Wild Card Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 Thank you Christian. Jumping two ranks in one week, at this rate, I may make it to the Politburo! Yes the clue regarding the penchant for young girls set me in the right direction; but I did not get the Polish scientists connection until afterwards. Of course, Katyn, it makes sense. Naturally, the pictures capped it; he was such a handsome old devil! I find his awards to be quite fascinating in that I think that they have to be one of the most unique groups ever assembled. A hero of Socialist Labor (1943), five Lenin Orders (1935, 1943, 1945 and two in 1949), two Red Banner Orders (1924 and 1944), a Suvorov Order 1st class (1944) and a Stalin Prize 1st class (1949). He also had several of the more common wartime medals plus (and this is where it gets real interesting, at least to me) a Red Banner 1st type and a Red Banner 2nd type from Georgia, which was his native land, and a Red Banner from Azerbaijan. Finally, I find it interesting that he never got Hero of the Soviet Union and there does not appear to be any ?victory? award. Thanks for a fun question, I will be back with a new one shortly,Wild Card
Christian Zulus Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) BERIADear "Wild Card",so, the "Monster" got the additional 2 (!) Lenins + the Stalin Prize 1cl for the nuclear bomb.Do you have a photograph showing Beria with ALL his awards ?I only found photographs without the "Nuclear-Awards" .Beria had been a smart genius with a 100 % instinct for power. But on the other side he had been completly mentally insane: Raping young girls & torturing NKVD-prisoners himself to death .He managed to keep the NKVD out of the control of the Politburo & Party. Besides the Party, the NKVD had been the 2nd ruling power & institution in the CCCP . The results of that process we all know .... and Katyn had been maybe the climax of terror & inhumanity.In his last years Stalin & Co. tried to get Beria out of the center of power and had some success. But Stalin's health had been already in an extremly bad shape and after an another stroke in march 1953, Beria managed to keep all doctors away from the collapsed "voshd" and so comrade Stalin had to die. Immedeatly Beria rushed to the Kremlin and cleaned Stalin's safe from all documents, Stalin collected for putting Beria to trial.Besides of his syphillis, Beria got some month later a ticket for meeting Heinrich Himmler & Co. in hell in form of a well placed bullet in his brain.Beria is the darkest chapter in the history of the CCCP .Best regards Christian Edited March 19, 2007 by Christian Zulus
Wild Card Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Dear Christian,Thank you for expanding on the details of Beria?s life. He was definitely one of the most abhorrent personalities of modern times. I would add that had his predecessor, Nikolai Ivanovich Ezhov, held control of the NKVD for more than three and a half years, his record and reputation would rivaled Beria?s much more. At the same time, where Ezhov was a deranged alcoholic, Beria was just extremely deranged. Another comparison to which you alluded is Himmler. While certainly in the same league, there is a big difference. Although the deaths of millions can be laid to Himmler, he killed through policy and orders. I am not aware of a recorded instance where he actually pulled the trigger. Beria not only pulled the trigger (many times) but seemed to enjoy it. No, I?ve not been able to find any pictures of him with his, as you put it so well, ?Nuclear -Awards?. Such a picture surely exists (at least with the Stalin Prize) but keep it in mind that none of the non military were prone to posing for pictures which glorified their personalities in any way; and certainly Stalin?s paranoia during his final years was a good incentive to keep a low profile. Best wishes, Wild Card
Wild Card Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Gentlemen,There are many opinions and theories as to exactly when the Great Patriotic War went from the end of the beginning to the beginning of the end. I would like to nominate the night of 21-22 November 1942. That is when five Soviet tanks and a small group of mechanized infantry, during a Frontal sized attack, punched through the Fascist lines, raced far to the rear captured a particular objective, secured it and held on until other friendly forces arrived to relieve them. The question is:1. What was this objective?2. In what town was it located?3. What was the significance of this event?4. Who was the leader of this operation?Good Luck to all, Wild Card
Christian Zulus Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) Bridge of Kalach during the operation "Uranus" ?Dear "Wild Card",concerning your given date, it seems, that it might have something to do with the operation "Uranus" (Stalingrad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus , supervised by the Soviet strategic genius Vasilevsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Vasilevsky (at the same time the mediocre Zhukov had the largest defeat of his life (loosing 1.366 tanks !!!) with the operation "Mars" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Rzhev-Sychevka_Offensive ).Concerning your other informations, it seems, that the asked incident might be the seize of the bridge of the town of Kalach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalach-na-Donu . Kalach had been the meeting point of the 2 Soviet forces, which encircled the Axis-forces in the region of Stalingrad. Besides of that, Kalach had been the centre of logistics for Paulus' 6th Army.So, to get to this point of answering was not very difficult , if my guessing should have been correct .But the winner of quiz-question No. 81 should be, who can name the leader, the CO, of the raid. I think, that would be fair. I have no glue, who might have been it .Best regards ChristianMap of operation "Uranus": Edited March 19, 2007 by Christian Zulus
