Battleships: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau in Brest?

Coburger · 22-05-2012 5:17pm #1

Hey, does anyone know why the German battleships where kept in Brest rather than further south? Being based in Brest they were much easier to bomb from Britain. Could they have been kept in Bordeux? Cheers

tac foley · 22-05-2012 6:38pm

If they had been stationed in Bordeaux they would not have been at such a high state of readiness to intercept North Atlantic convoys - their main role in life.

tac

BlaasForRafa · 23-05-2012 2:45am

iirc Scharnhorst had engine problems during its cruise with Gneisenau and Brest being the nearest port to the atlantic with a large dry-dock they made for there.

Prinz Eugen also made for Brest as it had was having engine troubles after it had separated from Bismarck following the battle of the Denmark Straight.

From "The Story of the Prinz Eugen" by Fritz-Otto Busch -

"Investigation of the of the port engine had revealed trouble at the top of the low-pressure turbine. Also the starboard screw, the seat of noises which had been reported could only be investigated and repaired in dock and only a port with a large enough dock could be used as a repair port. The Captain decided on Brest"

Fratton Fred · 23-05-2012 9:37am

I thought they spent the majority of their time in the baltic, with Brest only being used as a stop gap.

As soon as they got the chance, Eugene, Gneiseau and Scharnhorst dashed for Kiel in the famous channel dash.

Jawgap · 24-05-2012 1:42pm

They weren't based in Brest, they went there after Operation 'Berlin' which was a commerce raiding offensive that took place during spring 1941.

Prinz Eugen joined them with damaged engines in the Summer of the same year and the whole time the ships were there they were repeatedly attacked (obviously unsuccessfully, but she did take a few hits) by the RAF and RN.

Hitler wanted them back in German waters because he thought an invasion of Norway was imminent and because he thought he could squeeze the USSR out of the War by cutting off the Arctic Convoy route.

One point of trivia, when they broke out it was an Irishman, Group Captain Victor Beamish who spotted them.

BlaasForRafa · 24-05-2012 4:16pm

Jawgap wrote: »

They weren't based in Brest, they went there after Operation 'Berlin' which was a commerce raiding offensive that took place during spring 1941.

Prinz Eugen joined them with damaged engines in the Summer of the same year and the whole time the ships were there they were repeatedly attacked (obviously unsuccessfully, but she did take a few hits) by the RAF and RN.

Hitler wanted them back in German waters because he thought an invasion of Norway was imminent and because he thought he could squeeze the USSR out of the War by cutting off the Arctic Convoy route.

One point of trivia, when they broke out it was an Irishman, Group Captain Victor Beamish who spotted them.

Commander Eugene Esmonde VC, the leader of the Swordfish squadron sent against the channel dash convoy was of Irish parentage also. During the attack his plane was hit several times by flak from this ships before it was shot down by a FW190 which had to deploy full flaps and lower its under-carraige in order to slow down enough so as not to over-shoot the slow biplanes. The officers of the german ships who witnessed the Swordfish attack pretty much universally said it was the bravest thing they had ever seen.

As to Brest, you are right in saying they weren't "based" there, it was the handiest refuge and it had sufficient repair facilities for large ships. Brest also had the heaviest flak defence of the french ports, the British more or less destroyed the town of Brest in order to get a dozen or so hits on the 3 ships.

I'm not sure about casualties on the two bigger ships but over 100 sailors were killed on the Prinz Eugen including the First Officer who was in the forward fire control centre behind the two forward turrets when a "lucky" bomb went through the deck by the bridge and ricocheted off several armoured bulkheads before exploding in the compartment where he and his staff were stationed.

Jawgap · 25-05-2012 9:48am

@BlaasforRafa - that is indeed quite true.

My mother-in-law is related to Esmonde (grand niece or great gand niece) and she's a bit of walking talking expert on the attack:)

Saw his VC at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton a few years ago, but I think it's still privately held - not sure if it's with the family or a private collector.

