soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"a425couple" wrote in message
news:3oadneaKvOBF05_VnZ2dnUVZ_uvinZ2d@comcast.com...
> "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?

This wasnt eactly a common event for Axis warships

> Seems like it would take a serious lot of Donniers,
> Heinkels, Junker 88s, or S.M.79s to carry
> 450,000 pounds of bombs?
>

Indeed but the Malta convoys and British ships off Crete and
later Italy were attacked by large formations of German and
Italian level bombers.

Here's a quote from a sailor in the RN describing one such attack


It was as if the Italians, and the Germans too, had overheard us. Within an
hour the alarm for air-attack sounded, and we closed up to our guns. The
midshipman, always prepared to tell us the best and the worst, announced
that squadrons of bombers were coming in, in large numbers, from two
directions, low level as well as higher. As we started swinging to fire
six-inch shrapnel shells in amongst the former, he announced dive-bombers
too, Stukas. Within seconds the Manchester was shaking violently as the
whole of her armament was engaged: the heavy guns and the four-inch firing
at the waves of bombers, and the multiple pom-pom and Bofors and Oerlikons
raking the sky around the Stukas


A good desciption of a co-ordinated attack using a mix of high and
low level bombers and dive bombers

>> 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.

Which is always the best defence

> (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.
>

No they couldnt. The reality is that a main BB gun can only
fire around 1 round per minute. A level bomber doing 240
miles per hour covers 4 miles between each salvo

>> > 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.
>

Well no it wasnt as there is no record of main guns ever
shooting down an enemy aircraft.

>> 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.)
>

Indeed but such tactics failed to prevent a dozen elderly
biplanes flying at less than 100 knots from torpedoing Bismarck

Keith