SMS Ostfriesland and Billy Mitchell

[The Basket]

Did the sinking of the Ostfriesland in 1921 prove anything other than if you bomb a stationary ship long enough without Flak or damage control then it will eventually sink?

My view is that's vastly overated although a portent of the future of air power but as a 1921 demonstration not so much.

By ww2 sinking of capital ships by airpower alone was possible.

 

[buffnut453]

I think it depends who was doing the arguing. For air power proponents, it was often hyped up as "proof" that capital ships were vulnerable to air power. Such claims we're overstated in the 1920s but it absolutely was a portent of the future.

Battleship admirals, unsurprisingly, took the opposite view. Rather like you (and with some justification) they argued that a fully armed battleship that was well-manoeuvred and could shoot back at the aircraft was a much more challenging target. They also overstated their case, putting far more faith in manually-laid AAA than was justified. That the views of battleship admirals hadn't changed by 1941 was pig-headed, coming to a head with the loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales off Malaya in December of that year.

 

[The Basket]

Ostfriesland was not the latest or greatest of battleship in 1921 nor were aircraft of the 1921 vintage a direct threat.

It was obviously publicity stunt for whoever wanted it to mean anything.

Although it seemed to be only.bombs and not torpedoes. Torpedo is a much more obvious way to sink a ship.

 

[soulezoo]

You'll have to go back to research to find out the truth. It was not a publicity stunt in any way. Billy Mitchell was very forward thinking for the time and used his force of personality to try to wake people up to the future of war, especially air war and how it would change fundamentally how we fight wars. It almost literally took an act of Congress to allow Gen Mitchell his "stunt" as you put it. Much politics involved. The Navy didn't want Mitchell to do this at all and the battleship navy uber alles was more entrenched then than in 1941. Then they (Navy) played a lot of games making "rules" for engagement (all those "rules" designed to favor the ship). Despite all the hurdles, the demonstration was successful beyond Mitchell's hopes. This served to embolden him. This in turn ultimately led to his courts-martial for insubordination. That courts-martial was eventually overturned (took a fair while). It was Mitchell that outright predicted Pearl Harbor in 1925.

Billy Mitchell's story is another "what could have been" if only stubborn people listened.

Torpedo might be obvious for you in sinking a ship, but let's not forget what the US used for torpedos back then. Also, the effectiveness of US torpedo bombers in WW II, much less 1921 (were they even feasible then?) left much to be desired. It didn't matter anyway as the Navy prohibited the use of aerial torpedos in the test. No, I wouldn't second guess Mitchell on this.

 

[The Basket]

Air power was less effective than submarines and subs sent more Japanese ships to the bottom than aircraft.

One sub could have sunk the Ostfriesland with one torpedo.

You see what you want to see.

Royal Navy lost 5 big gun ships in WW2. 2 to U-boat, 2 to air power and one to Bismarck.
The USN didn't lose one at sea except losses at Pearl.

Mitchell did go outside the boundary of the test as he had to pummel the Ostfriesland before it sank. And sink it he wanted to do.

This test is no different than me fighting a heavyweight boxer who has to stand still and can't fight back. I am going to win eventually! So proves what you want to prove. And the Ostfriesland wasn't even the best battleship.

Of course Yamato was sunk by air power. But it was a lot of airpower!

Whether Mitchell was criticising the Navy or Battleships of ships in general then I don't know. But we still have expensive surface vessels today which cost a king's ransom. And are as much vulnerable to air or sub attack as the Ostfriesland or Yamato.

Since the USN used the Missouri in 1991 Gulf war then the age of the battleship had a few more years yet.

 

[vikingBerserker]

soulezoo is spot on, regardless of what one thinks up until that point no capital ship had been sunk by aircraft. Earlier the US Navy had conducted a sham test involving the aerial bombing of the old USS Indiana (BB-1) and a report written by Captain William D Leahy stated:

"The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs."

So at the time is was not widely believed that aircraft could sink large ships regardless if they were sitting ducks.

 

[soulezoo]

You see what you want to see.

That sums it up quite well. Regardless of perspective.

I suppose at Midway, they should have just waited for the subs to arrive and form a picket, eh?

 

[Shortround6]

One sub could have sunk the Ostfriesland with one torpedo.

One 1921 sub with one 1921 torpedo?