Jim S · 27-05-2012 1:05am

My late father was on one of the MTB's sent out from Ramsgate to intercept the Brest Squadron, 6 MTB's what chance did they have a forlorn hope if ever there was one.
He told me half the German navy was there and they could only fire at long range closing was next to impossible.

The ships came to Brest in March 41 , staying there until February 42. It was planned that they would have joined Bismarck at sea but this came to nothing.

Coburger · 27-05-2012 9:11pm

Still find it odd that for nearly a year the Kriegsmarine left the battleships within easy bombing range of British planes and not moved them further south (don't know if there were any places to berth them though).

I believe that if the Bismarck had made it to France (and once fitted and prepared), the four ships (Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen and Bismarck) would have gone into the Atlantic. Previously, once a convoy was sighted and had an escort they departed from the scene with speed, but with these four ships they would have attacked the escort of the convoy with the Prinz Eugen focusing on cargo vessels.

Coincidentally, does anyone know how easy was it for the German navy to move destroyers up and down the English Channel. I'm sure they would have been attacked by the RAF.

BostonB · 27-05-2012 9:25pm

Maybe I'm wrong but i don't think the UK had the right kinda strike aircraft at that point of the war to attack ships like that. Not in the face of serious flak and air cover.

Jim S · 27-05-2012 10:25pm

Exercise Rhine was to have had the 4 ships working together and yes had Bismarck made it to France they may well have been earmarked for further operations.
As events turned out the loss of Bismarck seriously damaged the hopes of such large scale operations and the Fuhrer's confidence in such operations evaporated.
This left three capital ships in France and whilst there one was seriously damaged by a Beaufort torpedo bomber , which delivered an attack in the face of intense flak, the pilot of the Beaufort was awarded a posthumous VC.
The plan to bring them back to home waters was really confirmation that surface raiding in the Atlantic was over the risks had become too high.
Movement of destroyers and surface shipping was difficult and it became increasingly more so as 42 moved into 43.

Jim S · 28-05-2012 5:44am

Thinking of the bombing of the ships, moving them south - the bombers would have followed them.
The ships were quite well protected in terms of camouflage netting , disgise, the construction of a dummy vessel. ( On the nearby wreck of a french cruiser), smoke canisters , flak and fighters.

The inability of the RAF to pin point the ships has already been pointed out - collateral damage being more frequently the case and for all the bombs dropped relatively few hits resulted but the damage which resulted did case serious damage and put the ships out of service for months at a time.

The return of the ships represented an admission of the limitations of the Kriegsmarine's ability to use their very unbalanced surface fleet and showed the vulnerability of the ships in port. ( The lack of direction to bomb the construction of the UBoat pens was a major mistake , and the development late in the war of a weapon which could penetrate them spelt the end for Tirpitz.

BostonB · 28-05-2012 9:12am

Bombing accuracy throughout WWII was pretty poor anyway.

Jawgap · 28-05-2012 8:59pm

Hitting a ship with a bomb, even a big ass battleship sitting still was difficult in WWII. Also sinking one from the air and permanently rendering it inoperable is not that easy - previously the Scharnhorst had proven this point when it took a number of hits from bombers while it was in Norway and survived.

Even for experienced dive bomber pilots it was a tricky proposition - the Dunkirk evacuation, and the naval battles around Norway and Crete showed that ships weren't as easy to hit as you might expect. Even at Pearl Harbor, battleships were hit but only two (I think) were permanently knocked out of commission

Bombing from medium level (8000 to 15000 feet) was even trickier than dive bombing and that's what the RAF mostly tried - they might have also tried attacks with Skua dive bomber.

Throw in a vigorous anti-aircraft defence and active deception, and it's possible to see why despite their efforts the Allies were not able to knock these ships out.

Jim S · 29-05-2012 2:17pm

The technological aspect of bombing was developed on the hoof as was a nightfighter defense, as the war progressed it got better but area bombing remained the name of the game.

FiSe · 29-05-2012 2:20pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Saw his VC at the Fleet Air Arm Museum in Yeovilton a few years ago, but I think it's still privately held - not sure if it's with the family or a private collector.

I think that the VC ruling is, that it belongs to the bearer and it has to be returned after his/hers death.
I think that there's agood chance that this award was never handed over to the family. Apart from some 'paperwork'. But could be wrong...

Jawgap · 29-05-2012 3:06pm

FiSe wrote: »

I think that the VC ruling is, that it belongs to the bearer and it has to be returned after his/hers death.
I think that there's agood chance that this award was never handed over to the family. Apart from some 'paperwork'. But could be wrong...

I think strictly speaking that's correct and the British government have used that legislative provision to halt the "export" of VCs, but there's plenty of examples of soldiers (and sailors and air crew) falling on hard times and selling their VCs.

If you've a few hundred grand buring a hole in your pocket you can get one.......

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/aaauctio.htm

Lord Ashcroft has 173 in his collection! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft,_Baron_Ashcroft#Victoria_Crosses

Jawgap · 29-05-2012 3:16pm

.......and just to bring the thread back to within nodding distance of the original topic, Esmonde's VC is in the Imperial War Museum......

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/cciwm.htm

It looks like F/L David Lord's is also there. Lord was born in Cork and was the only recipient of the VC in RAF Transport Command. His award was for actions during the Arnhem Landings when he flew a heavily damaged DC3 at low level through anti-aircraft fire to make a supply run, then repeated the run to complete the drop before the plane blew up.

nuac · 22-06-2012 5:12pm

Jawgap wrote: »

.......and just to bring the thread back to within nodding distance of the original topic, Esmonde's VC is in the Imperial War Museum......

http://www.victoriacross.org.uk/cciwm.htm

It looks like F/L David Lord's is also there. Lord was born in Cork and was the only recipient of the VC in RAF Transport Command. His award was for actions during the Arnhem Landings when he flew a heavily damaged DC3 at low level through anti-aircraft fire to make a supply run, then repeated the run to complete the drop before the plane blew up.

John Grattan Esmonde a former FG TD and later Circuit Court Judge in Mayo and Galway was a nephew of the VC winner and was very proud of the fact.

Apparently only a small number of the Spitfires which were to escort the slow Swordfish were later arriving. Esmonde decided to go without them before the German ships were out of range. The same squadron of Swordfish had also attacked the Bismarck, one torpedo damaging her rudder.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-06-2012 7:26pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Hitting a ship with a bomb, even a big ass battleship sitting still was difficult in WWII. Also sinking one from the air and permanently rendering it inoperable is not that easy - previously the Scharnhorst had proven this point when it took a number of hits from bombers while it was in Norway and survived.

Battleships in Pearl Harbour, Tirpitz, Taranto Raid, Gibraltar, lots of examples of battleships being repaired after being 'sunk' or beached in shallow water. Unless you hit a magazine or there is a major fire or other substantial damage a hit that would sink a ship on the high seas probably isn't fatal in port.

Had the German capital ships been taken out earlier, would the UK have sent any extra to the far east for protection against Japan or would they have been used on the Atlantic convoys ?

Jawgap · 22-06-2012 9:25pm

Battleships would not be much use for convoy protection - destroyers and aircraft (escort) carriers would be better.

Just another stat that might be of interest - I found it when I was looking over something else today....

Between Sept 1939 and Nov 1941, 12 capital ships were sunk. Of this total, 3 were sunk by air attack alone - 3 Italian battleships at anchorage and they were subsequently repaired.

Bismarck was sunk by gunfire and torpedoes, four ships were sunk by gunfire alone and 4 were sunk by torpedoes from submarine.

None were sunk by bombing alone, but 28 destroyers and 5 cruisers (all British) were sunk by bombing.

Wibbs · 23-06-2012 1:59pm

BostonB wrote: »

Bombing accuracy throughout WWII was pretty poor anyway.

Stuka dive bombers were pretty accurate. Trainees were expected to hit a 25 m circle on the ground. In the hands of some pilots like Hans Rudel they were very accurate. Of course he was an exceptional pilot(though thought a poor one at first). He sank a few ships inc a Russian battleship IIRC.