Christian Zulus Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Beria & Stalin's paranoiacertainly Stalin?s paranoia during his final years was a good incentive to keep a low profile. Dear "Wild Card",I assume, that every other leader of a state would have got a "paranoia" having a Beria at the top of the second (and uncontrolable!) power of the state .It is a general (and historic) problem with all "secret services", that they are hardly to control in an efficient way, due to their "secret" nature. But the hughe power of the NKVD under Beria had been a unique case in history.Stalin & Co. could tackle with the NKVD under a Yagoda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genrikh_Yagoda and Yezhov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov (both had been shot for their crimes), but they had no chance against the brilliant Beria. Yezhov had gone too far with his purges inside the Red Army.It is really the question, who had been the bigger monster: Beria or Yezhov? As you already pointed out, Yezhov's true boss had been "King Alcohol" .Best regards Christian
Carol I Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 While acknowledging Christian's reply above as to the general objecive of Uranus, I also give it a try for the tank operation from 21/22 November 1942:1. What was this objective?Bridge over the Don.2. In what town was it located?Kalach-na-Donu3. What was the significance of this event?Practical surrounding of the Axis forces.4. Who was the leader of this operation?Lt. col. Filippov, commander of the 19th tank brigade
Christian Zulus Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Your Royal Highness,dear Carol,it seems, that you are the winner , but we have to wait for Master "Wild Card" to confirm your win.It is interesting, that the commander of the tank-brigade himself, comrade Filippov, took 5 tanks + a few men and drove into the town of Kalach - very courageous for a CO in such high position . But the Soviet Army had enormous losses among their top Generals: Vatutin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vatutin , etc., etc. Aleksander Maslov wrote an excellent and comprehensive book about that subject, extraordinary expensive, but worth the money: http://www.amazon.de/Fallen-Soviet-General...s/dp/071464790XBut on the other side, it had been rather "save" to drive a raid with T-34 tanks at that time, because the Germans used a rather large number of T-34 themselves for a simple reason: At that time the T-34 had been superiour to any german tank. So it was difficult for the "Krauts" to say if the 5 tanks are from the Soviets or Germans.Carol, do you know which award Col.-Lt. Filippov received for the capture of the Don-bridge in Kalach ? It should have been a HSU.Do you have any informations about the career of comrade Filippov and the full range of his awards?Best regards ChristianBTW: 3 Romanian Armies (!) had been involved - as Axis-forces - in "Uranus".Maslov's book:
Ferdinand Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 BTW: 3 Romanian Armies (!) had been involved - as Axis-forces - in "Uranus".Actually it were two Romanian Army's, the 3rd and the 4th, and, more or less, the Italian 8th Army.
Christian Zulus Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Actually it were two Romanian Army's, the 3rd and the 4th, and, more or less, the Italian 8th Army.Dear Auke,yes, your are exactly right: Only two Romanian Armies - my mistake .The 3rd had been dislocated over a wide region from the Don to the Chir, so I noticed the 3rd Army at a first glimpse on the map for two armies .Axis-forces involved in "Uranus":6th Army (German)4th Tank Army (German)3rd Army (Romanian)4th Army (Romanian)8th Army (Italian)Quite a bulk of military power the Soviets had to tackle with .The Soviets underestimated the strength of the Axis-forces completly, but Vasilevsky's planning was perfect and they had simply good luck . It was also good luck for the Red Army, that STAVKA handed over (the more important) "Mars" to Zhukov (who made a total mess out of the operation ) and (not so important) "Uranus" to Vasilevsky. If the Soviets would have had the same success with "Mars" as with "Uranus", then the Axis-forces might have got in real trouble in winter 1942/43 at the Eastern Front.US-Col. (ret.) David Glantz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Glantz wrote an excellent book about operation "Mars": http://www.amazon.com/Zhukovs-Greatest-Def...n/dp/070060944X - a real "must" to anyone, who is interested in the history of the GPW.Best regards ChristianCol. Glantz' book about "Mars":
Carol I Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Carol, do you know which award Col.-Lt. Filippov received for the capture of the Don-bridge in Kalach ? It should have been a HSU.Do you have any informations about the career of comrade Filippov and the full range of his awards?Sorry Christian, the information came from Beevor's book without details about the awards.
