SMS Ostfriesland and Billy Mitchell

Shortround6 · Apr 15, 2020

MIflyer said:
Aircraft carriers were designed to be armored for the optimum range of the cruisers that presumably would be escorting the carrier.

Or running around on their own away from the main battle fleet.
While you are concentrating on the 30-40 enemy ships including BBs and CVs over.....................here, the sneaky enemy has snuck 8-12 ships (CA/Cl and DDs) around to...........................there anc caught you by surprise. Night/bad weather increased the chances of this scenario, ship mounted search radar decreased it.

While not factored in by the naval architects, command stupidity could negate armor protection.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 15, 2020

The Basket said:
I can say man will walk on Mars. That ain't fact or fiction but a probable with a good chance of happening. Where's my medal?

The fact that he accurately predicted the Pearl Harbor attack and war with Japan put many of his detractors to shame. If you were able to predict in the 1920s that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, I wouldn't give you a medal, I'd take you to a horse track!

The Basket said:
Tennessee, West Virginia and Maryland were hit with the same bombs as Arizonia. And this again under ideal circumstances. Them bombs were duds.

So Prince of Wales, Repulse, Roma, Musashi and Yamato were the only battle ships sunk at sea under combat conditions. And it was torpedoes not bombs that did them in. Or Fritz X in the case of the Roma although Warspite took a Fritz X like a champ.

Still not getting on the Mitchell love train.

All that makes perfect sense but what if you presented those scenarios to Horatio Nelson? It would be beyond his comprehension to even conceive that an aerial platform could drop a bomb on a warship. Almost 120 years later there were US Navy Admirals who's thinking were still in the 19th century.

Aside from 1920s war games he was court marshalled for criticizing aerial operations conducted by both the US Army and Navy with regards to safety and accused top brass or criminal negligence after several high profile accidents occured, one of them being the destruction of the USS Shenandoah.

The Basket · Apr 15, 2020

War with Japan was certainly not difficult to predict.

He predicted Zepplins would attack Hawaii so his crystal ball was cloudy that day. He discounted carrier aircraft because they were not a thing in 1924.

The Pacific fleet is normally based in California not Hawaii so Mitchell would not have known that it was going to be based there.

George S Patton also predicted Pearl Harbour and the war in the Pacific.

A lot of early American and Japanese carriers were not armoured.

Let me tell you something....more American aircraft were used to sink Yamato than the Japanese used at Midway or Pearl Harbour! More aircraft attacked than carrier aircraft existed in 1939!

Yamato was attacked by 386 carrier aircraft!

MIflyer · Apr 15, 2020

A pilot who was on the attack that sank the IJN Musashi and also hit the IJN Yamato said that the attack aircraft were not armed with armor piercing bombs, just GP bombs.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 15, 2020

The Basket said:
War with Japan was certainly not difficult to predict.

In hindsight, sure, back then not really

The Basket said:
He predicted Zepplins would attack Hawaii so his crystal ball was cloudy that day. He discounted carrier aircraft because they were not a thing in 1924.

And Zepplins were the heavy bombers of the day.

The Basket said:
The Pacific fleet is normally based in California not Hawaii so Mitchell would not have known that it was going to be based there.

Well he predicted Hawaii, how about that!

The Basket said:
George S Patton also predicted Pearl Harbour and the war in the Pacific.

How about that!

The Basket said:
A lot of early American and Japanese carriers were not armoured.

And your point?

The Basket said:
Let me tell you something....more American aircraft were used to sink Yamato than the Japanese used at Midway or Pearl Harbour! More aircraft attacked than carrier aircraft existed in 1939!

Yamato was attacked by 386 carrier aircraft!

And again, your point??? This has what to do with Mitchel and the Ostfriesland??

Well you brought up this thread and have your opinions about the man so I guess any further discussion is mute. Again, your opinions. Although you may discredit the whole
Ostfriesland operation, Mitchell's tenacity led to his downfall but also led others to think about his foresight. Without him there might have never been a USAF. My opinion.

Shortround6 · Apr 15, 2020

The Basket said:
More aircraft attacked than carrier aircraft existed in 1939!

Yamato was attacked by 386 carrier aircraft!

Source for the first sentence?

carriers may not have been fully stocked but the British had "space" for about 260 planes on their carriers at the beginning of the war,
The Americans had space for about 476 planes Not counting the Langley.
Japanese had space for ???????

MIflyer · Apr 16, 2020

We are not talking about a B-17 versus an Iowa Class BB. We are talking about 1000 B-17's versus an Iowa class. And of course the B-17's were good for more than just attacking ships offshore. And had Mitchell not shown the vulnerability of battle ships, the USN probably would have not built a carrier force.

The Basket · Apr 16, 2020

Look at Ostfriesland test closely. It was supposed to be war time conditions. But the ship was stationary with no one shooting back. No damage control, doors open over 24 hours and the test was stopped due to bad weather. It wasn't a battleship, it was a piñata. It was a rigged test for the glory of the media. And the idea that battleships were unsinkable was disproved because HMS Audacious was sunk by a mine.

