Which side would you fly for?.......
- Thread starter cheddar cheese
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
winning the war in their respective TOs actually.
Stringbag: Sunk or disabled 5 Battleships, just off the top of my head
Defiant: First truly successful NF of either side deployed effectively. Responsible for night air defence until replaced in 1941 by Beaufighters
By comparison, Me 109 was just another daytime fighter , with some capabilities but also some pretty severe limits as well. How many Battleshipps did the me109 sink or disable (actually they did cause the loss of one cruiser)
pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
Geez I'd dispute that I was under the impression it was responsible for under 10 IIRC, maybe its use was of training night fighter crews for the future when other types became available. I could be incorrect but I know I was shocked by how few it claimed
davebender
1st Lieutenant
What does that have to do with winning the war? Battleships were endlessly hyped by most navies but actually contributed practically nothing to fighting either world war.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
It has just as much to do with the discussion as saying the British flew stringbags against 109s. NOBODIES 1939-43 single engine torpedo bombers stood a chance against 109s without a fighter escort. The British may have flown Swordfish in areas where 109s also flew but Swordfish were never expected to do battle against 109s on their own. Battleships were also the the ships that controlled the oceans (or seas) for the first 1/3 of the war. They may not have shot at each other much but the presence or absence of battleships determined if convoys pressed on or turned back in many cases. When did the was the first battleship sunk (not damaged) by carrier planes at sea and not in harbor? Until carriers could operate large air groups at night or in bad weather they could not quite claim total dominance. Why didn't the RN just use a carrier or two to sink the Scharnhorst if aviation was so all powerful?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The battle off North Cape is an exception as the weather was so bad that aircraft couldn't operate. Heck, the weather was so bad that destroyers could barely operate. The German Navy was foolish to challenge the RN under such circumstances and paid the price by losing a battleship.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Ummm...that is a slight issue. But, look at the positive we taught the commonwealth to fly properly.
And before you explode Neil... I'm only joshing.
Cheers
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
We have charted our own course since 1776. But we owe Britain a huge debt for getting the USA started on the right foot with respect for capitalism, personal liberty, and representative government.
Perhaps it's just as well we went our own way. What were you Brits thinking, flying aircraft like the Stringbag and Boulton Paul Defiant vs German Me-109s?
Yes, the USA was very advanced with the Peashooter while we had the Hart.
The Swordfish did its job, look at the axis iron in davey jones locker I'm not sure why you think it was supposed to fight the 109 though....
Cheers
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
America wrote an even bigger cheque to get Germany back on its feet after WW2 and continued to write cheques to the British exchequer throughout the 50's and 60's.
I'm not sure that all of the receipents of America's generosity have repaid the debt.
Cheers
John
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
There was also another factor Dave. Revenge after they sunk our HMS Hood. The RN ruled the waves and mighty though the German battleshipes were they were never properly used and remained only a threat to be hunted down.
Cheers
John
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Revenge makes a poor military strategy.
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Its more complicated than that ;
H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood: H.M.S. Hood Today - The Wreck of H.M.S. Hood
H.M.S. Hood Association-Battle Cruiser Hood - The History of H.M.S. Hood: Part 3 of The Pursuit of Bismarck and Sinking of Hood (Battle of the Denmark Strait)
Please read these links and you'll understand better why the Hood had to be avenged.
Cheers
John
parsifal
Colonel
Its a comon and oft repeated error that Battleships had no useful role to play, and were not engaged in surface actions all that much. On both counts facts dont line up with asserions.
Just to look at the Battlehips versus Battleships actions, one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often. Here is a short list of them. and remember, ther were plenty of other actions where battleships were involved on one side, and not another, such as at 2nd Narvik, where ten German Destroyers were sunk bgy a Brit TF built around a single BB
Of the actions listed only a few could be said to have constituted a test of the ability of these vessels to fight their contemporaries. In most actions, either one side broke off combat before a real contest took place or, the odds were such that the contest was one sided. However, even in these inconclusive actions the Heavy ships were projecting naval power, gaining control of an area of ocean, or denying freedom of movement to an opponent. The list below enumerates the various surface actions in which modern battleships took part on both sides:
* 9 Apr 1940 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau versus Renown off the Lofoten Islands, Norway.
* 3 July 1940 Strasbourg and Dunkerque versus Hood, Valiant, and Resolution at Mers el Kebir following the surrender of France.
* 9 July 1940 Giulio Cesare versus Warspite at Calabria / Punta Stilo
* 24 Sept 1940 Richelieu versus Barham and Resolution at Dakar
* 28 Mar 1941 Vittorio Veneto versus Warspite, Barham, and Valiant at Matapan
* 21 May 1941 Bismarck versus Hood and Prince of Wales, Denmark Straight.
* 27 May 1941 Bismarck versus Rodney and King George V, North Atlantic.
* 8 Nov 1942 Massachusetts versus Jean Bart, Casablanca
* 13 Nov 1942 South Dakota and Washington versus Kirishima, Savo Island, Solomon Islands.
* 25 Dec 1943 Scharnhorst versus Duke of York, North Cape
* 24 - 25 Oct 1944 Yamashiro versus California, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and W. Virginia at Surigao Straight.
Looking briefly at those battles listed above, several need to be qualified by the material condition of the ships involved at the outset and the conduct during the action. Matapan can safely be discounted as neither side scored any hits using gunfire on the other although firing did occur, however the british battleships finished up dominating the battlefield, and resulted in the loss of three Italiaqwn cruisers. At Dakar and, Casablanca the French ships were not in full readiness or capability, however the British remo9ved these ships as any sort of threat to their already stretched control of the western med. The Richelieu had only just left her constructors and had not had any real time or ability to undergo proper trials or training. Likewise, the Jean Bart was in only partially completed condition and was unable to raise steam and maneuver during her fight. The Scharnhorst at North Cape had suffered previous light damage from engaging British cruisers present that had as a result knocked out her primary radar systems, nevertheless her loss put paid to any further major surface activity by the KM. The Bismarck during her second engagement on 27 May had a crew that was suffering from fatigue as well as the ship itself having the handicap of previous damage that limited her ability to maneuver. Crippling damage had been done to her by Ark Royal, neverthyeless without the intervention of the British Battlewagons she would have made it back to port, since there was no way or means for the Swordfishes 18" torps to actually sink here.
Battleships were actually still critical to sea control and sea denial until the development of the US fast carrier forces in the latter part of the war. However, there were many challenges and alternative presented to the formal battle line, principally airpower, submarines and light forces. None of these alternatives could completely dislodge Battleships as the final arbiters of power at sea. But they were cheaper, more flexible, took less time to build , so their owners could take greater risk with them
Just to look at the Battlehips versus Battleships actions, one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often. Here is a short list of them. and remember, ther were plenty of other actions where battleships were involved on one side, and not another, such as at 2nd Narvik, where ten German Destroyers were sunk bgy a Brit TF built around a single BB
Of the actions listed only a few could be said to have constituted a test of the ability of these vessels to fight their contemporaries. In most actions, either one side broke off combat before a real contest took place or, the odds were such that the contest was one sided. However, even in these inconclusive actions the Heavy ships were projecting naval power, gaining control of an area of ocean, or denying freedom of movement to an opponent. The list below enumerates the various surface actions in which modern battleships took part on both sides:
* 9 Apr 1940 Scharnhorst and Gneisenau versus Renown off the Lofoten Islands, Norway.
* 3 July 1940 Strasbourg and Dunkerque versus Hood, Valiant, and Resolution at Mers el Kebir following the surrender of France.
* 9 July 1940 Giulio Cesare versus Warspite at Calabria / Punta Stilo
* 24 Sept 1940 Richelieu versus Barham and Resolution at Dakar
* 28 Mar 1941 Vittorio Veneto versus Warspite, Barham, and Valiant at Matapan
* 21 May 1941 Bismarck versus Hood and Prince of Wales, Denmark Straight.
* 27 May 1941 Bismarck versus Rodney and King George V, North Atlantic.
* 8 Nov 1942 Massachusetts versus Jean Bart, Casablanca
* 13 Nov 1942 South Dakota and Washington versus Kirishima, Savo Island, Solomon Islands.
* 25 Dec 1943 Scharnhorst versus Duke of York, North Cape
* 24 - 25 Oct 1944 Yamashiro versus California, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and W. Virginia at Surigao Straight.
Looking briefly at those battles listed above, several need to be qualified by the material condition of the ships involved at the outset and the conduct during the action. Matapan can safely be discounted as neither side scored any hits using gunfire on the other although firing did occur, however the british battleships finished up dominating the battlefield, and resulted in the loss of three Italiaqwn cruisers. At Dakar and, Casablanca the French ships were not in full readiness or capability, however the British remo9ved these ships as any sort of threat to their already stretched control of the western med. The Richelieu had only just left her constructors and had not had any real time or ability to undergo proper trials or training. Likewise, the Jean Bart was in only partially completed condition and was unable to raise steam and maneuver during her fight. The Scharnhorst at North Cape had suffered previous light damage from engaging British cruisers present that had as a result knocked out her primary radar systems, nevertheless her loss put paid to any further major surface activity by the KM. The Bismarck during her second engagement on 27 May had a crew that was suffering from fatigue as well as the ship itself having the handicap of previous damage that limited her ability to maneuver. Crippling damage had been done to her by Ark Royal, neverthyeless without the intervention of the British Battlewagons she would have made it back to port, since there was no way or means for the Swordfishes 18" torps to actually sink here.
Battleships were actually still critical to sea control and sea denial until the development of the US fast carrier forces in the latter part of the war. However, there were many challenges and alternative presented to the formal battle line, principally airpower, submarines and light forces. None of these alternatives could completely dislodge Battleships as the final arbiters of power at sea. But they were cheaper, more flexible, took less time to build , so their owners could take greater risk with them
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
Good answer Michael.
The battleship in WW2 was still the pinnacle of any nations naval prestige.
Another reason why the German fleet was always going to make a one way trip to the bottom.
Cheers
John
parsifal
Colonel
Where I said "one gets a bit of a surprise that they were not used all that often" is an error: it should read "one gets a bit of a surprise that they were used that often".
Readie
Chief Master Sergeant
I understood what you meant.
The very presence of those majestic battle ships was often enough.
Cheers
John
parsifal
Colonel
who was basing their strategy on revenge???? Id say the whole nazi war plans were based on revenge to be honest, along with crackpot racial dogma
Yep. It was based on the humiliation placed on the Germans by the french in the Treaty of Versailles. Even the Americans knew it was too much, and forseen another World War.
Last edited:
parsifal
Colonel
I dont know th exact numbers that can be claimed for the Definat NFs, but quite a few sources claim that it was the most successful nightfighter in the allied inventory until April 1941. Given that the Axis lost something like well over 600 aircraft between September 1940 and March 1941 in air combat at night, the Defiant is going to be considerably more than 10 kills. probably more like 100........
"first night kill being claimed on 15 September 1940. From November 1940, an increasing number of new night fighter squadrons were formed on the Defiant. Units operating the Defiant shot down more enemy aircraft than any other night-fighter during the German 'Blitz' on London in the winter of 1940-41. Initial operations were conducted without the benefit of radar. From the Autumn of 1941, AI Mk 4 radar units began to be fitted to the Defiant. An arrow type aerial was fitted on each wing, and a small H-shaped aerial added on the starboard fuselage side, just in front of the cockpit. The transmitter unit was located behind the turret, with the receiver and display screen in the pilot's cockpit. The addition of radar brought a change in designation for the Mk I to N.F. Mk IA, but the designation of the Mk II version did not change. By February 1942, the Defiant was obviously too slow to catch the latest German night intruders and the night fighter units completely re-equipped in the period April-September 1942".
parsifal
Colonel
We are getting way off topic, but on the issue of versaile, I dont think it went near far enough. It was because it was a weak and inneffective treaty that it failed, not because it was too hard. In this regard Genral George Pershing thought so too. he strongly advocated unconditional surrender. if this had been made the terms of surrender, ther could have been no doubt as to the outcome, and the termoil that followed the negotiated peace would never have happened. This was unnattainable because mostly of the intransigence of the US government. Wilson and his feel good supporters .....
We should have kicked the german backsides all the way back to berlin and beyond in 1918, whilst we had the chance. one more year of fighting would have saved six years of further fighting 20 years later.
