# Destroyer sunk by Tuskagee Airmen - More information needed



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 27, 2005)

I am trying to find out more about an incident in which it is alleged that one of the Tuskagee Airmen sank a destroyer. Can anyone shed some light on this story?

From: http://www.vectorsite.net/xrrdtail.html

_On 4 June 1944, Rome fell, and the 332nd was moved north to begin operations as bomber escorts. They were re-equipped with hand-me-down Republic P-47 Thunderbolts, better known as the "Jug". The P-47 was a big, heavy, powerful brute of an aircraft that could dish out and take a lot of punishment, but needed all the runway it could find to get off the ground. It had its fans and detractors, one of the latter saying it was like "flying a bathtub" around in the sky. The 332nd took their P-47s on escort and strafing missions into Northern Italy and the Balkans, where they engaged German Messerschmitts and tore up ground targets. One Airman, Gwynne Peirson, even sank a destroyer._

From: http://www.tuskegee.com/honystory.htm

_The 99th Fighter Squadron which had already distinguished itself over North Africa, Sicily, and Anzio, was joined with three more black squadrons; the 100th , the 301st,and the 302nd to be designated as the 332nd Fighter Group. Flying from Italian bases they also destroyed enemy rail traffic, coast watching surveillance stations and hundreds of vehicles on air to ground strafing missions. Sixty-six of these pilots were killed in aircraft accidents or in aerial combat while another thirty-two were shot down and captured as prisoners of war. They destroyed or damaged over 409 German aircraft, (111 in the air) over 950 units of ground transportation, and Gwynn Pierson leading a flight of four P-47's sank a destroyer with machine gun fire, which was a distinctive achievement._


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 27, 2005)

_"The Airmen had an illustrious record in combat. Over Italy in 1944, Lt. Gwynne Pierson, Lt. Windell Pruitt and four other Tuskegee Airmen, flying P-47s, attacked a German Destroyer (TA-27) in Trieste Harbor. Accurate machine gun fire hit the powder magazine and sank the ship. Thus Pierson and Pruitt are credited with the destruction of an enemy ship using only machine gun fire."_

http://www.africanamericans.com/TuskegeeAirmen.htm

This likely tell the true story. Hope it helps.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 28, 2005)

Here's some information I found on the Destroyer.

She was an Ariete class Italian Torpedo Destroyer launched April 15, 1943 under the name "Auriga".

On September 8, 1943 she was transferred to German control. The Germans renamed her the "TA 27".

She was sunk on June 9, 1944. I am seeing different accounts of the cause of her demise. In addition to the rather fantastic story of suffering a fatal explosion as a result of strafing by P-47's, I have also read that she succumbed to bomb damage.

At any rate, here are some of her specifications:

Length - 274 feet

Weight fully loaded - 1,110 tons 

Armament - Two 3.9" guns, Six 17.7" torpedo tubes, Ten 20mm cannons

Engines - 22,000shp

Top Speed - 31.5 knots


----------



## Rafe35 (Jun 30, 2005)

Well, that's seem good information about that ship, but again Four P-47s seem enough to damage that ship well with their 8 x 50cals machine guns and I'm pretty sure they hit the magazine, not a bomb hit.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jun 30, 2005)

From: http://www.lanpartyworld.com/smallwoy/ap1.JPG

Even as close as 200 yards, an armor piercing .50 cal BMG round will penetrate 20mm of armor plate at 0 deg angle, 14mm of armor plate at 20 deg angle and 8mm of armor plate at 40 deg angle.

It may be that the armor surrounding the magazine was not of hardened steel plate quality but how much armor and other stuff like deck or bulkhead do you figure was between the interior of the magazine and those .50 cal rounds prior to striking?

I'm not saying its impossible but it does kind of make you stop and think doesn't it?


----------



## Rafe35 (Jul 1, 2005)

I think that ship has wooden decks, but I could be wrong then.

For 32 x .50 cals machine guns (four P-47 with their 8 x .50 cals), that's alot firepower I mean the "SPRAY AND PRAY" and it seem that it could make alot mess with that kind of firepower.


----------



## Jank (Jul 6, 2005)

Incredible story.