BostonB · 23-06-2012 2:17pm

Stuka could only operate where they had complete air cover otherwise they'd get slaughtered. Rudel was was shot down or forced to land 32 times!

Wibbs · 23-06-2012 2:53pm

A common problem with most ww2 bombers to be fair. Rudel was shot down that many times, but funny enough never by another aircraft, it was ground fire that got him. The Stuka in retrospect has garnered a lot of mauling in the public mind over it's effectiveness, largely I would say down to the references of it's serious shortcomings in the Battle of Britain. However in other theatres of the war, before and after the BoB, it was a highly effective and militarily useful ground attack aircraft. The A-10 of it's day. I can't think of another WW2 aircraft that comes close to bettering it's record in the ground attack, vehicle/tank killer role.

BostonB · 23-06-2012 3:23pm

Shturmovik, Dauntless, Typhoon, P47, F4U Corsair, Tempest, Mosquito, Beaufighter, P-38.

Better armed, bigger bomb load, better range, more robust. I dunno what "record" you mean.

Wibbs · 23-06-2012 5:30pm

Eh... quite simply it's the record of opposing men, materiel, transportation and buildings destroyed by stukas from '39 to '45. Rudels final tally alone amounted to over 500 tanks, at least 1000 other vehicles, 150 artillery pieces, at least 11 planes, a couple of trains, assorted boats, one battleship, two cruisers and a destroyer, oh and a couple of bridges, allied positions, airfields, roads, rail lines etc. Just one guy in a stuka. His unit's tally on the eastern front was enormous and it wasn't the only unit. It was by far and away the biggest flying tank killer in military history. Their operational successes weren't just restricted to the Russian theatre either. In the early stages of the war in every German operation, from Poland to the Fall of France the Stuka inflicted enormous losses on the opposing forces. Hell the very first air to air "kill" of the war was made by a stuka over Poland. It formed one of the main backbones of the very successful Blitzkrieg tactic.

The others you name have among their number some fine aircraft, the Mossie being an outstanding aircraft, but equally some right duds that had little effect operationally. The Beaufighter was outclassed across the board from it's maiden flight, with only later development as a nightfighter and the skill of it's crews making it anyway useful and is so far away from the Ju87 in effectiveness it would require the services of the Hubble telescope to spot it. The Shturmovik was underpowered, overweight and couldn't hit a barn door from ten feet. Most of it's successes were down to sheer numbers thrown at a target. Neither compare to the operational successes of the Ju87.

BTW the stuka could carry a higher bombload (4000lb)than the Dauntless, the ilyushin, the Typhoon, P47, Tempest, Beaufighter and equalled the later F4U variants and the P-38.

BostonB · 23-06-2012 9:52pm

How much of that is because the Stuka had much easier targets and was in combat for much longer. If the allies had Stuka's and they'd put them up against these German ships and defences and air cover I don't think they'd had stood a chance.

BostonB · 23-06-2012 10:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

... but equally some right duds that had little effect operationally. The Beaufighter was outclassed across the board from it's maiden flight, with only later development as a nightfighter and the skill of it's crews making it anyway useful ....

... anyway useful?

The North Coates Strike Wing of Coastal Command, based at RAF North Coates on the Lincolnshire coast, developed tactics which combined large formations of Beaufighters using cannon and rockets to suppress flak while the Torbeaus attacked at low level with torpedoes. These tactics were put into practice in mid 1943, and in a 10-month period, 29,762 tons (27,000 tonnes) of shipping were sunk. Tactics were further adapted when shipping was moved from port during the night. North Coates Strike Wing operated as the largest anti-shipping force of the Second World War, and accounted for over 150,000 tons (136,100 tonnes) of shipping and 117 vessels for a loss of 120 Beaufighters and 241 aircrew killed or missing. This was half the total tonnage sunk by all strike wings between 1942 and 1945.

..as for the dauntless

. The Dauntless was one of the most important aircraft in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, sinking more enemy shipping in the Pacific war than any other Allied aircraft.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-06-2012 10:58pm

Stuka was mobile artillery

very effective unless it was up against other aircraft or good anti-aircraft defences.

Let's not forget the Battle of Midway, Japanese had annihilated successive waves of US attacks.

Then when their fighters were drawn off by a previous attack they lost three carriers in ten minutes to US dive bombers. And a fourth one later on.

Oddly enough later on in the war the main use the US made of their Battleships was as escorts to carriers because of the large numbers of anti-aircraft guns they had

Capt'n Midnight · 23-06-2012 11:05pm

BostonB wrote: »

How much of that is because the Stuka had much easier targets and was in combat for much longer. If the allies had Stuka's and they'd put them up against these German ships and defences and air cover I don't think they'd had stood a chance.

Bismark had difficulty in shooting down the swordfish because they few too slowly for the fire control systems

By the end of the war the Allies had radar controlled guns, using an analog computer, firing shells with proximity fuzes.

Wibbs · 23-06-2012 11:21pm

BostonB wrote: »

How much of that is because the Stuka had much easier targets and was in combat for much longer. If the allies had Stuka's and they'd put them up against these German ships and defences and air cover I don't think they'd had stood a chance.

The fact is your original contention was inaccurate about the actual "record" of the stuka and it's impact on opposing forces. As were your stats regarding bombload. As for the Beaufighter, my original point stands regarding "development as a nightfighter and the skill of it's crews making it anyway useful" . Your revised argument How much of that is because the Stuka had much easier targets and was in combat for much longer" doesn't negate the simple fact that the stuka had an enormous operational impact throughout it's deployment. Now you can argue all you like from a position of disgruntlement, but the historical facts remain about it's effectiveness as a weapon of war. End of. Better yet if you can show me another aircraft of that conflict that had as much statistical impact in the ground attack role I'd love to see it.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2012 1:10am

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet if you can show me another aircraft of that conflict that had as much statistical impact in the ground attack role I'd love to see it.

Different conflict and lots of things had to go right before they could get to the target but in the first year of the war in the Pacific these but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBD_Dauntless took out six Japanese aircraft carriers.

Shōhō ,Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū and Ryūjō

Very important at the start of the war.

Later on the production capacity of the US showed up when they were churning out a escort carrier every two weeks. The American's had build 50 Casablanca class escort carriers and 45 Bogue class escort carriers by the end of the way. And there were other classes of escort carriers and there were the big fleet carriers.

BostonB · 24-06-2012 1:21am

Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships, because not only was it not an allied aircraft, it had been withdrawn from the western theatre at this point. Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend. If the allies had Stuka's and tried to use them to attack these ships, the aircraft would have been annihilated.

BlaasForRafa · 24-06-2012 1:29am

BostonB wrote: »

Stuka could only operate where they had complete air cover otherwise they'd get slaughtered. Rudel was was shot down or forced to land 32 times!

Rudel flew over 2000 missions.

I'll say that again, 2000 missions. I think the odds of getting hit by anti-aircraft fire would be pretty high if you're flying that much. In early 1945 he lost his right leg when his Stuka was shot down, he rapidly recovered and went back into action flying a Fw-190D-9 in which he scored 9 kills thus becoming an air ace as well as already being an anti-tank ace.

The Stuka could still operate quite well over the eastern front right into the latter part of the war, the stukas of Kurt Kuhlmey's formation is held to have been pivotal in helping the Finnish army stop the Soviets at the Battle of Tali-Inhantala which saved the Finns from Soviet occupation.

BostonB · 24-06-2012 1:29am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Bismark had difficulty in shooting down the swordfish because they few too slowly for the fire control systems

By the end of the war the Allies had radar controlled guns, using an analog computer, firing shells with proximity fuzes.

Found this interesting thread on that...

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=65

BostonB · 24-06-2012 1:31am

Found this on Stuka's.
http://www.heinzmigeod.com/stuka-group-background.php

BlaasForRafa · 24-06-2012 1:34am

BostonB wrote: »

Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships, because not only was it not an allied aircraft, it had been withdrawn from the western theatre at this point. Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend. If the allies had Stuka's and tried to use them to attack these ships, the aircraft would have been annihilated.

No unescorted aircraft would have been able to sink these ships, JG2 and JG26 had a covering force over the flotilla constantly.

Added to that, there were something like 50 support ships sailing with the battlecruisers and Prinz Eugen that were able to put up anti-aircraft fire.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2012 1:53am

BostonB wrote: »

Bombing in WWII was in general inaccurate. One specialist aircraft does not buck that trend.

by the end of the war rockets meant that most fighter aircraft could launch a fairly accurate attack roughly equivalent to a broadside from a destroyer or light cruiser.

Wibbs · 24-06-2012 10:46am

BostonB wrote: »

Apparently everything is irrelevant unless its about a Stuka! TBH I'm completely baffled why someone would want to derail a thread with top trump statistic's about an aircraft of complete irrelevance to the bombing of these ships.

I was simply making the point that dive bombing of ships was quite accurate(about as accurate as you could get at the time) and often effective and not just in one theatre as Capt'n Midnight pointed out.

Jawgap · 24-06-2012 11:04am

I wish people would stop using wikipedia - if you are going to quote from it, at least attribute it as a source:)

Budiansky in Air Power describes the dedicated dive bomber as a technological dead end whose time had well passed by 1941.

Tactical airpower from then on was about the fighter-bomber, something the Germans started with their Jabos (bomb carrying Me109s), but the Allies developed to a higher level of sophistication.

The Allies never developed a dedicated fighter-bomber as such, but a lot of designs that started as interceptors proved to be formidable figher-bombers, for example the P-38, the Typhoon and the P-47. Design of fighters emphasised raw speed, which meant power which had a side benefit that payload could be increased - a P-47 could carry the same bombload as an A26.

Stukas persisted on the Eastern Front long after they had been rendered obsolete elsewhere because if the nature of the fighting there. The Soviets 'lacked imagination' - the Red Army offensives were massive, grinding and methodical based on massive concentration of firepower in the form of tanks, artillery, attack aircraft and wave-upon-wave of troops - a 'target rich environment' for any pilot.

The Stuka was not the A-10 of it's day, the A-10 was conceived and built as a ground attack aircraft, if anything it's lineage goes back to something like the P-47D.

Rudel was an exceptional pilot, but the battleship he 'sunk' was the Marat, which was at anchor and his bomb went down the funnel. Also the ship was not permanently put out of commission - 3 of her 4 turrets continued to function as an artillery battery and she was re-commissioned about 18 months later as the Petropavlovsk.

Which still supports my original contention that a well handled ship, maneuvering aggressively is a tough target to hit, even for a dive bomber. It was really only with the introduction of the Frtiz X radio guided bomb that the Luftwaffe began to have a serious impact on capital ships, but given these were often released from over 15,000ft it wasn't divebombing.

Success in the Pacific had something to do with divebombing, the type of bombs used ('proper' armour-piercing delayed action ones) and use of naval aviators (on both sides). The Luftwaffe was conceived to provided tactical support to the Heer, and took a while to build up any kind of anti-shipping / maritime capability.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2012 2:09pm

Jawgap wrote: »

The Allies never developed a dedicated fighter-bomber as such, but a lot of designs that started as interceptors proved to be formidable figher-bombers, for example the P-38, the Typhoon and the P-47. Design of fighters emphasised raw speed, which meant power which had a side benefit that payload could be increased - a P-47 could carry the same bombload as an A26.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider
Produced just at the end of the war. Single (piston) engined carrier aircraft capable of carrying an 8,000 lb / 3,600Kg payload.

8,000 lb was an average load for a B17 !

and more than maximum of most 'medium' bombers earlier on
B25 Mitchell 6,000 lb

nearly twice Wellington 4,500 lb / Heinkel He 111 4,400 lb

Jawgap · 24-06-2012 4:10pm

Ok, I'll qualify my earlier remark:)

The Allies never developed and deployed a dedicated ground attack aircraft during WWII.