A battleship was certainly unsinkable by the standard aircraft munitions of the day unless you create a 2,000lb specifically for the test.

I can get 100% on any test you give me as long as I can cheat! That will prove nothing apart from how effective cheating can be.

Now the loss of the Arizona was interesting. That really was a one airplane, one bomb deal. And so that is a good point about the vulnerability of Battleships. But then look at Akagi or Hood or Juneau or Indianapolis or Ark Royal.

The loss of Ostfriesland can be dismissed but the loss of Arizona cannot.

From the data I found the FAA in 1939 had 232 front line aircraft but 56 were float planes or amphibians so not carrier aircraft and Courageous went down with 24 Swordfish. Which maybe could amount to roughly 150.

The Basket · Apr 16, 2020

USN : You said we were not going to sink her and we can do damage assesment!

Gen Mitchell: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 16, 2020

The Basket said:
Look at Ostfriesland test closely. It was supposed to be war time conditions. But the ship was stationary with no one shooting back. No damage control, doors open over 24 hours and the test was stopped due to bad weather. It wasn't a battleship, it was a piñata. It was a rigged test for the glory of the media.

Not entirely true:

"The rules and conditions for the tests were set by the Navy, which made it as difficult as possible for Mitchell to succeed. The ships had to be sunk in deep water, 100 fathoms or more. The Navy rejected two locations with sufficient depth close to shore and chose a target area some 50 miles out to sea from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Langley Field, the base for Mitchell's bombers, was 25 miles farther west. That made it a two-hour round-trip for the bombers, limiting the time they could remain in the target area.

The airplanes were not allowed to use aerial torpedoes. The Air Service would be allowed only two hits with its heaviest bombs. An inspection party would go aboard the target ships after each hit to carefully survey the damage."

Billy Mitchell and the Battleships - Air Force Magazine

MIflyer · Apr 16, 2020

You can buy 438 B-17's for the cost of one Iowa Class BB.

Peter Gunn · Apr 16, 2020

I don't believe anyone really thought battleships were unsinkable, several were sunk before WWI, so referencing the HMS Audacious isn't really relevant. What many people did believe at the time (I think) was that battleships were unsinkable/immune to being sunk by aerial attack.

Also not being able to use torpedoes can also be considered rigging the test as well no?

FLYBOYJ · Apr 16, 2020

The Naval Bombing Experiments

"So Mitchell's fight with he Navy over the battleships, was not just a simple fight between the Army, the Navy, and the little Air Service. It was really a battle of ideas, involving airminded people and non-airminded people in both services. But Mitchell's constant use of the Press to put his ideas across over-simplified the question .... Regardless of where they were all air-officers did what they could to keep the Air Arm before the public. "

The Basket · Apr 16, 2020

Let's look at Arizona's destruction in detail.
49 Nakajima B5N Kate. They flew along the battleship row at 10,000 feet. Each dropped a 800-kg (almost 1,800-lb.) bomb which was a modified 16 inch naval shell.

They flew in 5s in a line abreast formation.

They flew at that altitude because the weapons were armour piercing and so needed speed to breech deck armour.

They got 10 hits which roughly is 20% hit rate which is good. Every ship hit got 2 hits....Arizona, West Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland and repair ship USS Vestal which was moored next to Arizona and somehow survived the events although had to beach herself.
6 shells were duds so could have been worse

There was a magazine explosion inside Arizonia and the battleship was destroyed.

So what should we think here? Was it a golden BB? Lucky hit? Was the Arizonia vulnerable? What is the takeaway? As mentioned the deck was not armoured enough to prevent penetration. The West Virginia was given greater deck armour when repaired.

Or if the Americans were fully operational with all its flak and air power would the attack happened way it did? One for the philosopher.

The Basket · Apr 16, 2020

Depends if it a mk14 torpedo coz you can shoot them all day and not sink a thing.

How will hitting a stationary battleship with a torpedo prove anything?

Part of the difficulty of the torpedo run is that the ship is moving at speed and can be turning away and shooting back at you. Also in some cases the speed of the torpedo was roughly same as the ship so you could even out run it or out range it.

Imagine shooting a Spitfire with a 20mm cannon. The Spitfire is on the ground not moving and I position the 20mm cannon next to the Spitfire and by my sheer skill and genius I destroy the Spitfire.

I ring the local paper to say I destroyed a Spitfire with a couple of 20mm rounds and then claim Spitfires as obsolete and fighters obsolete. If we can destroy Spitfires that easily then why are we building them!

FLYBOYJ · Apr 16, 2020

The Basket said:
Let's look at Arizona's destruction in detail.
49 Nakajima B5N Kate. They flew along the battleship row at 10,000 feet. Each dropped a 800-kg (almost 1,800-lb.) bomb which was a modified 16 inch naval shell.

They flew in 5s in a line abreast formation.

They flew at that altitude because the weapons were armour piercing and so needed speed to breech deck armour.