Ostfriesland had survived hitting a mine on the return from Jutland that made a hole 40 ft × 16 ft at 6:20 , she got up to 14-15kts after the explosion but ruptured a bulkhead while turning. She worked her way up to 10kts again and made port at 18:15 under her own power. What would have happened had she been 3-5 days from port may be a different thing.
It took about 2 months to repair the damage.

Ships with no damage control parties are much more vulnerable than ships that have crew performing damage control.

In WW II many countries had shifted to explosives that were 30-50% more powerful than TNT.

 

[The Basket]

My point is that the battleship was alive and kicking well until the end of the war.
Which considering how much they cost is no mean feat.

So Mitchell didn't succeed in this test and its actual combat that saw the demise of the battleship.

At Midway, no battleship was sunk by airpower so not sure the relevance of that comment.

 

[vikingBerserker]

My point is that the battleship was alive and kicking well until the end of the war.
Which considering how much they cost is no mean feat.

So Mitchell didn't succeed in this test and its actual combat that saw the demise of the battleship.

I think he succeeded quite well as there was a large portion of the upper military people that did not believe an aircraft could sink a Capital ship to begin with. After that event, the US Navy and Air Corps conducted further tests against the USS Alabama in 1921 and the USS Virginia and New Jersey in 1923 using a British Wemperis Mark III bombsight in 1923.

Shortly afterwards, these tests resulted in the US Navy contracting with Carl L Norden for a better bombsight for their patrol bombers which he delivered the Mk XI in 1928, and the Mk XV in 1931. It was during a demonstration of the Mk XV against the USS Pittsburg (CA-4) when the Air Corps saw for itself how good it was compared to the rest.

Throughout the 1930's with finally having a decent heavy bomber for the time the Air Corps as well as the US Navy conducted a number of maneuvers that included aerial strikes against an enemy fleet including large capital ships. In fact the various Costal Frontier Defense Joint Air Exercise's pitted only airpower against a moving enemy fleet. The USS Utah of Pearl Harbor fame was a remote control target ship and was sunk numerous times during these.

 

[The Basket]

So if a demonstration is shown that a MiG-21 can shoot down a F-22 Raptor then we should all buy MiG-21s?

I understand what Mitchell did is more for its burst bubble value but a battleship is and always been sinkable. But I would still say Battleships had there part to play in WW2 even if there was no fleet v fleet battleship duels

 

[vikingBerserker]

I'm not sure I am following your logic. Mitchel's test proved two things:

1 - Air power alone could indeed sink a capital ship which regardless of the hindsight from today was not widely believed at the time.
2 - Said capital ships were not equipped to properly deal with air attacks.

From that information, at least 2 things can be done:

a) - Continue to improve the ability for airpower to destroy naval targets (which was done)
b) - Improve capital ships ability to deal with air attacks (which was partially done)

The smallest guns the Ostfriesland was equipped with were 14 x 88mm anti-torpedo boat guns and the mounts do not appear to have the ability to elevate to engage aircraft, though I could be mistaken as I cannot find a very clear picture, so zero protection from the air.

At the time of Pearl Harbor the USS Arizona was equipped with 8 x 5" & 8 x .50 MG AA guns, and was going to be equipped with at least 2 x 1.1" AA guns mounts of 3 or 4 barrels each IIRC.

During the Battle of Sanata Cruz Islands, the USS South Dakota was equipped with 16 x 5", 68 x 40mm and 76 x 20mm AA guns.

During Pearl Harbor the Japanese lost 29 aircraft while attacking all the US bases and ships. During the Battle of Sanata Cruz Islands, the USS South Dakota on it's own shot down 26 Japanese aircraft.

Taranto and Pearl Harbor reiterated point #2 above and the raids would never have happened if point #1 had not been proven.

I look at his tests like going to the moon, the first test you conduct is not putting a man on the moon, but seeing if you can even make it into space.

IMHO Battleships still have a part to play, which is why the Russians still field Kirov class battlecruisers. The final refurbishment of the Iowa's were the removal of turret 3 and a flight deck installed for Harriers. Today those would have been replaced with F-35Cs and it would have been a potent platform.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

My point is that the battleship was alive and kicking well until the end of the war.