The US Navy didn't deploy the Skyraider until 1947 - 19th March was the flight of the prototype according to this article.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2012 8:33pm

Re the six carriers sunk by SPD's in the first year, it could easily have been seven or more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Sh%C5%8Dkaku

In September 1942, a Type 21 air-warning radar was installed on Shōkaku's island atop the central fire control director, the first such device to be fitted on any Japanese carrier.
...
At Santa Cruz, on 26 October 1942, Shōkaku was again seriously damaged, taking at least three (and possibly as many as six) 1,000-lb. bomb hits from a group of fifteen Douglas SBD-3 dive bombers launched from Hornet. With ample warning of the incoming American strike, Shōkaku's aviation fuel mains to the flight deck and hangars had been drained down and she had few aircraft on board at the time of the attack. As a result, no major fires broke out and her seaworthiness was preserved. Her flight deck and hangars, however, were left in shambles and she was unable to conduct further air operations during the remainder of the battle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Zuih%C5%8D

Two of Enterprise's Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers hit Zuihō with 500-pound (230 kg) bombs and damaged her flight deck enough that she could not conduct flight operations although she was not seriously damaged otherwise

BostonB · 27-06-2012 5:07pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

by the end of the war rockets meant that most fighter aircraft could launch a fairly accurate attack roughly equivalent to a broadside from a destroyer or light cruiser.

Problem with rockets was it slowed the aircraft down. If you are attacking at low level against a heavily defended target with air cover and a lot of AA, slow is what you don't want to be. If you read "The Big Show (Le Grand Cirque)" - Pierre Clostermann he describes very well, the risks in attacking such targets. Seeing the losses in other flights attacking with rockets, and also attacking targets flat out, the engine to the stops to try and survive.

I also thought that rockets weren't that successful in knocking out tanks.

From three British studies on Panther tanks found by British forces.

From 6 June 1944 till 16 January 1945 the "cause of death" was:

Armour piercing rounds: 63
Hollow charge projectiles: 8
HE rounds: 11
Aircraft rockets: 11
Aircraft cannon: 3
Destroyed by crew: 60
Abandoned: 43
Unknown: 24

There's one instance where a flight of Typhoons rocketed a German tank formation. They missed entirely, the rockets falling in a wood to the east of the tanks. When overrun, the British found the remains of a shattered German infantry battalion who had moved into the woods just before the attack. The rockets had literally destroyed them.

From

http://www.warandgamemsw.com/blog/539228-figther-bombers-in-normandy-1944/

"Tank Killing, Anti-tank warfare by men and machines" by Ian Hogg.

I think spin stabilised rockets are much more accurate.

That said a ship is much bigger, and I could be mistaken but I think rocket attacks against ships were mainly employed when they were less well defended.

BostonB · 27-06-2012 5:14pm

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the A10 isn't quite as useful as popular opinion likes to think of it, in recent conflicts. Its slow to get on mission, and in general they wouldn't be at low level they generally all stay at medium height away from any threats. And something like a fast jet has faster response time and more accurate with a smart bomb. Still a great jet though, and arguable has other advantages, doesn't need finished runways, lots of hard points, now has sniper pods and smart bombs etc. With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-06-2012 9:30pm

BostonB wrote: »

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the A10 isn't quite as useful as popular opinion likes to think of it, in recent conflicts. Its slow to get on mission, and in general they wouldn't be at low level they generally all stay at medium height away from any threats. And something like a fast jet has faster response time and more accurate with a smart bomb. Still a great jet though, and arguable has other advantages, doesn't need finished runways, lots of hard points, now has sniper pods and smart bombs etc. With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.

Tougher than the Harrier, but the Harrier could turnaround faster and operate far closer to the front line from smaller airstrip.

Re sniper pods, the RAF deployed ex navy Buccaneers in Iraq because they had laser targeting that the Tornado's didn't. Needless to say the Harriers got sold on and the Tornado's kept. Anyone care to guess how many billion this will cost the MoD over the lifetime of the carriers ? compare to the Falklands when many of the car ferries and container ships had crude landing strips welded on.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-06-2012 9:35pm

BostonB wrote: »

Problem with rockets was it slowed the aircraft down. If you are attacking at low level against a heavily defended target with air cover and a lot of AA, slow is what you don't want to be.