They got 10 hits which roughly is 20% hit rate which is good. Every ship hit got 2 hits....Arizona, West Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland and repair ship USS Vestal which was moored next to Arizona and somehow survived the events although had to beach herself.
6 shells were duds so could have been worse

There was a magazine explosion inside Arizonia and the battleship was destroyed.

So what should we think here? Was it a golden BB? Lucky hit? Was the Arizonia vulnerable? What is the takeaway? As mentioned the deck was not armoured enough to prevent penetration. The West Virginia was given greater deck armour when repaired.

Or if the Americans were fully operational with all its flak and air power would the attack happened way it did? One for the philosopher.

Again, what does this have to do with the SMS Ostfriesland and Billy Mitchell?? If you take the time to read all the information about the tests you'll find that Mitchell wanted to simulate wartime conditions but also wanted to throw everything he had at the targets. There were protests when it was discovered that he was to use 2,000 pound bombs but that was one of the few breaks he got during the test.

At the end of the day the 1921 tests showed the future of airpower. It did not show the battleship was entirely obsolete, but it did prove the battleship was not invincible to airpower (as many US Admirals thought) and was not going to be the first line of power projection in the future - that being the aircraft carrier, and it's funny because despite the clash between Mitchell and Navy brass, the first 3 US aircraft carriers were built within 5 years after these tests.

The Basket · Apr 16, 2020

Er...Washington Naval Treaty stopped Battleship construction due to cost and to stop a naval arms race between USA and UK and Japan.

Let's look at a fine example of naval carrier aviation in the 1920s. The Blackburn Dart with its 2x500lb bombs and top speed of lower than my car and my car isn't fast!

The reason the Arizona is quoted by me is that it is real. A real world test.

Therefore it is a valid test of the true vulnerability of the battleship.

FLYBOYJ · Apr 16, 2020

The Basket said:
Er...Washington Naval Treaty stopped Battleship construction due to cost and to stop a naval arms race between USA and UK and Japan.

It did, but they were still operated and US Navy admirals still wanted defense funding to go to a large surface fleet - again irrelevant to the 1921 test

The Basket said:
Let's look at a fine example of naval carrier aviation in the 1920s. The Blackburn Dart with its 2x500lb bombs and top speed of lower than my car and my car isn't fast!

The Martin MB-1s and the HP O-400s carried 1000 and 2000 pound bomb loads, and sure they weren't fast, they were designed during WW!!!

Then again look what the Swordfish did to the Bismark! Although using torpedoes I bet their runs weren't much faster than 100 mph!

The Basket said:
The reason the Arizona is quoted by me is that it is real. A real world test.

Therefore it is a valid test of the true vulnerability of the battleship.

And in 1921 tests PROVED it was possible to be done in "real world conditions."

Shortround6 · Apr 16, 2020

The Basket said:
49 Nakajima B5N Kate. They flew along the battleship row at 10,000 feet

The Basket said:
They flew in 5s in a line abreast formation.

The Basket said:
Or if the Americans were fully operational with all its flak and air power would the attack happened way it did? One for the philosopher.

You have answered your own question.
Many of the American ships had quite a number of water tight doors open, It was sunday morning and the crews, while aboard (mostly) were not at battle stations. Not much different than the SMS Ostfriesland at least in the first few minutes.

Now move the ships out to sea, Ships fully manned, but on a sunday morning not at battlestations, however even doing 12knts in line astern formation they become a much more difficult target than tied up 4 x 2 in the Harbor. Any hits will do about the same damage but the number of hits will go way down, a miss to one side does not hit the ship next to it. A miss fore or aft does not hit the next ship in line.
Now increase the speed of the ships to 18kts and allow them to weave or turn.

Next throw in the fact that the old, obsolete American Battleships had an AA suite an order of magnitude better than the SMS Ostfriesland had even if it had been manned, and it was a much better AA suite than they had been built with, in part due to the results of Mitchell's work and the realization that airpower was real. Most of the older American Battleships being refitted under fiscal year 1928-31 budgets. Battleship admirals (at least some of them) may not have believed the Battleship to be invulnerable (at least existing ones) but that they could be made nearly so. They changed from four 3 in AA guns in local control to eight 5 in AA guns with gun directors and automatic fuse setters. By the end of the 1930s they had Battleships with 16-20 5in AA guns with even better fire control and had spent a crapload of money on the quad 1.1in AA gun( not a good gun but shows they were not ignoring the problem).
.

Shortround6 · Apr 16, 2020

The Basket said:
Therefore it is a valid test of the true vulnerability of the battleship.

It wasn't that much more of a test than the SMS Ostfriesland.

And the aircraft gang had had 20 years to figure out how to defeat the battleship and they managed to defeat some moderately rebuilt, 20-25 year old ships tied up in harbor in a surprise attack.

Yes, I can see that was a "valid test of the true vulnerability of the battleship".

SMS Ostfriesland and Billy Mitchell

Lieutenant General

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant General

Captain

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Captain

Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Senior Master Sergeant

"THE GREAT GAZOO"

Lieutenant General

Lieutenant General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads