Highball vs the Tirpitz

[parsifal]

German flak units in Norway

This site gives the Norwegian flak defences as the 83 Flak regiment in attendance (or brigade, to use the terminology the norwegian source uses)

The unit had the following equipment and manpower allocations

158 x 88mm, 73 x 37mm, 332 x 200mm, 152 officers, 4893 EM. These are just the land defences. The shipboard defences were not particualalry heavy, but did include the 8x 15 in guns now with sanshiki style ammunition, the 12x 150mm guns now with limited DP capability, 16 x 105mm, over 30 x 37mm guns and nearly 60 x 20mm guns. Chief defences were smoke generators that made attacks particualarly difficult,placed around the fjord, and designed to fill the valley with thick smoke. .


These defences were heavier than for any other point target that im aware of. i dont know the flak defences of Katfjord,but the flak formation was transferred from that area to the tromso anchorage at about the same time as Tirpitz's move. One can assume it was similar to the tromso defences

The natural benefits of Tirpitzs Katfjord anchorage were appraised by Admiral Fraser and his staff, prior to the April attacks. They advised Cunningham that the natural benefits conferred by the anchorage made it virtually impossible for any success to be expected from air attack. They were remarkably accurate assessments as it turns out. They were so pessimistic about success, that initially Fraser refused to take on the mission. Eventually ABC pursuaded him to try. I think it significant that despite the lack of success, such results did not adversely affect frasers career advanacement. Evidently his bosses must have known just how difficult the operations were. They did not punish him or hold him back because of failure, and his reluctance to take on the job in the first place speaks volumes about just howhard a job it was.

 

[Juha]

X6 dropped both charges whilst hard up against Tirpitz's port side roughly by B turret. X7 dropped one hard up alongside Tirpitz's port side in a similar position before moving about 180' aft (to where Place estimated X turret to be) and dropped its second charge under the ships keel.
Because the Germans had seen X6 (Cameron's boat) on the port side it was deemed probable that any explosive charge would have been laid on that side and Tirpitz's bows were hauled over to starboard with her anchors and cable-holders. The stern was secured by shore wires and it was not practical to move it. As a result the second charge, dropped by X7 did explode more or less underneath Tirpitz's keel.
I think that the explosive used in the charges was amatol too, but I'm not sure.

I checked a bit and yes, 2 of the charges seems to have been exploded under the T's hull, one not underneath and one was a dud. Damage seems to be surprisingly small (even if it was bad)to the circumstances, because in theory the massive gas bubble was an effective ship killer and the charges were fairly massive.

No bombers were lost to enemy action in these operations. I doubt the same would have been the case had Highball attacks been made, certainly not if Chastise is anything to go by.

Yes, HB Mossies would have been vulnerable to light AA just as torpedo planes were.

 

[Juha]

I dont see 600lbs sinking the ship either. Even a 12,000 lb bomb going through the ship and exploding didnt sink the ship. It did keep the Tirpitz from going out to sea again, but it didnt sink the ship. After that, it finally took 2 more direct hits to send her down, but even the best of battleships could hardly survive a 12,000 lb bomb...

Again, it was the multible hits on which the plan was based. 11 torpedoes with 600+lb warheads was enough to sunk Yamato and that was a bit overkill because some torpedoes hit the other side than the majority and so worked as counter-flooding. Orders were to drop all torpedoes from same side to maximise their effectiveness.

Tallboy had 2,400kg (5,000+lb) torpex charge

 

[wuzak]

As I wrote the idea behind Highball was to achieve multible hits, enough torpedo hits sunk IJN Yamato and HB had almost as powerful charge than the warhead of the late war US Mark 14 torpedo had. Problem of course was to achieve required number of hits. Probably T would only have been damaged but the KM's problen would have been, that there were no docks large enough in Norway, so if the hull and torpedo defences would have been ruptured the repairs would have been difficult. The X-craft charges were not laid directly under T's hull, so they lost much of the effect of the air bubble and IIRC the charges were Amatol, which is different HE than Torpex. It was decades ago when I handled military explosives so I cannot say how much more powerful than Amatol Torpex is, but it is clearly more powerful because TNT is powerful than Amatol.

According to Wiki:
"Torpex is a secondary explosive 50% more powerful than TNT by mass."

