Jean Bart: Type of bombs dropped? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

elbmc1969

Senior Airman
492
337
Feb 16, 2019
On November 10, 1942, nine SBDs from Ranger struck Jean Bart with two 1000 lb bombs. The effect is described as causing the Jean Bart to settle into the harbor mud with her decks awash. However, the post-damage photos that I have found show the Jean Bart with her deck far above water. (They may have been taken after she was refloated, when there wasn't shooting going on.)

Does anyone know what type of bombs the SBDs dropped? HE, SAP, AP? There's been recent discussion about the availability of AP bombs for USN aircraft, but dropping HE on a battleship and causing it to settle is somewhat unlikely. The most likely cause would be near misses causing popping hull seams below the armored belt and causing flooding below decks.

Is there a damage report on the Jean Bart or a yard assessment for her repair and upgrading that shows the damage that she took from Massachusetts and the bombing?
 
None of the accounts I have say more than 1,000lb bombs. But given that 1,000lb AP bomb production for the USN didn't begin until Oct 1942 and Ranger and her group of CVEs left the US to participate in Operation Torch on 25 Oct 1942, it seems unlikely that 1,000lb AP would have been available. Couple that with the nature of the damage (see below) HE seems more likely.

As for the damage to Jean Bart, Jordan & Dumas "French Battleships 1922-1956" has this to say about the damage caused during 2 attacks on her.

8th Nov
It is noted that SBD from Ranger armed with 500lb bombs hit submarines and destroyers and then -

"...At 0718 Jean Bart herself was damaged by two bombs: one which struck the catapult mounting to port causing a small fire and flooding of the manual steering compartment, and another which struck the quay to starboard, causing a large breech in the outer hull plating in section M."

Section M contained the after boiler room. She was then shelled by Massachusetts, being hit 6 times. Details of these hits are in the book along with diagrams showing the paths of the different shells.

Then on 10 Nov, after Jean Bart again opened fire on US ships a raid by 9 SBD from Ranger carrying 1,000lb. The book continues -
"Only two bombs from this attack struck the Jean Bart, but the devastation caused was of a different order to that of the smaller 500lb bombs of the first day. The first hit the forecastle near the capstan; it obliterated the capstan itself, lifted the forecastle deck and started a fire. There were large breaches in the hull above the main deck between frames 217 and 224 to port.

The other bomb hit the quarterdeck just forward of the starboard catapult pivot and caused damage so extensive that the official enquiry was convinced that two bombs had hit in the same area. Although the 100mm inclined deck over the shafts was not breached, a large section of of the hull plating above this level was completely destroyed (frames 25-55) and the upper deck was lifted and bent back over the quarterdeck; it looked to all intents and purposes as if the stern of the ship had been opened with a giant can-opener. There were also deformations in the after part of the shelter deck abeam the hangar. Fires broke out, the after turbo-generator room was flooded, and smoke filled the after engine room which had to be evacuated.

The fires were eventually put out at 2000 with the aid of three tugs and firemen from the town, but extensive flooding meant that the ship's stern was now resting on the bottom. Two compartments in section B, and most of the compartments in sections O, P, Q, R S, and T were full of water. As with the Richelieu following the aerial torpedo hit at Dakar on 8 July 1940, water leaked into the cable tunnels, and from there into both engine rooms and the after boiler room. The turbo-generator room was flooded and the diesel generators forward had been badly damaged by the force of the bomb explosion, so power was available only from the emergency diesels."

Note there is no mention of damage from near misses and that only her stern was sitting on the bottom as most of the water she took on was in the after part of the ship. Section B was forward and affected by hit 1. Section O was immediately aft of the after engine room, containing the after turbo-generators and was under the point at which the 152mm centreline turret would have sat if the ship had been completed at that time.

The water alongside the Quai Delande where she lay in Nov 1942 was described as "shallow", so her stern probably didn't have far to sink. And note the reference is only to her stern hitting bottom. So while the quarterdeck May have been "awash" it seems unlikely that her upper decks further forward, which were higher anyway, came to be under water. Another question has to be how much water came from leaks in the hull and how much from the fire fighting efforts that went on for 5 hours.