Ferdinand Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Quite a bulk of military power the Soviets had to tackle with .Dear Christian,Well, the Soviets didn't have to encounter this entire force. The first stage of the offensive was directed against the two Romanian army's. The 6th Army was busy in Stalingrad, the Italians were attacked in a later stage, and only parts of the 4th Panzer Army were in the Stalingrad area. Besides that, the Soviets deployed about 11 army's in the entire operation. The Soviets underestimated the strength of the Axis-forces completly, but Vasilevsky's planning was perfect and they had simply good luck . It was also good luck for the Red Army, that STAVKA handed over (the more important) "Mars" to Zhukov (who made a total mess out of the operation ) and (not so important) "Uranus" to Vasilevsky. If the Soviets would have had the same success with "Mars" as with "Uranus", then the Axis-forces might have got in real trouble in winter 1942/43 at the Eastern Front.Uranus was thought out by both Zhukov and Vasilevsky. Once the operation started, Zhukov oversaw the encirclement with Vasilevsky as overall commander, but spent most of his time in directing the operations near Rzhev. By January, Zhukov was sent to Leningrad. So, while Vasilevsky was the one who more or less turned the Battle of Stalingrad into a victory, Zhukov wasn't so succesful. Still, he was promoted Marshal of the Soviet Union on January 18, 1943. This wasn't fair as Vasilevsky had been more succesful, so Vasilevsky was also promoted Marshal of the Soviet Union, on February 16, 1943.Auke
Wild Card Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 (edited) Gentlemen, we have a winner! Christian Zulus, you really zeroed in on this one; but Carol I found the final piece of the puzzle - Georgii Nikolaevich Filippov. Congratulations Carol I. For this feat, he was very deservedly awarded The Gold Star to the Hero of The Soviet Union. He was not a ?one hit wonder? either. By the end of the war, also had two Lenin Orders (one of which, of course came with the Hero Star), two Red Banner Orders, a Suvorov Order 2nd class, and two Kutuzov Orders 2nd class. He would receive another Lenin Order and another Red Banner Order after the war.The capture of the bridge at Kalach sealed the fate of the Sixth Army at Stalingrad after which the momentum of Great Patriotic War went from east to west.Carol I, again congratulations, you are now in command, Wild Card Edited March 19, 2007 by Wild Card
Carol I Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Gentlemen, we have a winner! Christian Zulus, you really zeroed in on this one; but Carol I found the final piece of the puzzle - Georgii Nikolaevich Filippov. Congratulations Carol I. Thanks Wild Card for the congratulations. But after celebrations one has to come up with a question, so here is mine:Below is an image of an interesting project of a fourth generation fighter.1. Where did the project originate?2. What was the name of the projected plane?3. What happened to the project?Good luck and good hunting!
Christian Zulus Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 Dear Carol,uuppps ..., there had been a book about Soviet prototype fighter planes some years ago at the market (in English), but I didn' t bought it .Your model looks a bit similar to the MiG-29 .Are MiG-29 and SU-27 third generation ?Are the recent Russian fighter-jets fifth generation ?I remember a Soviet/Russian prototype from around 1991, which looked much more fancy, than your model.Carol, please give us a definition about your category of jet-fighter generations - many thanks .Best regards Christian
Christian Zulus Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 Magic Benchmark Gentlemen,we are getting close to the benchmark of 1.000 (replies) & 10.000 (views) with Christophe's quiz-thread .Best regards Christian
Carol I Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 Carol, please give us a definition about your category of jet-fighter generations - many thanks .It's not my classification, see Wikipedia: 4th generation jet fighter.For Belaruski: It was not a Sukhoi project.One more photo to help in your search: the single fin version of the plane.