Torpex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wuzak]

As I wrote the idea behind Highball was to achieve multible hits, enough torpedo hits sunk IJN Yamato and HB had almost as powerful charge than the warhead of the late war US Mark 14 torpedo had. Problem of course was to achieve required number of hits. Probably T would only have been damaged but the KM's problen would have been, that there were no docks large enough in Norway, so if the hull and torpedo defences would have been ruptured the repairs would have been difficult. The X-craft charges were not laid directly under T's hull, so they lost much of the effect of the air bubble and IIRC the charges were Amatol, which is different HE than Torpex. It was decades ago when I handled military explosives so I cannot say how much more powerful than Amatol Torpex is, but it is clearly more powerful because TNT is powerful than Amatol.

According to Wiki:
"Torpex is a secondary explosive 50% more powerful than TNT by mass."

Torpex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Juha]

Yes, as I wrote in message #5.

Juha

 

[nuuumannn]

It likely came from AVRO chief aerodynamicist (Sir) George Edwards who was a keen cricket player.

Edwards worked for Vickers, not Avro.

 

[stona]

Edwards worked for Vickers, not Avro.

Indeed, and I've seen him described as Britain's greatest aeronautical engineer. I always liked Edward's notion that the Spitfire was not Mitchell's epitaph but that the B.12/36, which Edwards considered 'an incredible design' should have been.

In March 1945 Shenstone, so influential in the design of the Spitfire, was offered the princely sum of £2,000 pa (double his current Air Ministry salary) by Hew Kilner (Managing Director of Vickers) to work under Pierson at Vickers-Armstrongs in Weybridge, a job that was an obvious step in him becoming Vickers chief designer. Shenstone declined the offer, preferring to stay in Canada, and the job went to Edwards. Shenstone was magnanimous, writing.

"I did not accept the offer. George Edwards got the job and he did it better than I could have done it, as I learned later when I did return to England."

It makes you wonder what a VC 10 designed by the man who designed the Spitfire wing might have looked like

Getting a bit off topic here...never mind.

Cheers

Steve

 

[wuzak]

No bombers were lost to enemy action in these operations. I doubt the same would have been the case had Highball attacks been made, certainly not if Chastise is anything to go by.

I think that without some sort of diversion to help draw defensive fire from the Tirpitz it would have been almost suicidal. They definitely would need some sort of fighter cover (Mustang Is, probably best suited, but the distance from Britain may have required naval types) and possibly some FB Mosquitoes with RPs, or even FB.XVIIIs with their guns, to try to get the crew ducking for cover.

With the distance to the fjords in which the Tirpitz was anchored, it may have been necessary to launch Mossies from carriers as well.

 

[Shortround6]

Depends on the air fields in the Orkney and Shetland Islands.

Around 540-560 miles from Scapa Flow to Trondheim and around 440 miles from Lerwick in the Shetlands to Trondheim. This doesn't include a dog leg as both direct routes fly over a considerable amount of Norwegian coast giving a lot of warning.

Given the amount of prep work that went into some of these raids a few forward air strips in the Shetlands (if they aren't there already) sounds like a much better deal than trying to fly Mosquitos off carriers.

 

[Koopernic]

German flak units in Norway

This site gives the Norwegian flak defences as the 83 Flak regiment in attendance (or brigade, to use the terminology the norwegian source uses)

The unit had the following equipment and manpower allocations

158 x 88mm, 73 x 37mm, 332 x 200mm, 152 officers, 4893 EM. These are just the land defences. The shipboard defences were not particualalry heavy, but did include the 8x 15 in guns now with sanshiki style ammunition, the 12x 150mm guns now with limited DP capability, 16 x 105mm, over 30 x 37mm guns and nearly 60 x 20mm guns. Chief defences were smoke generators that made attacks particualarly difficult,placed around the fjord, and designed to fill the valley with thick smoke. .


These defences were heavier than for any other point target that im aware of. i dont know the flak defences of Katfjord,but the flak formation was transferred from that area to the tromso anchorage at about the same time as Tirpitz's move. One can assume it was similar to the tromso defences

The natural benefits of Tirpitzs Katfjord anchorage were appraised by Admiral Fraser and his staff, prior to the April attacks. They advised Cunningham that the natural benefits conferred by the anchorage made it virtually impossible for any success to be expected from air attack. They were remarkably accurate assessments as it turns out. They were so pessimistic about success, that initially Fraser refused to take on the mission. Eventually ABC pursuaded him to try. I think it significant that despite the lack of success, such results did not adversely affect frasers career advanacement. Evidently his bosses must have known just how difficult the operations were. They did not punish him or hold him back because of failure, and his reluctance to take on the job in the first place speaks volumes about just howhard a job it was.