Repairs to make her seaworthy again began immediately but she was not able to run sea trials until 15 Sept 1943. Casablanca was not the best equipped port in which to carry out repairs. She didn't leave for Brest until 25th Aug 1945 after various plans to refit her in the USA had fallen though in 1943.

Edit. Note there was no penetration of the 100mm armoured deck aft, again suggesting HE rather than AP. The USN didn't have any SAP at this time.
 
Last edited:
This photo shows the damage to her after end. Note what appears to be a tidemark on her hull under the potholes. This is dated on the Wiki page to 15 Nov. If true then it didn't take long to pump her out.
Yeah, this clearly shows her down by the stern:

Jean_Bart_12.jpg

Prow is higher than it should be.

It's clearly not the whole ship that settled to the bottom, only the stern.

I suspect that the bomb that hit the forecastle did the damage to the buildings right alongside. I do wonder where the other bombs went. Some into the water, maybe some into the buildings? I sort of expect a building that had a 1000 lb bomb come through the roof would have been in far worse condition.
 
Yeah, this clearly shows her down by the stern:

View attachment 712214
Prow is higher than it should be.

It's clearly not the whole ship that settled to the bottom, only the stern.

I suspect that the bomb that hit the forecastle did the damage to the buildings right alongside. I do wonder where the other bombs went.

If you look at the bomb damage onland and compare it again with this pic:

jean_bart_12-jpg.jpg


... there's a flattened building on the shore starboard quarter, and another opened up abeam starboard. I've read that bombs and/or shells rocked up against the concrete quays and reflected into the ship, but have to admit that seems like an extraordinary bit of damage for that sort of scenario.
 

Attachments

  • 1010px-jean_bart_80-g-31605-jpg.jpg
    1010px-jean_bart_80-g-31605-jpg.jpg
    142.9 KB · Views: 14
According to various period ordnance manuals, these were the 1,000-lb class AP and SAP bombs the U.S. fielded during the war. Note that the figures given for the bombs varied slightly between manuals; the numbers below are the most commonly stated.

(AP) AN-Mk 33 — 1,008 lbs complete weight ; overall length, 73.0" ; body diameter, 12.0" ; tail width, 16.0" ; 140.0 lbs explosive filler (Explosive 'D')
(AP, Army) M52 — 1,077 lbs complete weight ; overall length, 70.9" ; body diameter, 12.3" ; tail width, 16.6" ; 58.4 lbs explosive filler (Explosive 'D')
(SAP) AN-M59 — 990 lbs complete weight ; overall length, 70.4" ; body diameter, 15.1" ; tail width, 20.7" ; 312.0 lbs explosive filler (TNT or Amatol 50-50)
 
According to various period ordnance manuals, these were the 1,000-lb class AP and SAP bombs the U.S. fielded during the war. Note that the figures given for the bombs varied slightly between manuals; the numbers below are the most commonly stated.

(AP) AN-Mk 33 — 1,008 lbs complete weight ; overall length, 73.0" ; body diameter, 12.0" ; tail width, 16.0" ; 140.0 lbs explosive filler (Explosive 'D')
(AP, Army) M52 — 1,077 lbs complete weight ; overall length, 70.9" ; body diameter, 12.3" ; tail width, 16.6" ; 58.4 lbs explosive filler (Explosive 'D')
(SAP) AN-M59 — 990 lbs complete weight ; overall length, 70.4" ; body diameter, 15.1" ; tail width, 20.7" ; 312.0 lbs explosive filler (TNT or Amatol 50-50)

Were those used against JB?
 
Ordnance Field Manual FM9-6, Ammunition Supply, dated 29 July 1942, with Changes No.1/2/3

1000 lb AP M52 is listed as in service, no AN-M series designation
1600 lb AP Mk I, Navy, is listed as in service, no M or AN-M series designation

500 lb SAP (T4) is listed as in test phase, intended service designation AN-M58
500 lb SAP (T5) is listed as in test phase, no M or AN-M series designation

1000 lb SAP (T4) is listed as in test phase, intended service designation AN-M59
1000 lb SAP (T5) is listed as in test phase, no M or AN-M series designation

No other SAP or AP bombs listed as in test phase or in service as of 29 July 1942

Change No.1 dated 20 May 1943 is mentioned but current availability list (if any) is not present in manual
Change No.2 dated 10 August 1943 is mentioned but current availability list (if any) is not present in manual
Change No.3 dated 20 March 1944 has the following changes to the SAP and AP information above

500 lb SAP AN-M58A1 is listed as in service
1000 lb SAP AN-M59 is listed as in service
1000 lb AP AN-Mk 33 is listed as in service
1600 lb AP AN-Mk I is listed as in service (former Navy designation 1000 lb AP Mk I, Navy)

1000 lb AP M52 is no longer listed as in service

NOTE that Changes No.1 & 2 may have had additional bombs listed vs the list in the original 29 July 1942 manual without any Changes, but as of Change No.3 any such bombs were no longer considered in service or available
 
Last edited:
No idea. But they would be the leading candidates, depending on when they were introduced (which the ordnance manuals don't mention).

Note that the earliest ordnance manual I have come across is for 1944, so it's possible references to earlier ordnance was removed from them.
Discussed before on other threads. The M52 was an Army weapon converted from an artillery shell and with no known USN use.

As I noted the USN 1,000lb AP bomb (the M33) only entered low rate production for the USN in Oct 1942. Production of this for the army didn't begin until March 1943. Given that Ranger left the US for Operation Torch on 25 Oct it seems rather unlikely that any would have got from factory to ship in that timeframe. SAP bombs of the joint Army-Navy series entered production even later.

The USN had its own 1,000lb GP bomb from 1937/38 in Mark, 3,5,9 & 13 forms before these bombs were standardised across both services. It contained 511lb of TNT. The USN's first AP bomb was the 1,600lb AN Mk 1, production of which began in Jan 1942 but was rarely, if ever, carried by the SBD. Pre-war USN theory was that dive bombers prime target was not Battleships but aircraft carriers for which 500lb was seen as adequate. And by moving from 500lb to 1,000lb GP around 1938 the objective was to get more punch from near misses due to the mining effect of an underwater explosion. For that it needed far more explosive power than could be contained in an AP bomb of equivalent size.

And look at the damage. As noted penetration of the armoured deck, which was lower in the ship than the upper deck that was ripped apart, did not occur according to the French. An AP bomb could be expected to penetrate deeper into the ship before exploding.

Edit
AN AP Mk 33 production started in Oct 1942 with 44 produced that month.
AN SAP M59 production started earlier than I remembered. Also Oct 1942 with 2,197 produced that month.

The M58 SAP 500lb production began in May 1942 and M103 SAP 2,000lb in March 1945.

Data from Official Munitions Production of the United States July 1 1940 to Aug 31 1945.

Edit 2
The SBD-3 as flown by Ranger's squadrons in Nov 1942 had a max bomb load of 1,200lb (1x1,000lb under the fuselage plus 1x100lb under each wing). It was only with the more powerful SBD-5, deliveries of which began in May 1943, that the bomb load could be upgraded to 2,250lb.
 
Last edited:
Well, I had seen aerial photos of the Jean Bart and the damage to the prow didn't look too bad. Yeah, the deck has buckled, but not the end of the world.

Yeah. I found a photo of the prow of the ship taken from the dockside. The starboard hull has simply been peeled back toward the stern. I'm sure a good bit of it was blown into the buildings as well.

While it certainly wouldn't sink the Jean Bart while she was immobile, she couldn't take heavy seas or high speeds. Water coming in through the a hole the size of a modest house and sloshing to port as the ship rolled would have been very, very bad.
 
Lower (interior) decks of the stern awash. The general description of "her stern awash" is, probably, technically inaccurate and comes from this situation.

1679780072457.png


Damage to the starboard bow from the HE bomb hit.

1679780163822.png


Damage to the port bow from a combination of a gun hit and the HE bomb. Note that the deck is separated from the side aft of the upper crack, over the bulge in the side.

1679780272643.png


Another angle of the aft damage.

1679780444245.png
 
The most bottom pic in the post above should be attached below the first top one. This is the same damage at the stern seen form the another side.
 
The most bottom pic in the post above should be attached below the first top one. This is the same damage at the stern seen form the another side.
Well, yeah. That's why I labeled it "Another angle of the aft damage."
 
So you could edit your post and move the image up. Anyway all is fine so there is no need to chage anything.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back