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should never have broken off action and run.
Doing so means she lost.

Graf Spee had already "lost" in a strategic sense when Langsdorff
disengaged. Short of fuel and ammunition and with significan damage and
casualties, Graf Spee wasn't going to make it to any friendly port.

Langsdorff could, I suppose, elected to "die gloriously" but with no
real prospects of inflicting further losses on the British, that seems
more a Japanese mind set (ala Yamato at Okinawa) then a western one.

Post by William Black
All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

No western admiral faced a similar circumstance. Still, there are
several examples of Allied captains who chose to withdraw their damaged
vessels from the fight rather than continue on with no hope of effecting
the outcome. See, for instance, First Guadalcanal.

Bode at Savo Island is kinda sui generis.

[William Black]

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

Naval victory isn't ever determined by who got sunk and how many men died.
If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.

How then would you "score" Savo Island? A smashing Allied victory?
After all, Mikawa failed in his mission to get in among the transports.

It was certainly an Allied victory and should be considered such.

Without the result the Allies managed to achieve the battle for
Guadalcanal would certainly have been lost.

What's interesting is Mikawa's utter lack of appreciation of his own
local tactical victory and his inability to exploit it and turn it into
strategic triumph.

His withdrawal remains almost incomprehensible.

Post by Bill Shatzer
Langsdorff could, I suppose, elected to "die gloriously" but with no
real prospects of inflicting further losses on the British, that seems
more a Japanese mind set (ala Yamato at Okinawa) then a western one.

Why don't you see him sinking or damaging the two remaining cruisers?

The two remaining cruisers were hardly a match for Graf Spee,
especially as one only had two turrets still firing.

He could have blown them to bits.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black
Naval victory isn't ever determined by who got sunk and how many men died.
If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.

How then would you "score" Savo Island? A smashing Allied victory?
After all, Mikawa failed in his mission to get in among the transports.

True, but he was successful in preventing the USN from supplying and
reenforcing the Marines on Guadalcanal. This may have not been part
of his orders, but the effect was the same. Clearly a tactical
victory for the IJN and mostly a strategic one as well. The
transports may not have been sunk, but it was weeks before the USN was
willing to risk sending them to Guadalcanal again.

Alan

[AlexMilman]

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

Naval victory isn't ever determined by who got sunk and how many men died.
If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.

How then would you "score" Savo Island? A smashing Allied victory?
After all, Mikawa failed in his mission to get in among the transports.

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should never have broken off action and run.
Doing so means she lost.

Graf Spee had already "lost" in a strategic sense when Langsdorff
disengaged. Short of fuel and ammunition and with significan damage and
casualties, Graf Spee wasn't going to make it to any friendly port.
Langsdorff could, I suppose, elected to "die gloriously" but with no
real prospects of inflicting further losses on the British, that seems
more a Japanese mind set (ala Yamato at Okinawa) then a western one.

Post by William Black
All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

No western admiral faced a similar circumstance. Still, there are
several examples of Allied captains who chose to withdraw their damaged
vessels from the fight rather than continue on with no hope of effecting
the outcome. See, for instance, First Guadalcanal.

Or 'Prince of Wales' after 'Hood' had been sunk.

[Felix Reuthner]

Post by William Black
If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.
Graf Spee should never have broken off action and run.
Doing so means she lost.
All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

GS's mission was not to fight enemy warships, but to a) capture/sink
cargo ships b) keep allied warships busy, preferably as far away from
Germany as possible.
Even if she might have sunk the British task force, she could not afford
any additional damage, as that would at least mean abandoning her
mission and try to return home.

Felix

[William Black]

Post by Felix Reuthner

Post by William Black
If it was then Jutland was a German victory, which it wasn't.
Graf Spee should never have broken off action and run.
Doing so means she lost.
All you have to ask yourself is 'What would a British/American admiral
have done in the same circumstances?

GS's mission was not to fight enemy warships, but to a) capture/sink
cargo ships b) keep allied warships busy, preferably as far away from
Germany as possible.
Even if she might have sunk the British task force, she could not afford
any additional damage, as that would at least mean abandoning her
mission and try to return home.

She did abandon her mission and she never returned home.

[Felix Reuthner]

Post by William Black
She did abandon her mission and she never returned home.

Well, there is that. OTOH, GS was already mission-killed without hope to
return home when Langsdorff retreated to Montevideo.
I suppose he had a faint hope that Urugay would allow an extended stay
for repairs. As long as that would have lasted, the Royal Navy would
have been forced to keep a superior force in the area.

(What If: Suppose the Japanese Naval attache in Montevideo would offer
to buy the ship. That would be some serious "out of the box" thinking IMHO)

[William Black]

Post by Felix Reuthner

Post by William Black
She did abandon her mission and she never returned home.

Well, there is that. OTOH, GS was already mission-killed without hope to
return home when Langsdorff retreated to Montevideo.
I suppose he had a faint hope that Urugay would allow an extended stay
for repairs.

Is that realistic?

If Langsdorff had crossed the river to Argentina he may have got a
better reception.

Indeed you have to ask why he didn't given the pro German stance of the
Argentine military of the day..

[sctvguy1]

Post by Felix Reuthner

Post by William Black
She did abandon her mission and she never returned home.