----------



## scotpeirson (Jul 23, 2007)

It's sort of odd--it's a story I've heard all my life, and since Gwynne is gone maybe myself or my brother can only tell it from his perspective (per our memories).
I guess I should introduce myself first. Currently, I work for the Department of State (US). I served in the Army. Unlike my father (who flew planes), I jumped out of them.
My father and Wendell Pruitt were returning from an escort when they came out of a fog bank and the destroyer was in front of them. They were in deep--they couldn't go over the boat and expose their bellies. They couldn't bank around the boat and expose their bellies. They were also low on fuel, which is why they were flying low. Their best chance was to open up and try to cause confusion on deck and then run like hell. They opened up, and Dad's gun camera (I've seen the film) shows his tracers hitting the water, walking up the side of the boat, and then going in an open hatch--which he thought was strange since boats under attack were supposed to secure all openings. The rounds went in the hatch, and the ship blew up. He always said his first thought was that he had to get around/over the explosion.
It is a fair guess to say that he hit the magazine--unless there was something else more unstable on the vessel.
An odd aftermath--after his military service, my father was also one of the first African-American officers in the Oakland Police Department (1947-1970), during which time he worked his way through three degrees in social criminology. His first job after retiring from OPD was designing a security program/patrol/operation for the projects in downtown St. Louis, Missouri--one of which was named Pruitt/Igoe. As many know, there was an extended debate about whether it was Wendell or Gwynne who got the destroyer, which was only settled after viewing the film from the gun cameras.
My father was able to carve out three separate existences in his life--a pilot in service to his country, a police officer who served the community that he loved, and a college professor who was one of the best social criminologists of his time. He was a great athlete--loved baseball, and could do everything but hit (Batted left, threw left). He was a revered human being. He would not let enlisted men salute him in garrison overseas--he never thought himself that different. In Oakland, he was there during the Black Panther years--but the Panthers had declared him a "no touch". Many of them had participated in the Police Athletic League in Oakland and had been coached by him--they knew him to be a straight-up good guy. In his years teaching at Howard University, he helped many of his students get into the Justice Department.
He was a good man, a great father...and the best friend I could ever have.
The Destroyer was a part of him--just didn't define him.

Scot Peirson
23 July 2007


----------



## bomber (Jul 23, 2007)

An enjoyable reply Scot...

Can I ask do you know how the museums coming along ?
I had the opurtunity to work on it's design and layout for a short while (I didn't do much)...

I hope it's getting the visitors

It looks nice, the P51 in the cinema theatre being an interesting touch..

Regards

Simon


----------



## JoeB (Jul 23, 2007)

The object of that attack was very unlikely to have been TA-27, which was sunk at Portoferraio on the island of Elba June 9, on the other side of Italy from Trieste and some ways down the peninsula, in the zone of operations of the 12th AF. One published source is Rowher "Chronology of the War at Sea" pg 277. Some web sources repeat this, some presumably also coming from Rowher. Pairs of ships in her flotilla, consisting of captured Italian TB's TA-24, 26, 27 and 30 were conducting night minelaying operations in the area. Groner "German Warships 1815-1945" pg 225 gives the time of the attack as 2245hrs, so it's an interesting seperate question what unit would have made this attack at such a time.

Also, some web accounts of the 332nd FG's claim put the date June 25.

In any case the 332nd pilots did not claim to have sunk TA-27 specifically, obviously, the correlation of that ship's loss with their claim was done after the war, I'd guess long after and unofficially by some individual researching their record. But I'd have to say he wasn't careful, to not notice that large discrepancy in location, and possibly date as well, in published sources, and not explain it with specific primary German sources. This doesn't mean they didn't destroy a ship at Trieste in that period, it's just that more (and better, frankly) research is needed to determine what that target was. And airmen of all air forces in WWII made good faith claims which cannot be verified at all in enemy records.

Joe


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2007)

Great post Scott. Sounds like your Dad was a pretty neat guy. Sounds like the crew of the ship were as suprised as your father was. Hence the reason for the hatches being unsecured. Med in summer is hot. Below decks must be like an oven. 

Do you still have the films? Or a still from it? Might be able to describe the vessel in the picture and solve some of the questions being presented. Personally, if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and blows up like a duck...it's a destroyer.


----------



## scotpeirson (Jul 23, 2007)

Generally, I've stayed out of the picture in regards to much of the talk regarding that. I was satisfied with the mural at Lambert Field in St. Louis.
Plus, I've been living overseas a lot the last two decades and many of the people Gwynne flew with are gone, and much of the history has gone with them, obviously.


----------



## JoeB (Jul 23, 2007)

On digging around a little further, TA-22 was heavily damaged near Trieste June 25, 1944, which is when most accounts say the claim was made. She was not sunk outright, but was never repaired, so effectively a total loss. The incident is mentioned in Rowher p. 288, a web account said ran aground trying to avoid air attack, Groner says hit by 2 bombs, towed back to Trieste with 15 KIA, but all accounts agree damaged that day by a/c near Trieste and never repaired. 

