THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion
LAND, AIR & SEA
>
Weapons of WW2
message 401:
by
carl
(new)
Jun 21, 2018 08:16AM
Neato I have seen the HMS Belfast in London, though didnt get to take the tour. Next time!
reply
|
flag
Manray9 wrote: "This afternoon I will start on Brian Lavery's --
The Last Big Gun: At War & at Sea with HMS Belfast.HMS BE..."
A very interesting story is that of the HMS Edinburgh,
She went down in 28 April 1942. By then she had been in and survived a lot of battles including a role in the hunt for and sinking of the Bismark.
When she went down guns ablazing and two torpedo hits she was carrying Russian Gold
Quote
adjusted for inflation to 2018 pounds, £64,157,579), was a partial payment by the USSR for the supplies of war material and military equipment from the Western Allies. In total the ship had 465 gold ingots in 93 wooden boxes stored in the bomb-room just aft of where the first torpedo
close quote
her story and the additional story of the open ocean salvage of that gold are at last two fascinating reads.
http://www.hmsedinburgh.co.uk/gold_vi...
For the documentry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Edi...
The Salvage Of The Century
and
Excellent links MR9!
From Brian Lavery's The Last Big Gun: At War & at Sea with HMS Belfast.The British had to rush the design and keel-laying of HMS BELFAST and HMS EDINBURGH. Under the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935, cruisers would be limited to 8,000 tons displacement as of 1 January 1937. This restriction didn't apply to those under construction, so Britain laid the keels of HMS BELFAST on 10 December 1936 and HMS EDINBURGH on 30 December 1936. Both were commissioned at 10,000 tons plus. BELFAST had many updated features, but one significant design flaw. The secondary armament of twelve 4-inch DP guns was located amidships both port and starboard. The 4-inch ammo magazine was forward, so all ammo for these guns had to be transported to the gun mounts by a shell conveyor system on rails across the open deck. The sailors dubbed it the "scenic railway." The ammo handlers were exposed to weather and hostile fire while trundling shells to the 4-inch guns.
That's a pretty jaw dropping flaw MR9!
From Brian Lavery's The Last Big Gun: At War & at Sea with HMS Belfast.In October of 1939, HMS BELFAST was on patrol between Iceland and the Faeroes. She stopped several neutral vessels, reviewed their papers, and continued ops. Another vessel was intercepted, claiming to be the Swedish Ancona. The maritime registry was checked and no such vessel was listed. Action stations were called aboard BELFAST and a cutter launched with a boarding party. The ship was the German Cap Norte en route from Pernambuco to Germany. A prize crew was embarked and the ship taken to Kirkwall. The Cap Norte and her cargo were valued at £77,000 – entitling BELFAST's captain to £19,250 and a share for all the officers and crew. Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, wanted the traditional prize rules applied to the capture. The government decided, in the era of air reconnaissance and sophisticated intelligence ops, the issue of shares would be too divisive. The money went into a general fund and was distributed throughout the navy after the war.
That's quite interesting MR9, I wasn't aware that the traditional prize rules were still in place with the Royal Navy at that time.
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "That's quite interesting MR9, I wasn't aware that the traditional prize rules were still in place with the Royal Navy at that time."There were, but the government ignored them.
I suppose the government would prefer the funds going into general revenue rather than the sailors pockets - typical of politicians!
From J. Gordon Vaeth's Blimps & U-Boats: U.S. Navy Airships in the Battle of the Atlantic.Like many elements of naval aviation the anti-submarine warfare blimp started with the British. When Jacky Fisher was First Sea Lord in 1915, he decided one method to combat the German U-boat threat would be with blimps. He ordered the Royal Navy to build an ASW blimp in three weeks. Surprisingly, they did! The result was Sea Scout #1 which was a two-seater airplane fuselage with one engine suspended from a hydrogen-filled bag stabilized by fins.
Lt. A. D. Cunningham was inspecting Sea Scout #12 later in 1915. He playfully flicked the gas bag with his finger. Afterward, at lunch in the mess, he and his comrades had great fun trying to imitate the strange sound the airship had made. Their joke caught on and airships without internal framing that maintained their hull form through gas pressure only were henceforth known as "blimps."
That's a very interesting story MR9, I've always wondered why they were called 'Blimp's, I figured it was something to do with their shape!
From J. Gordon Vaeth's Blimps & U-Boats: U.S. Navy Airships in the Battle of the Atlantic.During WW II the U.S. Navy decided to build blimp facilities throughout the Caribbean and along the coast of South America. To conduct the surveys of potential locations, they sent out two unusual characters: Captain Tex Settle and Chief Boatswain's Mate Fred “Bull” Tobin. Both had significant histories with USN lighter-than-air craft. Settle had served aboard the dirigibles Shenandoah and Los Angeles. At Goodyear he had overseen the construction of Akron and Macon. In 1933 he set the world record of 61,237 feet in a balloon. Vaeth claims Settle was:
... the only person in the history of flight qualified to pilot an airplane, a glider, a free balloon, a blimp, and to command a rigid airship. His achievements were legendary...
Chief Tobin had survived the wreck of the Shenandoah and flown aboard Los Angeles. On the day the Hindenburg burned at Lakehurst, NJ, Tobin had led the U.S. Navy contingent of the ground crew. When the Hindenburg burst into flames, all on the ground broke and fled. Chief Tobin, in his best CPO bellow stopped them in their tracks with: “NAVY MEN, STAND FAST! THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THERE AND WE'VE GOT TO GET THEM OUT! STAND FAST!” They did stand fast and under Tobin's direction rescued sixty-two of the ninety-seven people aboard the airship.
That's a great story about Chief Tobin, thanks for posting those details MR9.
Manray9 wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "That's quite interesting MR9, I wasn't aware that the traditional prize rules were still in place with the Royal Navy at that time."There were, but the government ignored them."
I had to look this up to be sure of my Swiss cheese memory.
The last American Sailors to receive prize money was the crew of the USS Omaha (CL-4). One month before Pearl Harbor 6 Nov 1941 they captured the German freighter Odenwald.
In the true tradition of Prize Courts the money was not paid out until 1947.
https://www.strategypage.com/cic/docs...
Quote
It seems that in November 1941, while on "Neutrality Patrol" in the waters between Brazil and Africa, the light cruiser Omaha (CL-4) and the destroyer Somers (DD-381) came upon a merchant ship flying the U.S. flag, and bearing "Willmoto – Philadelphia” on her stern. As the appearance of the ship did not match the silhouette in the recognitions books, a boarding party was sent from Omaha. The vessel turned out to be the German motorship Odenwald, on a blockade running mission. As the Americans clambered aboard, the ship's crew tried to scuttle her, but the Yankee sailors were too quick, and quickly got things under control.
Oldenwald was taken to Puerto Rico. An admiralty court ruled that since the ship was illegally claiming American registration, there was sufficient grounds for confiscation. At that point, some sea lawyers got into the act. Observing that the attempt to scuttle the ship was the equivalent of abandoning her, they claimed that the crews of the two American ships had salvage rights, to the tune of $3 million. This led to a protracted court case, which was not settled until 1947. At that time it was ruled that the members of the boarding party and the prize crew were entitled to $3,000 apiece, the equivalent today of over $25,000 according to the Consumer Price Index, but easily nearly twice that on the basis of the prevailing “minimum wage,” while all the other crewmen in Omaha and Somers were entitled to two months’ pay and allowances at their then current rate.
By then, both Omaha and Somers had already gone to the scrap yard.
Close quote
Manray9 wrote: "From Brian Lavery's The Last Big Gun: At War & at Sea with HMS Belfast.In October of 1939, HMS BELFAST was on patrol between Iceland and the Faeroes. She stopped several neutral v..."
Somethgin about this title has me wondering.
Big guns did not end with Korea.
USS New Jersey severed on the line doing shore bombardment in 1968 and1969 and the last active service by a USN BB was not as a big gun ship but as a missile carrier.
I wonder how this books and the included dates agree withU.S. Navy Against the Axis: Surface Combat, 1941-1945
Phrodrick wrote: "Manray9 wrote: "From Brian Lavery's The Last Big Gun: At War & at Sea with HMS Belfast.In October of 1939, HMS BELFAST was on patrol between Iceland and the Faeroes. She stopped s..."
I think Lavery meant the last big guns in the Royal Navy.
I have moved a discussion on the P-38 Lightning to this thread:R.C.
Hi, I’m new to the group! I just wrote a book called Lightning Sky and fell in love with the P-38 Lightning. I’m curious, have you read much about this plane or have any insights?
Howard:The plane had initial problems with the nose pushing down and making it hard to pull out of a dive. Do not know if any crashed but they figured they had to work with the tail plane. When the bugs were all worked out they gave it a big test. The test pilot put the plane into the fastest dive he could. The P-38 was fast anyway. In fact due to its fast landing speed it chewed up tires pretty fast. Anyway there were doezens of people witnessing the test or in the area and most remember a strange sound. Later this sound was named the Sonic Boom. Asked about it later because they did not know what it was at the time, it seems the first plane that probably broke the sound barrier was the P-38 in a full bore test dive.
Paul:It was definitely a cool plane, and one of my parents' friends flew them in the Pacific late in the war (so I've always been partial to it), but the P-51 was more widely used and had a bigger impact on the European Theater because of its range as an escort.
Liz V.http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/... is an interesting discussion of the problems with the P38 in the ETO ascribed to climate and aviation fuel.
I interviewed many P-38 pilots, all loved it. I also interviewed many Germans who called it the easiest fighter to shoot down. Steinhoff was a big bagger of P-38's.
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I have moved a discussion on the P-38 Lightning to this thread:R.C.
Hi, I’m new to the group! I just wrote a book called Lightning Sky and fell in love with the P-38 Lightning. I’m curious, hav..."
In a book on, mostly, another topic. The author mentions that Hap Arnold was not a fan of the P-38
Air War in the Pacific: The Journal of General George Kenney, Commander of the Fifth U.S. Air Force
It seems however that the author was very eager to have them. Haven't read too far into the book yet so not sure what it is that caused the dislike.
P-38s are my sentimental favorite fighter, too. I read Martin Caidin's
multiple times in school.From what I recall, the ETO air commanders preferred the P47 for range & toughness, though the Pacific pilots squeezed a lot more range out of the P38s with practice. There was also the issue that the strategic escort missions were at higher altitude for longer, and the P38's cockpit heaters weren't up to the job. I don't think there was as much of a bias from the Mediterranean Theater pilots or commanders.
From what I recall of Kenney's book (like all memoirs, beware the author's biases-- but still a fun read!), he would have accepted anything that flew, since the Southwest Pacific was in 3rd priority for planes. He praised the P38s a lot, though, and his pilots racked up a lot of kills in that plane. It may have been the differences between Japanese (mostly Army) pilots and planes, and German & Italian ones, that made the P38s more popular in the Pacific than the ETO.
Johannes Steinhoff's comments on the P-38, "pray for the turning dogfight, you will always win in the 109, but do not try to out climb or out dive it. You will not survive."
Let's try this againNicholas Moran has done some extensive research about the performance of the Sherman M4 tank vs German armor. As he says in the video, he is on a bit of a crusade to dispel the myths of the Sherman being a "death trap." He mentions Belton Cooper's book "Death Traps" as a good memoir but he says that Cooper was wrong and the data doesn't support all of his assertions. Since then, Adam Makos wrote Spearhead about tank gunner Clarence Smoyer and Chuck Miller and a host of other Americans in the 3rd DIV or Spearhead DIV. Belton Cooper was also an Ordnance officer in the 3rd DIV and he would follow up just after each engagement with the Germans to order new tanks or repair the old ones. These guys would absolutely disagree with Nicholas Moran. Since I just finished these books back to back, I'm a bit emotionally involved and I'm scratching my head. I certainly would prefer to be in a Pershing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_...
While I've yet to find anything to dispel the myth of the "Tommy Cooker", i I'm currently working on the idea that there's more than one way to skin a cat...For instance, what if, say, the Sherman actually isn't any more survivable than any other tank - especially on the Western Front, and particularly in Normandy, where's there's precious little "tank country?" At close range, there's the potential that there's little incremental difference in armour thickness; consider this on the aftermath of Wittman's phyrric victory at Villers-Bocage:
"In the afternoon, the roles were reversed as the Germans, carrying out their usual counter-attack, were ambushed in turn, losing six Tiger tanks and a similar number of Panzer Mk IVs. Since the Germans had only 36 Tigers in Normandy at that time, this was a substantial blow. Overall, the British lost 23–27 tanks, the Germans between 13 and 15.
Unfortunately for the Desert Rats and the British Army’s reputation, the Germans had some press photographers hurry over to Villers-Bocage and take photographs of the devastation. Burned-out tanks, dead tank men and mangled vehicles made a sorry picture. The fact that just about any road behind the German lines, or in any place where they had been overrun, would have revealed an even grimmer picture of carnage on their own side was, understandably, kept quiet. So too were the facts that 21. Panzer had lost the best part of an entire battalion on D-Day..."
And consider that with a half decent crew, a Sherman could be the equal of anything spat out by MAN:
"Nor were the plain old Shermans quite so out of their depth against German tanks as is often depicted. A study of the actions of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry was made during the ‘most unpleasant’ fighting Stanley Christopherson admitted experiencing in and around Rauray on 27 June. One Sherman struck a Panther on its side while it was travelling at around 12 m.p.h. at 80 yards’ range, ‘and he brewed it up with one hit through the vertical plate above the back bogie.’ Then there was the Tiger attacked by John Semken and his crew, which was hit head-on at 120 yards. Three shots were fired in rapid succession before the Tiger could fire one in return. The Tiger crew bailed and Semken’s gunner then put in a further three rounds and the tank brewed up– four shots had scooped on and gone into the tank through the roof, with one ricocheting off the track and up into the sponson. Sergeant Dring, the SRY’s leading panzer ace, shot up a Panzer Mk IV at 200 yards and watched it burn. He then engaged a Tiger at 1,000 yards. The Tiger fired once at him but missed; Dring’s crew then pumped five rounds into the enemy beast without any further retaliation and the German crew bailed out. This tank was later recovered and sent to England. Next, the imperturbable Dring met a Panther at a crossroads and hit it at 500 yards with one shot of armour-piercing in front of the sprocket; again, the crew bailed and ‘It brewed up.’ As if this wasn’t enough, Dring then took on another Tiger at 1,400 yards, just outside Rauray, firing six shots in rapid succession, of which four hit and the last set it on fire. Initially, Dring thought he had missed and hit the wall behind, but one of his crew pointed out, ‘you don’t see a brick wall spark like that.’ ‘This tank has been seen,’ added the report, ‘and is much shot up.’ Nor was that the end of Sergeant Dring’s heroics. He then engaged a further Mk IV at 1,200 yards, fired two ranging shots of HE and then a further AP round, which went through the tracks, into the lower chassis and began burning."
As I recall, the early marks of the Panther had a notable shot trap under the gun mantlet, and were Hell on bailing out drivers and radio operators. It could well just be bad PR on the Sherman's part.
Normandy ‘44: D-Day and the Battle for France
And of course ultimately the Israelis used them for donkeys years, albeit with a telegraph pole of a gun. They can't have been that useless.
Thanks JonnyMoran says in the presentation that there is a kernel of truth to all the myths he's trying to dispel. One thing he agreed on is that the 75mm was not enough gun. Matos said in Spearhead that the American crews said just get us a better gun and stated that they would fight the Panther and Tigers in Mark IVs. Cooper explained that the ability to penetrate armor was directly related to muzzle velocity. The 75mm had a muzzle velocity of 1,500 ft/sec which as about half of the German guns. The Firefly with a 17 Pounder was much better but there wasn't room inside the tank for this gun. The 76mm was much better and so was the 90mm in the Pershing.
Sweetwilliam wrote: "Thanks Jonny"The Firefly with a 17 Pounder was much better but there wasn't room inside the tank for this gun."
I'm properly confused by this one! There was an extension to the back of the turret of the Firefly and I'm led to believe you couldn't get a credit card between the breech and the back of the turret, but no room inside? Can't help but think that one might be sour grapes. And for the record, the tanks in the second quote were both 75mm armed Shermans.
Some very interesting posts here, very enjoyable reading, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with the rest of the group as I am sure it will spark further conversations.
Jonny wrote: "Sweetwilliam wrote: "Thanks Jonny"The Firefly with a 17 Pounder was much better but there wasn't room inside the tank for this gun."
I'm properly confused by this one! There was an extension to ..."
I had no idea. Moran said that there wasn't room for the gunner to properly aim the 17 pounder.
According to Adam Makos in "Spearhead," in the early Sherman tank, the ordnance was stored on the bulkhead of the tank. He said that the when struck with an AP round that successfully penetrated the armor the ordnance would go off and the tank would catch fire ~80% of the time. This was remedied by storing the ordnance immersed in antifreeze in bins in the floor of the tank. Makos said that this reduced the tendency of the Sherman to catch fire down to 15% of the time. He was clear that the problem was the ordnance and not the fuel. I do not know what the source of his information was. I forgot all the nicknames for the Sherman Death Traps but I thought one was mobile crematoriums and I remember the Brits called it a Tommy Cooker.
Here is a link to some great photographs of the Sherman tank, mainly destroyed/ wrecks but still very interesting:https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-...
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Here is a link to some great photographs of the Sherman tank, mainly destroyed/ wrecks but still very interesting:https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-......"
Great pics. The photos of the penetration holes makes you ponder the fate of the occupants.
Indeed MR9, some entry points look like a hot knife through butter. I'd hate to be inside a tank when she was penetrated by an 88mm!
'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Indeed MR9, some entry points look like a hot knife through butter. I'd hate to be inside a tank when she was penetrated by an 88mm!"Indeed. That would be a bad day.