Christian Zulus Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 Dear Carol,many thanks for your classification link .So, we are talking about alternative blue-prints for the MiG-29-Project and about the 1970s in the CCCP, I assume .You showed one model with two engines to us and another one with one engine .The design of the two models remembers me to the typical design of the MiG-buero .The answer of your question No. 3 should be easy: The MiG-29 went into skies & production .I have some books about MiG-designs and will study them .Best regards Christian
Carol I Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 So, we are talking about alternative blue-prints for the MiG-29-Project and about the 1970s in the CCCP, I assume .You showed one model with two engines to us and another one with one engine .The design of the two models remembers me to the typical design of the MiG-buero .The answer of your question No. 3 should be easy: The MiG-29 went into skies & production .I have some books about MiG-designs and will study them .Sorry Christian if I misled you through my silence when you previously mentioned MIG-29. The project I posted did not originate in the MIG offices and in fact it was not a Soviet design. I could add that it ws part of an ambitious project to build a fighter, a gorund attack plane and trainer that bridged a 30-something year gap in military airplane design.
Christian Zulus Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Sorry Christian if I misled you through my silence when you previously mentioned MIG-29. The project I posted did not originate in the MIG offices and in fact it was not a Soviet design. I could add that it ws part of an ambitious project to build a fighter, a gorund attack plane and trainer that bridged a 30-something year gap in military airplane design. Dear Carol,many thanks for the informations.But it is correct, that we are in the 1970s.Germany ? - chancelled because of the Tornado-project ?Romania ? - maybe they stole some blue prints from the Soviet design bueros ?So, I don't have to look through my MiG-library .Best regards ChristianBTW: The MiG-29 had been the supreme jet-fighter-concept of the 1970s, concerning superiority, easyness to fly, STOL-ability & economy, I assume .
Carol I Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 But it is correct, that we are in the 1970s.Yes, this is correct.Romania ?This is the answer to question no. 1 (Where did the project originate?). The plane in the first image had the Romanian national colours (red-yellow-blue) on the fin.
Christian Zulus Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Yes, this is correct.This is the answer to question no. 1 (Where did the project originate?). The plane in the first image had the Romanian national colours (red-yellow-blue) on the fin.Dear Carol,one step further .In the 1960s & 1970s Romania had big troubles with the "Great Brother" CCCP. Almost an invasion - like 1968 in the CSSR - seemed to be possible.Romania had somehow a "YU-position" among the socialistic states, with almost closer ties to France, than to the CCCP.So, there had been a need for fighter-jet.But who should deliver the engines & technique: France, CCCP - ?Why did Romania not by some french "Mirage"?Best regards Christian
Carol I Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 one step further .I think it is quite a big step. In the 1960s & 1970s Romania had big troubles with the "Great Brother" CCCP. Almost an invasion - like 1968 in the CSSR - seemed to be possible.Well in 1968 the army seems to have been in full alert due to concentrations of Soviet troops at the border after Romania had condemned the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Anyhow, that had also been a ringing bell as to the reliability of Russian partnership and friendship.Romania had somehow a "YU-position" among the socialistic states, with almost closer ties to France, than to the CCCP.I would also add Germany with a lot of industrial contracts in that period, but as far as I know, it was not involved directly into this project.So, there had been a need for fighter-jet.But who should deliver the engines & technique: France, CCCP - ?Why did Romania not by some french "Mirage"?Why not Mirages? I do not know, but one reason could be that Romania was still a Warsaw Pact member. Furthermore, you have to remember that with the emancipation from USSR, Romania had entered a period of reassertion of its roots and culture and also a period of (eventually failed) tendencies towards self-sufficiency (buying some technology rather than the final products fitted these tendencies). In this context the idea of an own aircraft industry came rather naturally. And the military projects were regarded as a natural continuation of the rather successful IAR airframe designs of the late 1930s and beginning of 1940s.
Christian Zulus Posted March 21, 2007 Posted March 21, 2007 Getting closer ...Dear Carol,so we have to deal with CNIAR Industria Aeronautică Rom?nă .I assume, that at the same time, when Romania developed with Yugoslavia (SOKO) the IAR-93 or our ORAO (= eagle), they also tried to develop their own mach-2-aircraft - also with Rolls-Royce engines.The project might have been stopped, because it had been more economically to stay with the MiG-21, which is still in service: http://www.defense-update.com/news/lancer.htm .Up to now, I did not find any traces about that ambitious project in the www .Best regards Christian
Recommended Posts