The point is, they were no longer the premier capital ship. They were already on inventory and useful for task force AA defense as well as heavy hitting invasion artillery, and good survivability against all forms of attack at sea. But their role as primary fleet offensive weapon was already in the dustbin of history.
It's not surprising that a member here whose nation was nearly strangled twice by submarines and only once by air should put more stock in the sub than the airplane as the decisive weapon.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[The Basket]

So why would USA have the most powerful navy in the world if Mitchell was right?
The Ohio class submarine is very decisive!

 

[XBe02Drvr]

So why would USA have the most powerful navy in the world if Mitchell was right?
The Ohio class submarine is very decisive!

Mitchell was a precursor of the monomaniacal military crusader, out to upset the applecart of orthodoxy and promote a new perspective or technology, such as LeMay, Rickover, John Gault and the fighter mafia, etc.
We got dragged through the "Strategic bombing is the do-all weapon" peapatch by LeMay&Co post WWII and learned our lesson. It takes a balance of forces to meet all scenarios.
When you think of it, Ohio class boomers combine the best of both worlds, sea and sky. And with Tomahawks, the fast attacks can do so too.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[nuuumannn]

From what's been said about Mitchell, his aim was purely political and it had the impact needed, in hindsight. Yes, we know battleships can be sunk by aircraft, in hindsight; by 1921 it hadn't been proven at all. The Royal Navy had the right idea though, in 1917 the RNAS had a torpedo bomber in production that was designed to take off from the decks of ships, even before there were ships from which it could take off (Furious doesn't count, the Torpedoplane couldn't operate from Furious in its Great War state prior to the removal of its superstructure). It was planned that Torpedoplanes were to fly from the decks of HMS Argus, commissioned in 1918 and freighters with purpose built decks to attack the German High Seas Fleet in its anchorage on the Shillig Roads at Wilhelmshaven in 1919.

That would have dented the pride of the battleship pundits. It was argued that even if one ship was sunk it would have provided an enormous political and moral victory for the British and forced the Germans to relocate the High Seas Fleet, swinging about its anchors and largely inactive, further eastwards.

 

[GrauGeist]

Air power was less effective than submarines and subs sent more Japanese ships to the bottom than aircraft.

To be entirely honest, how many subs were at Coral Sea or Midway?

Of the 11 U.S. carriers (all types) sunk in the Pacific, three were sunk outright by aircraft. One carrier was sunk by sub AFTER it had been mauled by aircraft and two carriers were sunk by submarine.
Add to that one British carrier sunk by aircraft.

Of the 4 U.S. battleships sunk (although 2 were later returned to service), all were done so by Japanese aircraft.

Of the 24 Japanese carriers (all types - Navy and Army) sunk, 14 were sunk by aircraft (though one was returned to service) and 10 were sunk by submarine.

Of the 7 Japanese battleships sunk, 6 were by aircraft and 1 was by submarine.

We could delve into the loss of both side, the Cruisers, Destroyers, transports and such, but in the Pacific Theater, it was the Battleships and Aircraft Carriers that were prime assets.

While Submarines proved to be a large factor, it was airpower that actually decided the majority of battles.

 

[at6]

As for predicting Pearl Harbor and who would be attacking, Mitchell was spot on. The only thing he didn't have was the date or year. I wonder whether or not that Yamamoto read the transcript of the hearings and then used that as his blue print for the attack.

 

[nuuumannn]

I wonder whether or not that Yamamoto read the transcript of the hearings and then used that as his blue print for the attack.

He got the idea from the British. It should be added that in 1921 a naval mission went to Japan with Sopwith Torpedoplanes and British instructors taught the fledgling Japanese naval air arm about torpedo dropping. Also, the FAA attack on Taranto is recognised as being of influence on the Japanese, but the seed was sown from British experience; those same instructors who taught the Japanese had also trained torpedo pilots in 1918 for the proposed attack on the High Seas Fleet.

A Sopwith Torpedoplane dropping a torpedo off the coast of Scotland in 1918 in preparation for the proposed raid against the German High Seas Fleet.

Cuckoo releasing torpedo 1918

A Japanese Sopwith Cuckoo Mk.II, one of six supplied with the British Imperial Mission to Japan, at Kasumigaura airfield in 1921.

Japanese Cuckoo 1921

 

[The Basket]

In my view Mitchell was wrong and was proved wrong.
If he was such a good predictor of events then why didn't he buy shares in Apple?