I am not a student of WW II armored vehicles, but today read of one unusual tank of the era. Many tank designs of the twenties and thirties appear odd now (at least to me). Among those was the Soviet T-35. It was huge at 45 metric tons, 32 feet in length (9.75 meters), and 10 1/2 feet (3.2 meters) in width. It was manned by a crew of eleven. The strangest feature was the five turrets. The main turret, the topmost, contained a short-barreled 76mm gun. Diagonally placed on the hull were two turrets housing 45mm guns. Alongside these, again diagonally placed on the hull, were two turrets with 7.62mm machine guns. Few were built -- around 70 -- due to high costs and mechanical problems, but they did see action in WW II up until the 1941 Battle of Kharkov.Here's a photo with a brief article, a model, and a capsule:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...
https://www.hampsteadmall.com/product...
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2...
That T-35 was quite a monster. Never heard of it before, thanks for the links MR9.
T35 sounds like one of those monstrosities from WWI, a land ship.
carl wrote: "T35 sounds like one of those monstrosities from WWI, a land ship."From the article in National Interest:
The crew of ten (or twelve, if you counted dismounted engineering personnel) communicated through six intercoms—but practically speaking the tank commander had limited visibility and little ability to coordinate such a large crew. Remember, he also had to aim and fire the main gun! Worse, the turrets were physically isolated from each other, though there were corridors connecting the secondary gun turrets on each side. Several of the exit hatches were located adjacent to gun turrets, meaning certain crew had no way of getting out if that turret was stuck in the wrong position.
Nasty! You could get trapped inside the monster too!
Very interesting links, thanks for posting the details MR9.
Corridors ! in a tank, that tells ya something.
Recently I picked up a copy of David Porter's Allied Tanks of World War II 1939-1945. It's chock full of photos, drawings, diagrams, and data tables and charts regarding Allied AFVs. The numbers are interesting to me. Here are some pertinent figures:- Between 1939 and 1945 the UK produced 32,885 tanks of various types and many models – Matilda, Valentine, Churchill, Tetrarch, Cruiser, Comet, Centurion and others.
- During the period 1940-45 the U.S. built 102,253 various models of Stuart, Locust, Chaffee, Hellcat, Lee/Grant, Sherman, Pershing tanks, and self-propelled guns.
- USSR produced 99,150 types of light, medium, heavy KV tanks and self-propelled guns.
The USSR figures are augmented by Lend-Lease. The Brits and Canadians sent 3,782 AFVs and even 2,560 Bren carriers to the USSR. Also the Brits sent 5,223 trucks, ambulances, and motorcycles. The U.S. sent to the Soviet Union 4,957 tanks of various types, 1,104 half tracks, and an amazing 312,200 cars and trucks including: 114,200 Studebaker and 61,000 Ford trucks; as well as 39,800 Willys Jeeps. I wonder what Soviet dispatch-riders thought about riding the 38,103 Harley-Davidsons?
Despite the glory associated with the convoys running to Murmansk and Archangel, only 23% of vehicles went via the northern route. Most (58%) went via Iran.
Amazing numbers MR9.
Manray9 wrote: "114,200 Studebaker and 61,000 Ford trucks; as well as 39,800 Willys Jeeps. I wonder what Soviet dispatch-riders thought about riding the 38,103 Harley-Davidsons? "I wonder if any of these are still around.
Manray9 wrote: "Recently I picked up a copy of David Porter's Allied Tanks of World War II 1939-1945. It's chock full of photos, drawings, diagrams, and data tables and charts regarding Allied AFVs..."Pretty amazing figures MR9!
Tonight I'm starting on John Frayn Turner's --
Service Most Silent: The Navy's Fight Against Enemy Mines.Mines are among the deadliest and most effective forms of maritime warfare. During WW II the Germans used cutting-edge technology to produce and sow mines that threatened both the Royal Navy and British merchant shipping. The officers and men of the Royal Navy shore establishment of HMS Vernon led the way in development of mine countermeasures and mine disposal.
Manray9 wrote: "Tonight I'm starting on John Frayn Turner's -- [book:Service Most Silent: The Navy's Fight Against Enemy Mines|4094788..."That should be an interesting book MR9, I hope you enjoy it.
THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP
Books mentioned in this topic
The Last Great Victory: The End of World War II, July/August 1945 (other topics)The Last Great Victory: The End of World War II, July/August 1945 (other topics)
The E-Boat Threat (other topics)
A Town Like Alice (other topics)
The E-Boat Threat (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Stanley Weintraub (other topics)Nevil Shute (other topics)
Andrew Biggio (other topics)
Alistair MacLean (other topics)
Clare Mulley (other topics)
More...
