Prinz Eugen

Naval photographers post your photos here. Warship tours, mistery ships, quizzes, etc.
Gerard Heimann
Supporter
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Bay Shore, NY, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Gerard Heimann » Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:20 pm

PG came through the first A-test in fairly good condition. It was only after the second test 3 weeks later that PG began to leak badly and was towed to Kwajalein to settle in shallow water.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Bgile » Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:08 pm

Gerard Heimann wrote:PG came through the first A-test in fairly good condition. It was only after the second test 3 weeks later that PG began to leak badly and was towed to Kwajalein to settle in shallow water.


Oh, ok. I've shown my ignorance of the process. I didn't realize she went through two tests in quick succession.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Kyler » Mon Oct 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Bgile wrote:
Gerard Heimann wrote:PG came through the first A-test in fairly good condition. It was only after the second test 3 weeks later that PG began to leak badly and was towed to Kwajalein to settle in shallow water.


Oh, ok. I've shown my ignorance of the process. I didn't realize she went through two tests in quick succession.


There were two test, the ABLE test which was an aerial drop, airburst explosion of a nuclear weapon, the BAKER test was the detonation of nuclear device underwater. It was after the BAKER test that Prinz Eugen was damaged. If the ship have not been severely contaminated with nuclear fallout it could have been saved.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

Gerard Heimann
Supporter
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Bay Shore, NY, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Gerard Heimann » Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:47 pm

Kyler wrote:
Bgile wrote:
Gerard Heimann wrote:PG came through the first A-test in fairly good condition. It was only after the second test 3 weeks later that PG began to leak badly and was towed to Kwajalein to settle in shallow water.


Oh, ok. I've shown my ignorance of the process. I didn't realize she went through two tests in quick succession.


There were two test, the ABLE test which was an aerial drop, airburst explosion of a nuclear weapon, the BAKER test was the detonation of nuclear device underwater. It was after the BAKER test that Prinz Eugen was damaged. If the ship have not been severely contaminated with nuclear fallout it could have been saved.


Many photos of the aftermaths of the 2 tests showed personnel busily and unfortunately carelessly mopping and spraying some of the ships. I recall PG being one of them. I don't think that contamination was the issue that sealed PG's fate rather than no will to save her, or with few exceptions, any of the US ships involved in the tests.

Gerard

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby lwd » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:13 pm

My understanding was that she had an anchor watch on her when rather unexpectedly she started taking on water. Apparently the problem was beyond the crew on her at the time and there was no overriding need to save her so they abandoned ship.

Gerard Heimann
Supporter
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:30 pm
Location: Bay Shore, NY, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Gerard Heimann » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:34 pm

That is consistent with my recollection. There was so little understanding, or perhaps recognition, of contamination. About 60% through the attached report, you will find a photo of the PG being swabbed by a crew after one or both of the tests. I am sure that you will find this report very interesting. Just be sure to print it someplace other than your home, if you have the typical home printing set-up, using cartridges!

Regards,
Gerard

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... /chap2.htm

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby yellowtail3 » Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:45 pm

Bgile wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:When I served in SSNs we routinely carried tactical nuclear weapons.

is that right? I would have guessed that is Bgile was in a position to know - or even speculate - that he would neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons onboard any USN ship.
Shift Colors... underway.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Bgile » Mon Apr 19, 2010 6:02 pm

yellowtail3 wrote:
Bgile wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:When I served in SSNs we routinely carried tactical nuclear weapons.

is that right? I would have guessed that is Bgile was in a position to know - or even speculate - that he would neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons onboard any USN ship.


I wouldn't have discussed anything at all about submarine operations then, but my knowledge dates back to the late sixties and early seventies, so I don't think it's all that sensitive now. I also think it's easy to look up the Mk45 torpedo and the UUM-44A on the web, but I suppose you can speculate that they were all kept in warehouses and weren't really ready for use.

User avatar
Kyler
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am
Location: Evansville, IN U.S.A.
Contact:

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Kyler » Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:36 pm

Bgile wrote:

I wouldn't have discussed anything at all about submarine operations then, but my knowledge dates back to the late sixties and early seventies, so I don't think it's all that sensitive now. I also think it's easy to look up the Mk45 torpedo and the UUM-44A on the web, but I suppose you can speculate that they were all kept in warehouses and weren't really ready for use.


A friend from years ago, told me while he served in the USN in the 80's aboard an attack sub, he once accidently damaged the casing for a Nuclear Armed SUBROC missile. He was then thrown out of the submarine service after that incident. SUBROC are tatical nuclear weapons so if they were aboard, I am sure there were probably nuclear torpedoes aboard as well, even though he didn't say they were any.
"It was a perfect attack, Right Height, Right Range, Right cloud cover, Right speed,
Wrong f@%king ship!" Commander Stewart-Moore (HMS Ark Royal)

User avatar
Glasisch
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: Bytom/Poland (former German Beuthen O/S- Upper Silesia)
Contact:

Re: Prinz Eugen

Postby Glasisch » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:37 pm

Hello,

Hello,

this one: http://i032.radikal.ru/0906/9e/bbdec43a5caa.jpg
2nd source: http://forum-marinearchiv.de/smf/ind...4724#msg154724

lower right picture, U 249 (OL Uwe Kock) in Weymouth (by uboat-net Portland (UK) Inlet. On the right, a Polish sailor (Leon Bluszcz, who spoke with the commander and an American asked him afterwards what he with the German was spoken. He answered, the German asked, am I Russian, my answer was no, a Polish sailor*), the left image would have to deal with the same boat. Recognizable by the painted "Mosquito"-kill sign (Mosquito 235/Q shot down on March 24, 1945)
Image



Regards
Mischa



Greetings
Micha

Read that?

bevor her (Prinz Eugen) surrender she had been shelling Copenhagen

That stupid propaganda. In Copenhagen were a lot German refuges from East!

*) Source Pertek "The great days of the small fleet," 10 Edition, Poznań 1987
Attachments
Pertek.jpg
Pertek - Wielkie dni małej floty
Pertek.jpg (41.94 KiB) Viewed 2941 times
„Ruhe in den Telefonen. Denkt daran, daß auch in England auf jeden Mann eine Mutter wartet!“ KzS Helmuth Brinkmann Kommandant der „Prinz Eugen“ in der Dänemarkstrasse am 24. Mai 1941, nachdem die „Hood” kurz davor explodiert worden war".


Return to “Warship Photos”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron