Which were best for antishipping?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The HS 293 was used in combat as early as 1942. The HS 293 was for ships with less armour however.

On August 27, 1943, an Hs 293 was used in the first successful attack by a guided missile, sinking the British sloop HMS Egret. On November 26, 1943 an Hs 293 caused the sinking of the HMT Rohna.

The Fritz X was used in combat for the first time in 1943.

The Fritz X was deployed on 29 August 1943. On 9 September 1943 the Luftwaffe achieved their greatest success with the weapon. After the Italian armistice with the Allies, the Italian fleet had steamed out from La Spezia and headed to Malta. To prevent the ships from falling into Allied hands, 12 Dornier Do 217s from the III. Gruppe of KG100 took off; each carrying a single Fritz X. The Italian battleship Roma, the flagship of the Italian fleet, received several hits and sank after her ammunition magazines exploded. 1,455 men, among them Admiral Carlo Bergamini died. Her sister ship Italia was damaged.

One week later, the Germans scored another three hits with Fritz X on the British battleship Warspite at Salerno. One bomb penetrated six decks before exploding against the bottom of the ship, blowing a large hole in her. The ship took on a total of 5,000 tonnes of water, lost steam (and thus all power, both to the ship herself and to all her systems) but casualties were few. She had to be taken in tow to Malta and then returned to Britain via Gibraltar and was out of action for near 9 months; she was never completely repaired, but returned to action to bombard Normandy for the invasion of Europe.

The control system used for the Fritz-X, known as the Kehl (and also used by the Hs 293 missle), was susceptible to electronic countermeasures - either straightforward jamming, which blocked the control signals from the bomber, or spoofing, in which the missile was given a signal that sent the control surfaces to an extreme position, eg hard left or full down, sending it out of control into a stall or spiralling dive. By the time of the Normandy landings the combination of allied fighters that kept bombers at bay and ship-mounted jammers meant the missiles had no significant effect on the invasion fleet. Some accounts say that the Norwegian destroyer HNoMS Svenner was hit by a Fritz X at dawn, D-Day.

If it worked properly, the missile was able to pierce more than 20 inches of steel armor plate.

Other ships, which were damaged by the Fritz X included:

the American cruiser USS Philadelphia
the American cruiser USS Savannah
the British cruiser HMS Uganda
the British anti-aircraft cruiser HMS Spartan (sunk)
the British destroyer HMS Janus (sunk)
the military hospital ship HMHS Newfoundland (sunk)

Fritz X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Glider]

I am pretty sure that the SM79 in the level bombing role may have damaged the Naval ships listed as none of the ships mentioned were hit by Aircraft Torpedo's and only the Malaya was hit by any torpedo. The Argus would have sunk like a stone, had it been hit by anything.

Will check this out, but am happy to be proved wrong.

I must correct myself. The Indomitable was hit by a torpedo launched from an SM79 when covering the Sicily Landings, apologies all round.

The Malaya and the Argus were not as far as I can tell hit or damaged by SM79's of any type.

 

[GregP]

The B-25s that were armed with the 75 mm cannon in the field were old, tired birds, and they could not shoot the big gun very much.

After about 12 - 15 shots, the rivets were in egg-shapped holes and the airframe was scrap. So Yes, the B-25 DID get fitted with the 75 mm gun, but no, it wasn't very many and they did not have a big impact except for a very few shots.

The information above is from an old guy named Paul Cherry whom I used to work with at Motorola in Scottsdale, Arizona in the early 1980s. He was a crew chief on B-25s, knew the people, and worked on several of the B-25s fitted with the 75 mm gun in the field. He said that after only these few shots, the airframe was lierally flexible enough to flap the wings when the rivet holes gave up and enlarged.

The thing is, these planes fitted with the 75s in the field had no recoil absorption gear. Perhaps some were sitted by the North American gfactory and DID have recoil absorption gear and so maybe a greater service life. Does anyone out there know?

 

[delcyros]

Do-217M for me. Fritz- X and Hs-294 sucks.

It sunk the BB Roma and anti aircraft cruiser (!) HMS Spartan and 7 DD´s and crippled the BB Warspite (The BB´s Malaya Italia beeing damaged), the CA Philadelphia, Savanna and Uganda.
The exact number of merchant vessels sunk by them is a matter of dispute but the number of sinkings did not exceed 300 merchants, sloops and small crafts and arguably could be as low as 230...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The B-25s that were armed with the 75 mm cannon in the field were old, tired birds, and they could not shoot the big gun very much.

After about 12 - 15 shots, the rivets were in egg-shapped holes and the airframe was scrap. So Yes, the B-25 DID get fitted with the 75 mm gun, but no, it wasn't very many and they did not have a big impact except for a very few shots.

The information above is from an old guy named Paul Cherry whom I used to work with at Motorola in Scottsdale, Arizona in the early 1980s. He was a crew chief on B-25s, knew the people, and worked on several of the B-25s fitted with the 75 mm gun in the field. He said that after only these few shots, the airframe was lierally flexible enough to flap the wings when the rivet holes gave up and enlarged.


The thing is, these planes fitted with the 75s in the field had no recoil absorption gear. Perhaps some were sitted by the North American gfactory and DID have recoil absorption gear and so maybe a greater service life. Does anyone out there know?

Don't know but I do know the Marines made use out of them as well, but not with the big gun...

PBJ-1H - Page 1

 

[red admiral]

In the Mediterranean attacks by SM.79 torpedo-bombers damaged the battleship HMS Malaya, the aircraft carriers HMS Indomitable, HMS Victorious and HMS Argus, in addition to sinking 86 Allied ships, totaling 708,500 tonnes by mid-1943.

There was also considerable damage to HMS Nelson from a torpedo hit. Bomb damage to Hood, Illustrious and ohters. A multitude of cruisers sank like HMS Glouscester. There were some 100+ warships sank by the RA and 196 merchant ships, the vast majority by the SM.79

 

[Glider]

The Malaya, Argus, Gloucester, Illustrious, were not hit by Italian SM79's. The British who did the vast majority of the fighting in the Med didn't lose 100 warships in the area, neither (as far as I can tell) did they lose 196 merchant ships.

Can I ask where you get your details so I can check mine in case they are incorrect?

Many Thanks

 

[wingnutz]

how about the FW 200 condor???

 

[Maharg]

Does anyone have any stats for tonnage sunk per type? I suppose the concept of best should be considered in light of their actual combat record.

Good idea M8.

 

[Negative Creep]

for a loss of 120 Beaufighters and 241 aircrew killed or missing.

Seeing as the Beau's were all 2 man, surely that second figure is incorrect?

 

[amrit]

Seeing as the Beau's were all 2 man, surely that second figure is incorrect?

Some aircraft may not have been lost (i.e. returned to base), but a crew member killed; other may have been lost but the crew survived (POW, injured, returned to unit etc).

 

[pbfoot]

Not necessarily it wasn't unusual to take a new pilot up in a 3rd position standing behind the pilot
quote from Murray Hyslop RCAF DFC
"my first Beaufighter flight, was on 23 june 1943 a familiarization flight with P/O Garland from 144 sqn, The chaps in 144 sqn had brought their Beaufighters from England a week earlier and thus they had expieriance flying them. The Beaufighter had only one seat in the cockpit , obliging Garland to stand up behind me on the checkout flight"

 

[Erich]

I wonder if this should be a thread for country delegation instead of trying to break our necks and research findings for the overall best as it might be impossible. anti-shipping stats in total are quite rare and unless one has complete unit records it would be quite difficult. many of you have seen the tails of Kondor,s Ju 88's and he 111's adorned with ship kills but a person could probably discount at least half of those kills listed on the a/c.

there a few and I mean a few books in German dealing with the Atlantic shipping war but a real nice softbound 2 volume set has been produced by English author Chris Goss " Sea Eagles " through Classic publications - Luftwaffe colors. 2nd volume covers the useage of the HS 293 and 294, and also if you are "into" a/c profiles then these are a must have besides the pretty in-depth coverage of ops and personell in these slender volumes

ok plug over, I am waiting for volume 2 via the mail

 

[amrit]

Not necessarily it wasn't unusual to take a new pilot up in a 3rd position standing behind the pilot
quote from Murray Hyslop RCAF DFC
"my first Beaufighter flight, was on 23 june 1943 a familiarization flight with P/O Garland from 144 sqn, The chaps in 144 sqn had brought their Beaufighters from England a week earlier and thus they had expieriance flying them. The Beaufighter had only one seat in the cockpit , obliging Garland to stand up behind me on the checkout flight"

Even operationally?

 

[pbfoot]

Even operationally?

apparently it only took one but the same article talks of taking a USAAF guy who wanted to see a strike mission first hand

 

[Wildcat]

apparently it only took one but the same article talks of taking a USAAF guy who wanted to see a strike mission first hand

yeah, I've read accounts of the RAAF doing this. Damien Parer even filmed the Battle of the Bismarck sea standing behind a beaufighter pilot as he straffed enemy ships. Way cool footage.

*edit* see Chapter 12 Spitfires in Burma; Wide Horizons; Beaufighter Bash; On Borrowed Time scroll down half way and read "Beaufighter Bash"

 

[pbfoot]

yeah, I've read accounts of the RAAF doing this. Damien Parer even filmed the Battle of the Bismarck sea standing behind a beaufighter pilot as he straffed enemy ships. Way cool footage.