This was the old Italian destroyer Giuseppe Missori, built in 1915, seized by the Germans after the Italian surrender and put into their service with Sicherungsflottille 11 in the Adriatic as Torpedoboot Ausland (foreign [captured] torpedo boat) -22. 
This site gives some specs:
TA22

I don't think one could say 100% certainly this was the target either, subject to clarifying those variations in specifics, and whether any other Allied air units made similar claims the same day, but it seems pretty likely. I also noticed on googling that it's been suggested as the target in other web discussions, nothing is really new  

Joe


----------



## blkstne (Oct 14, 2008)

In the HBO movie Tuskegee Airmen I believe the actual b/w gun camera footage of the p-47 shooting and the resulting explosion on the ship was shown. Because of the limited budget of the film every plane shown in the movie were P-51's. You could slow the movie footage down enough to see what was hit that caused the explosion.


----------



## delcyros (Oct 14, 2008)

TA-22 was no destroyer and not classified as such. It´s classification appears to be in context of torpedoboats, a shipclass smaller than DD´s and on par with brittish escort corvettes or very light US DE´s.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2008)

blkstne said:


> In the HBO movie Tuskegee Airmen I believe the actual b/w gun camera footage of the p-47 shooting and the resulting explosion on the ship was shown. Because of the limited budget of the film every plane shown in the movie were P-51's. You could slow the movie footage down enough to see what was hit that caused the explosion.



You would only know it was associated with 322nd if the original Id frames naming pilot, squadron, date and location were on the film.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 14, 2008)

delcyros said:


> TA-22 was no destroyer and not classified as such. It´s classification appears to be in context of torpedoboats, a shipclass smaller than DD´s and on par with brittish escort corvettes or very light US DE´s.


? Seems like TA-22's history and designation is described already just above. It was classified as a destroyer (cacciatorpediniere, torpedo boat destroyer, what the Italians called all destroyers and still do) when built in 1915, though Italian DD's of that period were somewhat smaller (~850 tons) than those in most other navies. The Germans designated it Torpedoboot Ausland, (captured) foreign torpedo boat. It wasn't comparable to a corvette in anything but approximate size, nor a DE at all. It was comparable to the WWI era DD's in other navies also converted into escorts during WWII, except again those tended to have been somewhat larger.

As far as target identification, if indeed TA-22 was the 332nd FG's target in that attack, it's reasonably good target ID by the usual standards of WWII airmen. A lot of reported air attacks on 'destroyers' in WWII turned out to be vessels a lot smaller than TA-22. At least it *was* a destroyer at one time!  

JOe


----------



## Juha (Oct 14, 2008)

I agree with Joe B
TA-22 was built as a DD but reclassified as a torpedoboat on 1 Oct 1929. As Joe wrote, if TA-22 was the 332nd's target, it was good target ID by airmen.

Juha


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 14, 2008)

so saw that wasn't sank before of 1929, is best write that Torbeto Boat sunk by ...


----------



## gooba (Aug 10, 2009)

Does anyone know if the gun camera footage exists on the web somewhere ? I'd love to see it.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 10, 2009)

Great story! thanks for sharing!


----------



## renrich (Aug 13, 2009)

Too bad this story was not available a few months ago during the debate about the low power of the 50 BMG compared to the various cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 14, 2009)

renrich said:


> Too bad this story was not available a few months ago during the debate about the low power of the 50 BMG compared to the various cannon.



I believe there is also a story about Wildcats sinking a Japanese destroyer. Which if I remember the story correctly was also a WW I left-over of around 1000tons or less.

Causing a magazine explosion by bullets getting though an open hatch doesn't really prove much about the power of the gun, one way or another.

Destroyers were also made of rahter thin metal for lightness. It was usually of better quality steel than larger ships (higher tensile strength) to help get the speed that was wanted. This does not in any way mean that it was armour plate.

A good burst of .50 cal Mg fire might be able to penetrate sides of ship a bit below the water line. Can the multipule small leaks let in more water than the pumps can handle?

Might depend on if the pumps or auxilary machinery were damaged by the MG fire. it might also depend on if the MG fire managed to cause a leak in a boiler or steam pipe which rendered the machinery space/s uninhabitable.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Destroyers were also made of rahter thin metal for lightness. It was usually of better quality steel than larger ships (higher tensile strength) to help get the speed that was wanted. This does not in any way mean that it was armour plate.



On The Sullivans, DD537, a Fletcher class destroyer, the deck and hull plate used varied between 12#HTS and 25#HTS. A square foot of steel 1" thick weighs 41.82 pounds (Manufactures' Standard Gage for Steel Sheets).