I don't know what you were trying to link to but you have provided the order of battle for all Luftwaffe FLAK regiments in Norway during the Invasion, Fall Gelb. Not the defences of the Tirpitz at Kåfjord.

The one of the photographs I have provided shows the Tirpitz actually under attack during operation Tungsten. I can not see any shore AAA defences of significance.

Harbour defence was the responsibility for the most part of the German Navy who had troops to defend harbours, man shore batteries artillery and FLAK. A typical heavy FLAK battery consisted of 6 x 8.8cm FLAK 37 guns and 2 x quad 20mm (mainly for self defence.). They were of course useful to fend of tanks, PT boats, to provide counter artillery fire. FLAK batteries even sank a number of RN destroyers. It certainly would have been wise to have several around the tirpitz, but it doesn't seem to have happened. I doubt there was even one. Only the shore on the bottom provides any possibility.

 

[parsifal]

I don't know what you were trying to link to but you have provided the order of battle for all Luftwaffe FLAK regiments in Norway during the Invasion, Fall Gelb. Not the defences of the Tirpitz at Kåfjord.

That's at the top of the page , scroll down about a quarter of a page and you will see an entry that leads off as follows

"At the end of the war, this was the FLAK situation...."

And then gives the figures I previously posted

The one of the photographs I have provided shows the Tirpitz actually under attack during operation Tungsten. I can not see any shore AAA defences of significance.

Flak did end up being ineffective during that attack, but it was more effective in the attacks before and after the April attacks. The flak was there, but as to whether it was effective is entirely a different issue

Harbour defence was the responsibility for the most part of the German Navy who had troops to defend harbours, man shore batteries artillery and FLAK. A typical heavy FLAK battery consisted of 6 x 8.8cm FLAK 37 guns and 2 x quad 20mm (mainly for self defence.). They were of course useful to fend of tanks, PT boats, to provide counter artillery fire. FLAK batteries even sank a number of RN destroyers. It certainly would have been wise to have several around the tirpitz, but it doesn't seem to have happened. I doubt there was even one. Only the shore on the bottom provides any possibility

.

Hitler gave the defence of Northern and central Norway a very high priority with regard to both Coastal and AA defences. Tromso/Kattfjord were at the very heart of German activity.They are geographical location only speated by about 3 miles of distance as the crow flies, though a lot further by navigable waterway.

Therer were plenty of opportunities for placement of both forms of defence. Somewhere I have a map of this layout, I willtry and dig it out for you

 

[parsifal]

Here is a link to the known coastal defences of Norway during the war.it is inconceivable that the germans would omit to protect one of their busiest anchorages

German coastal defence in Norway during WW II

 

[Koopernic]

Indeed, and I've seen him described as Britain's greatest aeronautical engineer. I always liked Edward's notion that the Spitfire was not Mitchell's epitaph but that the B.12/36, which Edwards considered 'an incredible design' should have been.

In March 1945 Shenstone, so influential in the design of the Spitfire, was offered the princely sum of £2,000 pa (double his current Air Ministry salary) by Hew Kilner (Managing Director of Vickers) to work under Pierson at Vickers-Armstrongs in Weybridge, a job that was an obvious step in him becoming Vickers chief designer. Shenstone declined the offer, preferring to stay in Canada, and the job went to Edwards. Shenstone was magnanimous, writing.

"I did not accept the offer. George Edwards got the job and he did it better than I could have done it, as I learned later when I did return to England."

It makes you wonder what a VC 10 designed by the man who designed the Spitfire wing might have looked like

Getting a bit off topic here...never mind.

Cheers

Steve

This aircraft had an extremely promising performance, seems to have been highly refined. Seems to have been stopped by damage caused by successful Luftwaffe bombing.

"Supermarine's design, the Type 316, was a single-spar, mid-wing aircraft; the leading edge was swept back but the trailing edge was straight. Bombs were carried in both the wings and the fuselage and defensive armament was in three turrets. Of the different powerplants suggested for the Type 316, there were three of more than 1,000 hp (746 kW): the Rolls-Royce Merlin, the Bristol Hercules radial engine and the Napier Dagger. The aircraft's estimated maximum speed was between 325 and 360 mph (523 and 579 km/h) and the estimated cruising speed was 260 mph (420 km/h). The estimated operating ceiling was around 30,000 ft (9,144 m) and range was 3,000 mi (4,800 km)."

Presumably the 360mph speed is with the Merlin.