Well, there is that. OTOH, GS was already mission-killed without hope to
return home when Langsdorff retreated to Montevideo.
I suppose he had a faint hope that Urugay would allow an extended stay
for repairs. As long as that would have lasted, the Royal Navy would
have been forced to keep a superior force in the area.
(What If: Suppose the Japanese Naval attache in Montevideo would offer
to buy the ship. That would be some serious "out of the box" thinking IMHO)

Like the Turks did with the "Goeben" and "Breslau" in WWI?

[Felix Reuthner]

Post by sctvguy1
Like the Turks did with the "Goeben" and "Breslau" in WWI?

For example. Shipping in a Japanese crew would probably have been a good
idea though.

Felix

[Bradipus]

Post by Felix Reuthner

Post by sctvguy1
Like the Turks did with the "Goeben" and "Breslau" in WWI?

For example. Shipping in a Japanese crew would probably have
been a good idea though.

How long before the crew is able to sail?

[Felix Reuthner]

Post by Bradipus
How long before the crew is able to sail?

Good question. Even if a complete crew would be at hand (say, from a
cruiser thats being modernized at the time), shipping them to the other
side of the world and familiarizing them with a foreign ship would
probably take months. OTOH, the Germans would probably be offering an
almost new capital ship for a *very* reasonable price, so the effort
might be worth it. On the third hand, how could Japan and Germany
arrange payment?

Felix

[William Black]

Post by Felix Reuthner

Post by Bradipus
How long before the crew is able to sail?

Good question. Even if a complete crew would be at hand (say, from a
cruiser thats being modernized at the time), shipping them to the other
side of the world and familiarizing them with a foreign ship would
probably take months. OTOH, the Germans would probably be offering an
almost new capital ship for a *very* reasonable price, so the effort
might be worth it. On the third hand, how could Japan and Germany
arrange payment?

Are you saying that the incoming crew wouldn't know how to fire up the
boilers, operate the engine telegraph, steer the ship or navigate or
are you saying that they couldn't fight the ship?

[Felix Reuthner]

Post by William Black
Are you saying that the incoming crew wouldn't know how to fire up the
boilers, operate the engine telegraph, steer the ship or navigate or
are you saying that they couldn't fight the ship?

All the pesky little details have the annoying habit of taking time to
arrange. If their original ship in in dock, the crew might be scattered
over other ships, training establishments and home leave all over Japan.
You have to arrange a for a tanker, sufficient fuel and provisions,
preferably with enough space to cram in the replacement crew, if you
don't want to rely on neutral-but-not-too-friendly nations for refueling
of your new warship. If you do, you still have to figure out a way to
get the new crew to Montevideo. I'd be surprised if they could have
shipped out in under 10 days.

Then you have considerable transit time.

I'm sure any non-braindead crew could figure out how to handle the ship
very quickly, but I would allow a few weeks for a more detailed
knowledge transfer.
Stuff like maintenance schedules might not be obvious but could lead to
an expensive and embarrassing loss. And as you mention the engine
telegraph, bridge and engine room really should agree which setting
means what (I'm not familiar with engine telegraphs, maybe it is obvious
what is what if you can't even read the letters, much less understand
the words of the various settings). And while you are at it, why not
re-label everything and run a few trails while parts of the original
crew are still at hand?

Felix

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by William Black
Are you saying that the incoming crew wouldn't know how to fire up the
boilers, operate the engine telegraph, steer the ship or navigate or
are you saying that they couldn't fight the ship?

Being diesel powered, the Graf Spee had no boilers.

I rather suspect that operating large marine diesel engines was a skill
not in great abundance among the sailors of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

The Graf Spee's fuel purification system would be another rather
specialized bit of equipment not familiar to Japanese sailors.

[Mario]

Post by Felix Reuthner
(What If: Suppose the Japanese Naval attache in Montevideo
would offer to buy the ship. That would be some serious "out
of the box" thinking IMHO)

Italians too could buy the ship.

[Paul J. Adam]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should have won easily.

It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

The problem is, that a result like that is still a fatal loss for the
German ship. Graf Spee is short of ammunition, far from home and has
serious machinery issues (damage to her fuel purification plant) and two
British cruisers with a significant speed advantage can shadow her at
will until the heavy mob arrives.

Like Pyrrhus at Asculum, the Germans can't afford many of these victories...

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black
Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?
You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger
than an 8"" gun between them.

By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

HMS Exeter had 3" main belt armor. The Graf Spee's main belt armor was 3.1".
I doubt the extra 0.1" made a significant difference.

I'm not sure either, but I'd rather have 3.1" armor against 8" fire
than 3.0" armor against 11" fire!

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should have won easily.

It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

I agree with this--just another instance of the German talent (dare I
say genius?) for winning tactically and losing strategically.

Narr

[William Black]

Post by n***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black

Post by Bill Shatzer
-snip-

Post by William Black
Are we still talking about the Graf Spee here?
You know, big armoured cruiser equipped with battle ship sized guns
that got its arse kicked by three light cruiser with nothing bigger
than an 8"" gun between them.

By definition, at least post-London Naval Treaty, cruuisers with 8" guns
were heavy cruisers. The Exeter was a heavy cruiser, Achilles and Ajax
were light cruisers.