----------



## JoeB (Aug 15, 2009)

It may be repeating an earlier post (probably on another thread) but the plating on late WWII big US DD's (Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing) was much thicker and stronger than that not only on a WWI era Italian TBD like TA-22, but also even compared to most other 1930's-WWII DD's in most navies. 

Two different sources ("Anatomy of the Ship" and Friedman's "US Destroyers") both describe it slightly differently, as 30# STS (ie ~3/4" ~18.5mm) on the hull sides above waterline in midships area and 20# (~1/2" ~ 12.5mm) on most of the upper deck. STS, Special Treatment Steel was a specific USN grade under the general heading of high strength steels. It was essentially equal to homogeneous armor plate. This plating was specifically intended to provide protection v strafing and bomb or shell fragments. Such protection had been considered on 1930's DD designs in USN, but always rejected on account of weight, given treaty restrictions on displacement of DD's. With those requirements expired, a larger DD design was possible, and could include such protection, inspired especially by serious damage to British DD's from bomb fragments early in WWII.

The shell plating on an Italian WWI era TBD like TA-22 would have been much thinner. Even Italian cruisers of the 1920's had thicknesses around 4-5mm mild steel in unarmored portions of their side shells. Italian warships were famously lightly built. TA-22's thin hull, further thinned by almost 20 years of corrosion, would have been easily penetrable by .50 cal fire, with plenty of energy left to do damage inside.

F4F-3's of VMF-211 did sink a Japanese DD in the defense of Wake, Kisaragi, of 1920's Mutsuki class. However a 100# bomb may have been the critical hit, though there was lots of strafing as well. Either way it appears depth charges were set off, which was the immediate cause of the ship's destruction. 

F4F-4's strafing of French DD's seriously affected their fighting ability at the naval battle of Casablanca in November 1942, mainly from loss of key personnel, though one ship had her steering gear temporary ko'ed by .50 fire. There were other similar cases in Pacific but in the French case the opponent's account was easily available soon after the fact. Several of those ships were L'Adroit class built in 1920's, whose shell plating varied from 5-10mm mild steel in various parts of the hull (per "Les Torpeilleurs de 1500 tonnes du Type L'Adroit").

Joe


----------



## Milosh (Aug 15, 2009)

From the Anatomy of the Ship book Joe.







25# = 0.717"
20# = 0.478"
12# = 0.287"

DD537 laid down Oct 10 1942 built to a 1940 design study.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 15, 2009)

_A good burst of .50 cal Mg fire might be able to penetrate sides of ship a bit below the water line._

One thing to keep in mind is that as the angle gets closer to perpendicular to the hull, rounds that strike the water in front of the hull on a path toward the hull below the water line have a greater tendency to be deflected by the water. (literally ricochet) Also, rounds that actually strike the hull below the water line are no longer traveling along their axis (they begin to tumble and arc upon impact with the water) and lose velocity extremely fast all of which which greatly diminishes penetration.

I would be skeptical of .50 AP rounds penetrating 1/4" of hull even 6" under water and in sufficient number in any event to cause the ship to take on a threatening amount of water. 

For further reading on just how effective a barrier water presents to bullets, see:

Haag, L.C., "Bullet Ricochet from Water," AFTE Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, July 1979, pp. 27-34.
Nennstiel, R., "Study of Bullet Ricochet on a Water Surface," AFTE Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, July 1984, pp. 88-93.

[Edited to reflect 6" under water"]


----------



## JoeB (Aug 15, 2009)

Milosh said:


> From the Anatomy of the Ship book Joe.
> 
> .


I'm going from Friedman's description of the design process which specifically says the heaviest 30# protection was settled on, plus same Anatomy of Ship book, p. 9 describing thickness of plating strakes: "Starting at the main deck there were two [strakes] of 30# STS...". A weakness of those drawings pages is none of the elevations (that I noticed) show the frame numbers. Frame 152 might be aft of the portion protected by 30#.

Back on the general issue, for a typical thin skinned WWI or WWII era DD, not a thick skinned one like a Fletcher class, .50 rounds might penetrate right at the water line (I agree, any significant distance below and the water protects the ship), or penetrate above with enough energy to damage stuff inside, cause fuel tanks to leak etc, but most of all kill and wound personnel. And the personnel issue would be equally or more true with hits to the superstructure, where a typical WWII DD had little to hide behind that would stop a .50 cal bullet, until after some navies adopted splinter protection in specific locations, bridge area especially. The French and Japanese both did so in direct response to experience of effective .50 cal strafing by USN a/c in 1942. A sinking by simply filling up with water was unlikely, but .50 cal strafing could be devastating to DD's lacking any splinter protection, which most lacked early in WWII.

Joe


----------