*edit* see Chapter 12 Spitfires in Burma; Wide Horizons; Beaufighter Bash; On Borrowed Time scroll down half way and read "Beaufighter Bash"

Yeah I don't think it was all that uncommon , somebody wants to go for little ride and trade them for a ride in whatever they are driving but from I've heard you can get pretty bruised up in combat manouvering

 

[mhuxt]

Bob Braham once had a USAAF officer aboard, standing behind the Beaufighter pilot's seat, on a sortie during which Braham claimed, IIRC, one destroyed, one probable and one damaged.

 

[Erich]

as mentioned earlier ........ for consideration

also note the tail of a Kondor (?)

again the question, kill or no kill

 

[amrit]

A couple of aircraft that have just caught my attention, but which sadly didn't play any major part (one was never used in combat and the other only in limited numbers) are the P-38 torpedo bomber and the Mosquito Tsetse:

P-38 Lightning: F-4/5 Recon Lightnings

Had the P-38 been carrier based, it would have been the finest torpedo bomber of the war. One P-38 F was configured to carry torpedoes and was successfully tested. Both external fuel tank pylons were configured to each carry a torpedo. Most bombers were only able to carry one torpedo, and were slow and extremely vulnerable. The P-38 that was tested had no problems delivering the dummy torpedoes, and showed only a 16.7% speed loss (300 mph top speed). Equipped with two torpedoes, the maximum range was 1,000 miles. If the P-38 was equipped with one torpedo and one 310-gallon fuel tank, the range was increased to 2,160 miles. With a single drop tank, the speed loss was reduced to 12.6%. The test flight was described as very stable, and jumped slightly when the torpedoes were released. The tests were extremely successful, and the P-38 would be a first class torpedo bomber. However, all these tests were after the Battle of Midway, and the emphasis was beginning to shift away from torpedo bombers in favor of dive-bombers. Also, the P-38 was land based, and the range options were limited when compared to a torpedo bomber on an aircraft carrier which could attack targets not available to land based aircraft. The P-38 never made a combat torpedo attack.

and

Untitled Document

The RAF then became interested in fitting the Molins Gun in the de Havilland Mosquito, to form an airborne anti-tank weapon to replace the Hurricane IID which had been equipped with a pair of Vickers 40mm Class S guns. The aircraft was duly developed as the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII, popularly known as the "Tsetse", but by this time the RAF had lost interest in the anti-tank gun role so the aircraft were brought into service by Coastal Command for anti-ship (and specifically anti-U-boat) purposes. The Tsetse, of which about thirty were built, served with No.248 Squadron during 1944 and is credited with sinking a U-boat. Perhaps its most remarkable achievement occurred during an anti-shipping strike, when one Tsetse became involved in a melee with defending Luftwaffe aircraft. A Junkers 88 was careless enough to fly in front of a Tsetse, which promptly fired its big gun and demolished the Ju 88 with one shot!

The Molins Gun, which was technically known to the RAF as the "QF 6pdr Class M Mark I with Auto Loader Mk III" was based on the long-barrelled (50 calibre) gun. The gun weighed 487 kg (635 kg with autoloader) and was fully automatic, with a rate of fire of about 55 rounds per minute. The ammunition supply in the autoloader consisted of 21 rounds, held in five racks of unequal length, plus two additional rounds in the feedway. The rounds in each rack were fed by a combination of gravity and a spring-loaded arm and each rack was moved into place in turn by an electric motor. The gun normally used the plain AP shot (that is the only one shown in photographs), so had a high muzzle velocity of 890 m/sec (2,920 fps). Against U-boat hulls, it was calculated that it would be able to penetrate the hull when striking at an angle of 45 degrees or more, at a range of about 1400m, even through 60cm of water. The gun/aircraft combination was extremely accurate, achieving a hit rate in training of 33% against tank-sized targets - compared with 5% for rocket projectiles. The Tsetse was eventually withdrawn from service when the RAF decided to use rocket projectiles for such roles because, despite their relative lack of accuracy, these were more suited to a variety of purposes and could easily be fitted, or removed, as required.

The Molins Gun in the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII was tested in the USA in 1945, in comparison with the nearest US equivalent, the manually loaded 75mm AN-Mk 5 in the PBJ-1H. This comparison was more valid than the difference in calibre might suggest, for the 75x350R ammunition used in the American gun (the same as was used by the M4 tank gun in the Sherman) was about the same overall size as the 57x441R, and the 6pdr and 75mm tank guns were effectively interchangeable in the later British tanks. The Molins Gun impressed the Americans with its performance and reliability and was considered superior to the 75mm as it could achieve a much higher rate of fire. It was noted that fairly violent evasive action and 2.5 positive Gs did not cause stoppages - which could not be said for manual loading! The Americans recommended that the Molins autoloader could be considered as suitable not just for conventional guns but also for recoilless weapons and spin-stabilised rockets.

Ahh, there's always "what ifs"