What it most certainly wasn't was armoured.

HMS Exeter had 3" main belt armor. The Graf Spee's main belt armor was 3.1".
I doubt the extra 0.1" made a significant difference.

I'm not sure either, but I'd rather have 3.1" armor against 8" fire
than 3.0" armor against 11" fire!

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by William Black
Graf Spee should have won easily.

It did "win", at least in a tactical sense. The Exeter was forced to
withdraw with severe damage while Ajax had half her main battery
disabled and out of action.
Graf Spee inflicted greater damage and casualties on the British
cruisers than they inflicted on her.

I agree with this--just another instance of the German talent (dare I
say genius?) for winning tactically and losing strategically.

Capital ships do not fight tactical battles.

All naval battles involving capital ships are strategic in nature.

In a war at sea it doesn't matter if every warship in your fleet is sunk
as long as you achieve your strategic objectives.

The Royal Naval force in Operation PEDESTAL was shot to bits. An
aircraft carrier sunk, another badly damaged and needing six months
repairs, another with light damage, two cruisers sunk and an
assortment of other ships sunk along with 500 dead men.

And it didn't matter.

What mattered was the oil tanker Ohio, shot to bits, torpedoed, broken
backed, strapped to two destroyers to stop her sinking and with the
remains of a shot down Stuka still on her deck, being towed into the
Grand Harbour at Malta.

[n***@hotmail.com]

This is a second (actually third) attempt at a reply, with cross-post
to "what-if" (which I didn't notice before) snipped.

Post by William Black

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I agree with this--just another instance of the German talent (dare I
say genius?) for winning tactically and losing strategically.

Capital ships do not fight tactical battles.

If you say so ;-) But capital ships do and must fight WITH
tactics. You yourself observe that the Spee "should have one easily,"
presumably with better tactics or better luck (or both). It seems to
me that if they don't fight tactical battles and the results don't
matter, you contradict yourself with that observation.

I've snipped the inspiring Malta convoy story, which I don't think is
all that relevant to the Spee's situation.

Narr

.

[William Black]

Post by n***@hotmail.com
This is a second (actually third) attempt at a reply, with cross-post
to "what-if" (which I didn't notice before) snipped.

Post by William Black

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I agree with this--just another instance of the German talent (dare I
say genius?) for winning tactically and losing strategically.

Capital ships do not fight tactical battles.

If you say so ;-) But capital ships do and must fight WITH
tactics. You yourself observe that the Spee "should have one easily,"
presumably with better tactics or better luck (or both). It seems to
me that if they don't fight tactical battles and the results don't
matter, you contradict yourself with that observation.

Graf Spee's situation is that the ship existed as a menace to Allied
shipping.

What ships they actually sank didn't really matter as long as they sank
something.

By running into harbour and the scuttling their ship the crew failed in
everything they were trying to achieve.

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by William Black

Post by n***@hotmail.com
This is a second (actually third) attempt at a reply, with cross-post
to "what-if" (which I didn't notice before) snipped.

Post by William Black

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I agree with this--just another instance of the German talent (dare I
say genius?) for winning tactically and losing strategically.

Capital ships do not fight tactical battles.

If you say so ;-) But capital ships do and must fight WITH
tactics. You yourself observe that the Spee "should have one easily,"
presumably with better tactics or better luck (or both). It seems to
me that if they don't fight tactical battles and the results don't
matter, you contradict yourself with that observation.

Graf Spee's situation is that the ship existed as a menace to Allied
shipping.

Check, and they had already accounted for something like 50k tons in
two oceans.

Post by William Black
What ships they actually sank didn't really matter as long as they sank
something.

They had done that.

Post by William Black
By running into harbour and the scuttling their ship the crew failed in
everything they were trying to achieve.

I think this is a case where "they were only following orders" is both
appropriate and honorable. Now, you can argue that Langsdorff should
have made different/better decisions at various points, but I don't
think it's fair to the crew to put it the way you do.

Narr

[Stephen Graham]

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I think this is a case where "they were only following orders" is both
appropriate and honorable. Now, you can argue that Langsdorff should
have made different/better decisions at various points, but I don't
think it's fair to the crew to put it the way you do.

Arguably, the decision to engage the British cruisers was exactly the
wrong thing to do. Raiders are better off avoiding any engagements with
any warship as the risk of damage simply isn't worthwhile unless there
is either no other option or it's a convoy escort for something
particularly valuable.

Once engaged, the decision to break off rather than face a potential
torpedo attack was correct.

Aggressive engagement would have been counter-productive.

[William Black]

Post by Stephen Graham
Aggressive engagement would have been counter-productive.

Why?

How much worse could the result have been for Germany?

[Stephen Graham]

Post by William Black

Post by Stephen Graham
Aggressive engagement would have been counter-productive.

Why?
How much worse could the result have been for Germany?

The best result for Germany was the Graf Spee getting away undamaged.
Taking actions to avoid damage was better than taking actions, such as
aggressive engagement, guaranteed to produce damage.

The next best result was what happened: the crew survived.

Sinking with all hands and no further damage to the British would have
been the worst possible result.

[William Black]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by William Black

Post by Stephen Graham
Aggressive engagement would have been counter-productive.

Why?
How much worse could the result have been for Germany?

The best result for Germany was the Graf Spee getting away undamaged.
Taking actions to avoid damage was better than taking actions, such as
aggressive engagement, guaranteed to produce damage.
The next best result was what happened: the crew survived.
Sinking with all hands and no further damage to the British would have
been the worst possible result.

Given that Graf Spee was, at the end of the battle, facing two light
cruisers, one of which has half its guns not working, that isn't a
credible result.

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Stephen Graham
Sinking with all hands and no further damage to the British would have
been the worst possible result.

Given that Graf Spee was, at the end of the battle, facing two light
cruisers, one of which has half its guns not working, that isn't a
credible result.

Your need to express contempt for the Germans interferes with your
ability to judge matters.

[William Black]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by Stephen Graham
Sinking with all hands and no further damage to the British would have
been the worst possible result.

Given that Graf Spee was, at the end of the battle, facing two light
cruisers, one of which has half its guns not working, that isn't a
credible result.

Your need to express contempt for the Germans interferes with your
ability to judge matters.

So why did Graf Spee fight at all?

Why not just run?

[Stephen Graham]

Post by William Black
So why did Graf Spee fight at all?
Why not just run?

That's what I said originally: "Raiders are better off avoiding any
engagements with any warship".

[William Black]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by William Black
So why did Graf Spee fight at all?
Why not just run?

That's what I said originally: "Raiders are better off avoiding any
engagements with any warship".

Right, but having committed to a fight, and after driving off or
disabling more than half of the enemy's fire-power, the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

[Stephen Graham]

Right, but having committed to a fight, and after driving off or
disabling more than half of the enemy's fire-power, the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

"Once engaged, the decision to break off rather than face a potential
torpedo attack was correct. "

[William Black]

Post by Stephen Graham

Right, but having committed to a fight, and after driving off or
disabling more than half of the enemy's fire-power, the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

"Once engaged, the decision to break off rather than face a potential
torpedo attack was correct. "

That's only an opinion.

Cruisers under continuous shell fire from a heavier ship would have
little chance to set up a torpedo attack, they're far too busy being
shot at and shooting back.

[Bay Man]

Post by William Black

Post by Stephen Graham

Right, but having committed to a fight, and after driving off or
disabling more than half of the enemy's fire-power, the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

"Once engaged, the decision to break off rather than face a potential
torpedo attack was correct. "

That's only an opinion.
Cruisers under continuous shell fire from a heavier ship would have little
chance to set up a torpedo attack, they're far too busy being shot at and
shooting back.

If a torpedo attack came, which was clearly possible, the Graf Spee would
have had a high chance of being sunk or disabled.

The British ships did inflict damage on the Graf Spee which was a wake up to
that they could do more when operating at different angles to the Graf Spee.
Dodging two or three, is far more difficult than dodging one.

[William Black]

Post by Bay Man

Post by William Black

Post by Stephen Graham

Right, but having committed to a fight, and after driving off or
disabling more than half of the enemy's fire-power, the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

"Once engaged, the decision to break off rather than face a potential
torpedo attack was correct. "

That's only an opinion.
Cruisers under continuous shell fire from a heavier ship would have
little chance to set up a torpedo attack, they're far too busy being
shot at and shooting back.

If a torpedo attack came, which was clearly possible, the Graf Spee
would have had a high chance of being sunk or disabled.

Why?

Ajax had already fired a salvo of torpedoes and had missed with every one.

Post by Bay Man
The British ships did inflict damage on the Graf Spee which was a wake
up to that they could do more when operating at different angles to the
Graf Spee. Dodging two or three, is far more difficult than dodging one.

HMS Exeter had broken off, HMS Ajax had expended her torpedoes, which
only left those on HMS Achilles

Actually, thinking about it, Ajax may have had a second salvo of
torpedoes as they had two banks of four tubes, one each side.

Anyone know what she actually fired?

[m***@netMAPSONscape.net]

Post by Bay Man

Post by William Black
Cruisers under continuous shell fire from a heavier ship would have little
chance to set up a torpedo attack, they're far too busy being shot at and
shooting back.

If a torpedo attack came, which was clearly possible, the Graf Spee would
have had a high chance of being sunk or disabled.

Why, yes, torpedos are known to be generally deleterious to ships at
sea.

Mike

[William Black]

Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net

Post by Bay Man

Post by William Black
Cruisers under continuous shell fire from a heavier ship would have little
chance to set up a torpedo attack, they're far too busy being shot at and
shooting back.

If a torpedo attack came, which was clearly possible, the Graf Spee would
have had a high chance of being sunk or disabled.

Why, yes, torpedos are known to be generally deleterious to ships at
sea.

And yet several were fired at Graf Spee and no damage seems to have
taken place.

I wonder why...

Could it be that...

They missed...

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by William Black
the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

Graf Spee had shot off IIRC 80% of 11 inch ammo and over 50% of 5.9
inch. There was no provision for combat transport of 11 inch between the
forward and aft magazines. There was also machinery damage.

There is also the point that the Captain had no idea of how badly the
RN ships were damaged or when reinforcements would arrive.

