soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Keith Willshaw" wrote ..
> "a425couple" wrote
> > "Fred Zimmerman, Nimble Books LLC" wrote ...
> >> On Apr 4, 2:10 pm, "a425couple" wrote:
> >> > I'll post some of my thoughts
> >> > "Tirpitz Hunting the Beast" by John Sweetman,--
> >> > I got mine discounted at Half Price Books, $5.00 ---
> >> > Tells 'adequately' the tale of this ship.--
> >> > I'm just not too sure of some of given 'specifics'.--
> >> > Not perfect, but now I have it in my control, so for
> >> > just $5.00 I'm happy enough, but for others???
> >> > Not a lot new or novel, that I did not already know.
> >> > Anyone else read? Or care to offer thoughts?
> >> I have a copy out from the library right now.
> >> Will let you know when I get into it.
> > Yes, I will look forward to that.
> > (see if another agrees with my 'luke warm' thought/opinion?)
> > Meanwhile - to add 50% new info. for wwii group:
> > One interesting area I have seen little general public
> > knowledge about is the use of BB main guns (15" & 18")
> > for AA fire through use of cannister/beehive rounds.
> > (both IJN and Germany used this, I've seen no indication
> > that it even tried by USA or UK. But then also, they
> > did not often get threatened by large bomber level
> > formations trying to hit ships)
>
> You are kidding right ?

Somewhat, yes, but not totally.

(My main thought that day, was to put out the very
'interesting to me' issue of the re-use of not just the
names, but also the ship numbers of DD375 Downes
and DD372 Cassin. That beget the totally other way
Squalis into Sailfish etc. OP also beget saying something
about "Blood on the Sea", and figured while at it I
ought to opinion on couple other recent reads, , etc.)

> There were rather large bomber formations trying to hit
> British ships in the Med (think Crete, Malta etc)

Please tell more. Admit, that's not a strong area of mine.
Where there really formations similar to 30-40 Lancaster
4 engine bombers coming in level at 15,000 feet,
each armed with 12,000 pound bombs?
Seems like it would take a serious lot of Donniers,
Heinkels, Junker 88s, or S.M.79s to carry
450,000 pounds of bombs?

> There were rather large bomber formations trying to hit --
> in pacific off Okinawa where they fought alongside the USN

But that totally different, in that the best defense, plenty
of fighter CAP, radar directed to intercept at a proper
standoff distance was present, and very effectively used.
(Have you ever allowed your mind to muse, about the
Japanese Kamikaze 'volunteer' put into the okha/bakka
being flown by Bettys to within range, but when the
Bettys were intercepted by allied fighters, the okhas
were just dropped. Ever consider? What the planned
yell of "banzai" ((or whatever he planned to do as he did
final aim at big important enemy ship)), was replaced
with, as he went into the only 'target' within his range, ,
empty ocean. ? Hmm. ?)

> > At very first thought, seems silly, but I think, not silly!
> > For use against large bomber aircraft doing high
> > altitude level bombing (esp. in formation) it could have
> > been with some technilogical improvements quite
> > effective.
> > Because remember, once they are on the bomb run
> > they are flying pretty much straight at the target,
> > hence straight into where the fire comming from,
> > so no deflection concerns, and no 'avoidance' issues.
> > And 1,500 to 3,000 pounds of ordinance (in either
> > 20mm or 50 cal sizes) oncomming at targets at
> > 2,500 feet per second is a significant amount!
> In fact post war analysis showed that the small
> calibre guns were ineffective

I agree.
But I'm not sure how that relates to above?
The 4.5", or 5", or 88s that were effective, all used
either timed, altitude, or proximity fuzes, to break
up into usable sized flack/projectiles.
The big naval guns just could put up a serious load of it.

> > Also note, the BB medium and light AA guns
> > are not even in range until bombs have been dropped.
> Wrong. The 4.5" QF HA Mk V had a range in excess of
> 16,000 yards

Cool! By forgetting to properly use quote marks,
(my above is almost directly from the book)
I have induced you to agree with some of my concerns
with this book's accuracy!

> > So the main guns fired at 13 miles. But at least partly
> > due to inaccurate altitude estimate by the on shore
> > AA spoters, were below correct altitude.
> > (the BB's radar FC had been diminished by earlier--)
> > Tallboys, 12,000 pound bombs, do tend to shake
> > things up, and mess up a day, or a ship!
> The major reasons for not using BB main guns is that
> they cannot be elevated sufficiently to bear on high level
> aircraft

In this type case, the elevation 'ability' was just fine.

> The beehive rounds were a sign of desperation.

Depends on the meaning one puts on "desperation"?
I certainly agree that it was far from ideal
(for again, the best deterent from bomber attack
is to have plenty of fighter aircraft.)
But, it had some hope/chance.
So, I'm still of opinion, that it was not as "silly"
as one might at first think.

> and they couldnt track quickly enough to
> target low level attackers.

Never part of what I've mentioned.
(although I recall some main gun firings done
with thought of putting up enough water spray
to either down, or at least distract, the torpedo planes.)

> Keith
Thanks for posting.