Always handy to have air supremacy

Didn't the Henschel Hs 129 have a ratio of one aircraft lost per tank killed ?

Wibbs · 27-06-2012 10:24pm

BostonB wrote: »

With some of these opinions its hard to know was it some pilots pushing their own aircraft over others etc.

+1000 There's defo that angle going on B. Pilots can have a serious love affair over their mounts and ignore/overcome shortcomings. The Spitfire a fairly good example of that. Lauded all over the place with rarely a dissenting view. Even though it's controls were quite unbalanced, it's rudder control was so so and it's ailerons got real heavy, even locked up at speed, never mind the earlier marks that couldn't handle negative G. It's view outside wasn't exactly great either. The ME109 even moreso. Folks like Galland kept flying them even when better aircraft came along. The ME was a killer(literally) on the ground, was incredibly claustrophobic and was variable at different altitudes.

I suppose what it shows is that in the hand of a master who had confidence in their plane many otherwise meh aircraft could be very effective. The previously mentioned stuka the perfect example of that(BTW IIRC outside the Russian theatre they sank a few ships in the Greek campaign including Mountbattens? Could be wrong there, running on memory). When you look at the Battle of Britain stats, you note that it was a minority of pilots that got the vast majority of the "kills" and that tends to run true whichever air battle you look at it. It's more down to the pilot. So I;d reckon, yes the German battleships might well have been vulnerable, even sunk by air attack if you had a Rudel/Hartmann/Bong/Kozhedub[delete as applicable] in the seat of a SBD/Stuka/Boxkite[delete as applicable]

Capt'n Midnight · 27-06-2012 10:57pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The Spitfire a fairly good example of that. Lauded all over the place with rarely a dissenting view. Even though it's controls were quite unbalanced, it's rudder control was so so

The rotary engines on some fighters during world war one had a huge gyroscopic effect, great if you could use it to you advantage, a killer if you didn't react to massive differences in turning left or right

And of course it was the Hurricane that won the Battle of Britain

So I;d reckon, yes the German battleships might well have been vulnerable, even sunk by air attack if you had a Rudel/Hartmann/Bong/Kozhedub[delete as applicable] in the seat of a SBD/Stuka/Boxkite[delete as applicable]

Then again wasn't the Bismark scuttled rather than sunk ?

But a lucky hit and it's game over.

Jim S · 28-06-2012 9:49am

Capt M'night

But a lucky hit and it's game over.

Bismarck may indeed have been unlucky to have taken the hit in her vitals but to some extent a series of decisions (in relation to fueling options) worked against her, had she topped up her tanks in Norway she might have been beyond the range of the Ark Royals Swordfish or may have been under the cover of German aircraft.
Also the long repeated signal to Berlin was a terrible error as it put Tovey back into the hunt.
Scuttling , it probably did play a part in speeding her end.

Other surface ships also had the misfortune of taking hits in the rudder area.
Admiral Scheer had her stern almost blown off by a torpedo from a British submarine, Prinz Eguen had the same fate, luckily being close to shore both ships were not lost.
Tirpitz almost suffered the same fate as Bismarck , a FAA attack narrowly missed her stern / rudders.

Stovepipe · 28-06-2012 12:22pm

With regard to the A10, even it is vulnerable and depends on agility and nap of the earth flight to survive. The biggest killer of ground-attack aircraft is Russian-made anti-aircraft guns,such as Dshkas, ZPUs, ZUs, ZSUs and basic SAMs such as the SA-7 and it's newer cousins. They are usually handed out like Smarties to Russia's clients and the Gulf Wars (and every other war since about 1950) showed how dangerous they are to attack aircraft. They can't be jammed, they can be operated by scarcely-trained conscripts, they last a lifetime and are comparatively cheap. They are also deadly in land warfare. Apart from that, A10s take a long time to fix, being dependent on the US supply system.

regards
Stovepipe

Battleships: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau in Brest?

Comments