Ken Young

[William Black]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by William Black
the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

Graf Spee had shot off IIRC 80% of 11 inch ammo and over 50% of 5.9
inch. There was no provision for combat transport of 11 inch between the
forward and aft magazines. There was also machinery damage.
There is also the point that the Captain had no idea of how badly the
RN ships were damaged or when reinforcements would arrive.

He must have noticed that the after turrets on HMS Ajax had cased firing.

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by William Black
the Graf Spee turned
and ran for a neutral port with all guns still able to engage the enemy.

Graf Spee had shot off IIRC 80% of 11 inch ammo and over 50% of 5.9
inch. There was no provision for combat transport of 11 inch between the
forward and aft magazines. There was also machinery damage.
There is also the point that the Captain had no idea of how badly the
RN ships were damaged or when reinforcements would arrive.

Fair points. As to the last one, and likewise IIRC, the British
outfoxed him with signal traffic that made him think that more RN
heavy units were on the way (though I think this was after he reached
Montevideo, and not a factor in his quitting the tactical fight).

Narr

[Bay Man]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
There is also the point that the Captain had no idea of how badly the
RN ships were damaged or when reinforcements would arrive.

That was the clincher.

[Bill Shatzer]

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I think this is a case where "they were only following orders" is both
appropriate and honorable. Now, you can argue that Langsdorff should
have made different/better decisions at various points, but I don't
think it's fair to the crew to put it the way you do.

Arguably, the decision to engage the British cruisers was exactly the
wrong thing to do.

Did Langsdorff have a choice? The British cruisers had at least a 4 knot
speed advantage on the Graf Spee - probably even more than that as Graf
Spee had been at sea for over three months and was unlikely to still be
able to match its trials speed.

The cruisers could engage and disengage at will. Once spotted,
Langsdorff's only real option was to engage and hope that he could
quickly sink or disable the cruisers without suffering significant
damage himself.

Post by Stephen Graham
Raiders are better off avoiding any engagements with
any warship as the risk of damage simply isn't worthwhile unless there
is either no other option or it's a convoy escort for something
particularly valuable.

Agreed - but did Langsdorff have any other options? The cruisers could
force an engagement if they wished. Or they could have maintained a
shadow until Cumberland and other heavy units could come up.

Post by Stephen Graham
Once engaged, the decision to break off rather than face a potential
torpedo attack was correct.
Aggressive engagement would have been counter-productive.

Agreed again - but weren't ALL options likely to be counter productive?

[Stephen Graham]

Post by Bill Shatzer

Post by Stephen Graham

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I think this is a case where "they were only following orders" is both
appropriate and honorable. Now, you can argue that Langsdorff should
have made different/better decisions at various points, but I don't
think it's fair to the crew to put it the way you do.

Arguably, the decision to engage the British cruisers was exactly the
wrong thing to do.

Did Langsdorff have a choice?

Yes. At the very start, there was a choice made to close. At that point,
turning away might have resulted in no engagement.

Post by Bill Shatzer
The cruisers could engage and disengage at will. Once spotted,
Langsdorff's only real option was to engage and hope that he could
quickly sink or disable the cruisers without suffering significant
damage himself.

There's always the chance of losing contact in the night or in bad
weather (less likely at that time of year).

[n***@hotmail.com]

Post by n***@hotmail.com
This is a second (actually third) attempt at a reply, with cross-post
to "what-if" (which I didn't notice before) snipped.

Post by William Black

Post by n***@hotmail.com
I agree with this--just another instance of the German talent (dare I
say genius?) for winning tactically and losing strategically.

Capital ships do not fight tactical battles.

If you say so ;-) But capital ships do and must fight WITH
tactics. You yourself observe that the Spee "should have one easily,"
presumably with better tactics or better luck (or both). It seems to
me that if they don't fight tactical battles and the results don't
matter, you contradict yourself with that observation.
I've snipped the inspiring Malta convoy story, which I don't think is
all that relevant to the Spee's situation.
Narr

"Should have won"! Not "one"! Sheesh.

Narr

[Bay Man]

Post by William Black
British conscript armies are very odd beasts indeed and old conscript
soldiers still tell stories about saluting traps and major units where
nobody wore rank badges or saluted anyone.

The conscripts cared little of military BS & brass. But they were the ones
who made the differences. They wanted to defeat the enemy and in their world
they thought about what they did and would criticised something if they
disagreed. They brought that to the forces to some extent.

When civilian managers entered the offer ranks they would be reluctant to
tow the old boys ways and did it their logical way in many cases. Hence why
the quality of the British officers improved as the war went on. Talking to
one old guy who was a conscripted officer, he said they got things moving
and would hustle their way though matters. Few of the old conditioned,
institutionalised regulars never had that get it done at all costs attitude.
These guys had to survive in industry during the 1930s depression, so had
sharp can-do minds. The conscripts wanted to get the war over ASAP and get
back to their previous lives.

Many support units, engine/equipment repair, cared nothing of uniforms,
saluting or the likes. They were in effect factory workers wearing green
overalls.

[William Black]

Post by Bay Man
Many support units, engine/equipment repair, cared nothing of uniforms,
saluting or the likes. They were in effect factory workers wearing green
overalls.

What's interesting is that it seems to have happened in combat units as
well.

In British battalions of the 14th Army military formal discipline more
or less disappeared.

