[FiSe]

Originally Posted by Jawgap

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]

Originally Posted by FiSe

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...ctoria_Crosses

[Jawgap]

.......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]

Originally Posted by Jawgap

.......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]

Originally Posted by Jawgap

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BostonB

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Wibbs

... 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]

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]

Originally Posted by BostonB

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.