Rank badges were not worn, nobody saluted anyone but the commanding
general, who was universally referred to and addressed as 'Uncle Bill'

How do you punish a man who has lived for two years in a trench in the
Burmese jungle fighting the Japanese and who just wants the war to be
over so he can leave the army and go home?

"If you don't salute me I will send you back to India and have you put
in a clean cell with a bed, clean blankets, regular food, clean water,
little or no disease, no snakes or large carnivorous wild animals and
where nobody will shoot at you..."

[Roman W]

Post by William Black
How do you punish a man who has lived for two years in a trench in the
Burmese jungle fighting the Japanese and who just wants the war to be
over so he can leave the army and go home?
"If you don't salute me I will send you back to India and have you put
in a clean cell with a bed, clean blankets, regular food, clean water,
little or no disease, no snakes or large carnivorous wild animals and
where nobody will shoot at you..."

Penal battalions are an option. I'm sure that a creative commander can
think of many ways to make his subordinates hate him.

RW

[William Black]

Post by Roman W

Post by William Black
How do you punish a man who has lived for two years in a trench in the
Burmese jungle fighting the Japanese and who just wants the war to be
over so he can leave the army and go home?
"If you don't salute me I will send you back to India and have you put
in a clean cell with a bed, clean blankets, regular food, clean water,
little or no disease, no snakes or large carnivorous wild animals and
where nobody will shoot at you..."

Penal battalions are an option.

Not in the British army they're not.

Not for men committing a disciplinary offence.

For a start how on earth do you make then do what you want them to do?

They tried all this in WWI and, while you can more or less get away
with what you want with regulars and volunteers, with conscripts it was
an unmitigated disaster.

In WWII the army changed its aproach. No volunteers and teh conscriptts
were treated very carefully with serious 'hard cases' being posted to
special pioneer battalions with psychiatrists as officers.

I'm sure that a creative commander can

Post by Roman W
think of many ways to make his subordinates hate him.

In WWII a number of British officers discovered that insisting on being
saluted at every opportunity by conscript soldiers could have its drawbacks.

The 'saluting trap' cannot be defended against.

Conscript soldiers, well, British ones in WWII anyway, didn't care
about their post war career in the army or what sort of discharge they
got or any of that stuff. They just wanted to win and then go home.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by William Black

Post by Roman W
Penal battalions are an option.

Not in the British army they're not.

This is not meant as a rebutal, I'm asking for information on a
subject I know little about. Part of the little I know is based on a
movie called _The Hill_ by Ray Rigby {with Sean Connery} who served in
WWII with the British army and was based {loosely?} on time he served
in something called "field punishment detention centres."

I doubt the movie actually depicts conditions as they were but
assuming Rigby was a conscript, which appears to be what he was, there
was some mechanism to deal with discipline problems among conscripts.

Alan

[William Black]

Post by Alan Nordin

Post by William Black

Post by Roman W
Penal battalions are an option.

Not in the British army they're not.

This is not meant as a rebutal, I'm asking for information on a
subject I know little about. Part of the little I know is based on a
movie called _The Hill_ by Ray Rigby {with Sean Connery} who served in
WWII with the British army and was based {loosely?} on time he served
in something called "field punishment detention centres."

That's a prison.

The people in it had committed crimes.

Post by Alan Nordin
I doubt the movie actually depicts conditions as they were but
assuming Rigby was a conscript, which appears to be what he was, there
was some mechanism to deal with discipline problems among conscripts.

Not if you wish to use them for combat.

[Alan Nordin]

Post by William Black

Post by Alan Nordin
I doubt the movie actually depicts conditions as they were but
assuming Rigby was a conscript, which appears to be what he was, there
was some mechanism to deal with discipline problems among conscripts.

Not if you wish to use them for combat.

The author's {Rigby} bio says he spent two stints in "field punishment
detention centres" which leads me to believe he was returned to some
unit or the other in between.

Alan

[Roman W]

Post by Bay Man
When civilian managers entered the offer ranks they would be reluctant to
tow the old boys ways and did it their logical way in many cases. Hence why
the quality of the British officers improved as the war went on. Talking to
one old guy who was a conscripted officer, he said they got things moving
and would hustle their way though matters. Few of the old conditioned,
institutionalised regulars never had that get it done at all costs attitude.
These guys had to survive in industry during the 1930s depression, so had
sharp can-do minds. The conscripts wanted to get the war over ASAP and get
back to their previous lives.
Many support units, engine/equipment repair, cared nothing of uniforms,
saluting or the likes. They were in effect factory workers wearing green
overalls.

BTW, there is an interesting passage in Wankowicz's book "Battle of
Monte Cassino" comparing the no-nonsense attitude of British supply
officers with the bureaucratic attitude of their Polish counterparts
from Anders' Army.

RW

[Tim]

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
Divers on board the Bismark offered to strap explosives to themselves
and blow themselves up against the rudders to detach them. The offer
was rejected. However it made tremendous sense if it would have
worked to do so requires a special commitment and belief system. The
sea state prevented normal methods.
The bizzare pythonesque/spike milligan sense of humour is a recent
myth. The former essentially mocked the very sense of englishness.
Rightly so, the WW1 British Officer corps were more bizzare than
anything the Nazis could come up with in terms of some of their
hardened elitist attitudes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Out of genuine curiosity, why was it necessary to detach Bismarck's
rudders?

Nope. The Milliganish/pythonesque sense of humour was there from the
beginning (according to entries in my father's diaries written in
North Africa - the absurdity did get to a lot of soldiers - and no way
could a song such as the Panzerlied have been sung without drastic
changes in its wording)
Rather like NZ troops addressing officers as `Boss' + extremely sketch
salute, rather than the official required `Sir', during that conflict

[j***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by Tim
Out of genuine curiosity, why was it necessary to detach Bismarck's
rudders?

They were thoroughly jammed, hard over, as the result of a torpedo hit on
the stern. The ship couldn't be effectively controlled. Steering with
the engines was tried, and could not be got to work.

The only direction the ship could be kept on a stable course, given the
weather that day and night, was /away/ from France. Removing the rudders
would likely have allowed far better control and might have enabled the
ship to creep under air cover. Of course, the Luftwaffe might not have
actually turned up.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
German combat efficiency ratios were over twice that of the allies.

The short answer here is no. Given we are talking all war and all
services. The Germans held advantages at times, the allies at other
times.

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
Perhaps the strong sense of honour and a willingness to die for ones
blood gave them the courage to achieve these results; it wasn't just
better officer training.

Ah yes, time to roll out the Rhine Maidens, it has to be good things,
not the idea the Germans were destined to rule all, and even being a
minor in the ruling class was a good deal. The way the system was
promised to favour the master race. Instead head for the mystical,
or rather mythical.

Note the Germans early had better tactics and better communications,
along with air superiority. That tended to make a difference. No
surrender in the east tended to be easier given the known way the
USSR treated prisoners.

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
Who can doubt that had the strategic
situation been equal in terms of materials, manpower and resources
would have lost.

Plenty of people can doubt because doctrine tends to influence
resources and vice versa. Not to mention the Nazis armed first,
as a result held significant numerical advantages early. Places
like Britain and the US had natural barriers, they therefore had
different motivations and requirements.

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
Divers on board the Bismark offered to strap explosives to themselves
and blow themselves up against the rudders to detach them. The offer
was rejected. However it made tremendous sense if it would have
worked to do so requires a special commitment and belief system. The
sea state prevented normal methods.

And of course the idea here is no other nationality would be prepared
to do such a thing, one man sacrificing himself for the others. And of
course given the sea state the idea the explosives might make things
worse not better is not going to be considered.

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
The bizzare pythonesque/spike milligan sense of humour is a recent
myth. The former essentially mocked the very sense of englishness.

My but someone has not bothered to learn much about British comedy
themes and ideas.

Post by e***@yahoo.com.au
Rightly so, the WW1 British Officer corps were more bizzare than
anything the Nazis could come up with in terms of some of their
hardened elitist attitudes.

Ah welcome to the stereotypes yet again, the British Officer Corps
in WWI started out as very much the upper class, and often the
wayward part of it, but the casualties rather changed that.

Strangely enough the German officer corps tended towards the
same pool of recruits at the time but were prepared to pay officers
more, British officers tended to need private income in peace time.

By WWII the officer corps of all western armies was more
professional.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[j***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

In article

Post by David Wilma
What is interesting to me about this song is that the valiant panzer
crews lose in the end. Is this a Teutonic tradition or some Nazi
influence?
And when fickle luck will desert us at last

If you spend a lot of time in combat against reasonably capable
opponents - and being in armoured forces ensures you will get the tough
jobs - you have to expect that your luck will run out at some point. If
it doesn't, that's a bonus.

Different armies express this feeling in very different ways.

[a425couple]

Post by ccc31807
I invite comment, criticism, and suggestions.

Here is an interesting song:
EIN MARSCH AUS DEM DRITTEN REICH-MADAGASKAR-KRIEGSMARINE

Go google, search:
Wir lagen vor Madagaskar - Wikipedia
And read it both in German, and it's
translation to English.

Hmm, not as easy to find/understand as it was when I found it
years ago, from here
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wir_lagen_vor_Madagaskar
is some english text,
"We were in front of Madagascar /
And had the plague on board. /
In the boilers, because the water went bad /
And one day went overboard.

We were fourteen days /
And no wind in the sails blew us. /
The thirst was the greatest plague, /
As we ran on a reef.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Good for you. These songs are pretty singable, and many like this one
have no political content. This one may be the most popular due to the
"Battle of the Bulge" movie.

Since you want honest criticism (what a rarity!), I'm afraid the way
it scans for singing isn't quite what I'd like.

Ob es sturmt oder schneit.
one two Threee four five six.

is pretty short and moves quickly. Remember the singers are probably
marching, feet hitting the ground at;
Ob es sturmt oder schneit.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

I'd be tickled pink if a bunch of folks bat this around for a bunch of
months, coming up with progressively better versions. I didn't get
very far by myself when I was in the army, and I couldn't talk anyone
into helping. I like to say that the war wasn't really over until the
movie "Valkyrie".

Ironic that the original German is so short, compared with yours an my
translations. A guy in my DLI German class said; "now I know why they
lost the war, whith these big words, it took them all day to say
anything."

Nils K. Hammer

[ccc31807]

Thank you for your comments. Please see below.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Good for you. These songs are pretty singable, and many like this one
have no political content. This one may be the most popular due to the
"Battle of the Bulge" movie.

Actually, I don't know what first interested me in this song, but the
clip from TBOTB certainly piqued my interest. I did see TBOTB when it
was in the theater but I had forgotten this scene. What I remembered
was Patton directing traffic!

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Since you want honest criticism (what a rarity!), I'm afraid the way
it scans for singing isn't quite what I'd like.
Ob es sturmt oder schneit.
one two Threee four five six.
is pretty short and moves quickly. Remember the singers are probably
marching, feet hitting the ground at;
Ob es sturmt oder schneit.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Well, yes. Let me explain. My musical background is piping, and pipers
tend to sing their tunes (certainly for the sake of memoraztion as the
bagpipe does not have a lyre) but mostly with syllables, not with
words. Tunes make more musical sense when the rythm is regular, and I
was focused much more on the tune and the meter rather than the words.

This tune seemed to me to fit regularly into dactyl tetrameter with an
upbeat for lines 1, 2, and 4. Therefore, my target was:

1. ' / ' ' / ' ' / ' ' /
2. ' / ' ' / ' ' / ' ' /
3 (omitted)
4. ' / ' ' / ' ' / ' ' /

I worked very hard to fit my adaptation into this rythm, and the only
real problem is the last line, where I force the second 'our' to be
pronounced in two syllables.

The third line is iambic, and I consider this change in meter as
horrible, but it probably adds much to the effectiveness of the song.
English naturally fits into iambic meter so this was easy.

I also fiddled with the tune a wee bit, but none of the recordings or
written scores I had access to were consistent, so that doesn't bother
me.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I'd be tickled pink if a bunch of folks bat this around for a bunch of
months, coming up with progressively better versions. I didn't get
very far by myself when I was in the army, and I couldn't talk anyone
into helping. I like to say that the war wasn't really over until the
movie "Valkyrie".

You could probably get a pretty close literal translation in prose but
it wouldn't be singable. You can get very singable tunes in English,
but they probably would not be close to the original. The problem is
getting a very close literal translation in singable English.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Ironic that the original German is so short, compared with yours an my
translations. A guy in my DLI German class said; "now I know why they
lost the war, whith these big words, it took them all day to say
anything."

I am familiar with a few war and military songs from different
cultures, and what strikes me is the differences between the cultures.
For example, compare the emotional content of the songs, the sense of
the words, and the mood of the melody, with the following:

ACW (South)-- Dixie, Bonnie Blue Flag, Goober Peas, Yellow Rose of
Texas
ACW (North)-- Battle Cry of Freedom, Tramp Tramp Tramp (In the prison
cell I sit), Marching Through Georgia, Battle Hymn of the Rebublic
British-- Rule Brittiania, British Grenidiers
Irish-- Wearing of the Green, Minstrel Boy, The Orange Sash
German (WW2)-- Watch on the Rhine, Horst Wessel, Panzerlied
Welsh-- Men of Harlech (possibly the most blood-thirsty and stirring
of them all)
Russian-- I know a few but I can't think of the names at the moment, I
recall them to be mostly in minor keys.

I think it would be interesting to do a cross cultural analysis of the
war songs of different cultures, both words and music, for what it
could tell us about the different cultures

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Nils K. Hammer

CC

[Bradipus]

Post by ccc31807
I think it would be interesting to do a cross cultural
analysis of the war songs of different cultures, both words
and music, for what it could tell us about the different
cultures

Not exactly a war song site:
http://www.antiwarsongs.org/

[Roman W]

Post by ccc31807
I think it would be interesting to do a cross cultural analysis of the
war songs of different cultures, both words and music, for what it
could tell us about the different cultures

Well, most Polish war songs are about dying or losing. Draw your own
conclusions :)

RW

[s***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by ccc31807
Searching for this, I could not find one that suited me, so I cooked
up my own. My criteria, in order, were (1) proper metrical scanning,
(2) good idiomatic English, (3) faithfulness to the original German.
Here is my effort. I don't claim any originality or ownership.
I invite comment, criticism, and suggestions. (I don't know German, so
I labored under this as a severe handicap.)
Panzerlied
In rain storm or snow or in sun's laughing light,
In day's scorching heat or in bitter cold night,
Our faces covered with the dust
But hearts with joy are filled (Yes, joy are filled),
Our panzers like whirlwinds advance in the field.
With thundering engine and lightening fast speed
We charge toward the front on our steel sided steed,
And leading on our comrades
In the fight alone we stand (alone we stand),
We break through the ranks of the foe's hostile band.
When foes may appear with their tanks in our sight,
We step on the throttle and race toward the fight.
What value then has life for us?
We serve the Reich's army (Yes, Reich's army),
Our life's highest honor we give Germany.
With trenches and mines the foe seeks to impede,
We laugh in derision and pay him no heed,
And when he trains his guns on us
Emplaced in yellow sand (Yes, yellow sand)
We find other ways that the foe had not planned.
And when fickle luck will desert us at last
Then comforts of home are but memories past,
And when the fatal bullet strikes us
Then no one can save (no one can save)
Our panzer wil be our glorious grave.
CC.

Nice translation, thank you