WW2 Aviation Mythbusters

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

The last carrier strikes

In mid July the home fleet again went to sea to attack the tirptiz. The carriers Formidable, Furious and Indefatigible launched a strike consisting of 44 Barras, escorted by 38 Corsairs and hellcats, and a further 10 Fireflies.

Tirpitz was now protectred by well over 150 guns located onshore, in addition to her own armament. There were also additional smoke generators.

In this raid the germans had had good advance warning and shrouded the entire fjord in smoke obscuring the target completely. There weree no bomb hits, and two Corsairs were hit by flak. I do not where these hits occurred, and who was most likley to have bagged these kills, but given the proportion of land based guns to those onboard the battleship, one should assume at least one of the lost a/c were shot down by the land based flak.

Between 31 July - 1 August 1944 Tirpitz carried out exercises at sea for the last time, with the 4th Destroyer Flotilla, the destroyers Z29, Z31, Z33, Z34 and Z39.

Three weeks later the Fleet Air Arm returned to the fray with a series of attacks under the operational codename "Goodwood I, II, III, IV", using 5 aircraft carriers, Indefatigable, Formidable, Furious, Nabob and Trumpeter.

The first 2 attacks were carried out on 22 August 1944 (Operation "Goodwood I" and "II") 1944. Just after noon, Barracudas and escorting Corsairs ( a total of 84 aircraft) failed to repeat the success of Operation "Tungsten" as low cloud prevented them from reaching the target but Hellcats bombed through the cloud and claimed 2 hits. In the early evening a further 6 Hellcats from Indefatigable attacked Tirpitz and again claimed 2 hits with 227 kg (500 lb) bombs. The morning sortie had also attacked other shipping and had damaged 2 small supply ships as well as Tirpitz's sea-planes which were moored nearby.

Both sides were optimistic in their claims. In fact no hits were obtained by the Hellcats but the British losses were only 1 Barracuda and 1 Hellcat whereas the Germans had claimed no less than 12 aircraft to have been observed shot down. However the escort carrier Nabob was torpedoed by a U-boat but managed to return to harbour, while the CAP shot down 2 Blohm und Voss 138 flying boats that ventured too close to the carrier task force.

I think it reasonable to assume a 50/50 split in the kills between the land based and ship based flak. Thats one additional loss to the tirpitz's guns

In the afternoon of 24 August 1944, Barracudas, Hellcats, Corsairs and Fireflies from Indefatigable, Formidable and Furious took off in the heaviest attack (Operation "Goodwood III") made by the Fleet Air Arm. The 33 Barracudas all carried 726 kg (1,600 lb) AP bombs, the 10 Hellcats each a 227 kg (500 lb) bomb, and 5 of the 24 Corsairs carried 454 kg (1,000 lb) AP bombs, the remainder with the 10 Fireflies being detailed for antiflak duties. At 1547 the German defences gave an aircraft alarm and the smoke screen was started. The aircraft approached from all directions at heights from 1,981 meter (6500 feet) to 3,048 meter (10,000 feet), diving low into the attack. This was a technique devised out of the lessons of Operation "Tungsten" which made the directing of AA fire very much more difficult for the gunnery control on board Tirpitz. Despite the smoke screen 2 hits were scored for the loss of 2 Hellcats and 4 Corsairs. A 227 kg (500 lb) bomb landed straight on the top of "B" turret dishing its top and temporarily damaging the elevating gear of the starboard gun and destroying the quadruple 2cm AA mounting on it. The other hit was to prove to be the Fleet Air Arm's greatest disappointment. A 726 kg (1,600 lb) AP bomb hit just forward of the bridge on the port side and penetrated not only the upper deck but the armoured deck below, finally coming to rest in No. 4 Switch Room on the lower platform deck, having gone through 14,6 cm (5¾ inches) of decking, mostly armoured steel. It failed to explode and when the Germans finally removed the explosive there was only 45 kg (100 lb) instead of 98 kg (215 lb). Had this bomb exploded it would have wrecked the main fire control room and the switchboard room as well as causing serious flooding. Of this attack the German records state:


"The attack on 24 August 1944 was undoubtedly the heaviest and most determined so far. The English showed great skill and dexterity in flying. For the first time they dived with heavy bombs. During the dive bombing, fighter planes attacked the land batteries which, in comparison with earlier attacks, suffered heavy losses. The fact that an armour-piercing bomb of more than 699 kg (1,540 lb) did not explode must be considered an exceptional stroke of luck, as the effects of that explosion would have been immeasurable. Even incomplete smoke screening upsets the correctness of the enemy's aim and it has been decided from now on to use it in wind strengths up to 9 meters/second (8.2 yards/second) irrespective of possible gaps".

The Germans also ordered a reduction in the required time of notice for smoke from 10 to 7 minutes.

Gales and fog alternated for the next 5 days until 29 August 1944 when another heavy attack (Operation "Goodwood IV") of 60 aircraft was launched from Formidable and Indefatigable. 4 of the 7 Hellcats flew in with target indicators but the Germans had sufficient warning and the battleship was completely obscured by smoke. The aircraft bombed blindly and although they thought they had 2 hits in fact they had none. 1 Firefly and 1 Corsair were lost. Again, hard to know who to give the credit for the kills, plus the smoke undoubtedly hampered the flak gunners without radar direction. But it hampered the those guns on land less than it did the gunners on the tirpitz, and it was smoke, not AA that was proving the greatest hindrance to the FAAs efforts.

So ended the Fleet Air Arm's attacks against Tirpitz. The effect had been very considerable and since the X-craft attack in September of the previous year the battleship had been rendered virtually useless on a more or continuous basis. At a cost of 17 a/c, about half of them not shot down by Tirpitz, the great ship had been unable to go to sea for more than 7 months.

But had German strategy and tactics not been bedevilled by the internecine feuding between the Navy and Luftwaffe, so that no fighter cover was ever provided to protect Tirpitz, the outcome might have been very different. When eventually fighters were allocated for this duty it was to be too late.


so, in total, Tirpitz was responsible over a 2 year period for shooting down an estimated 10 aircraft, possibly as high as 19, if her guns were 100% responsible for all losses. A total of 292 aircraft had come within her flak zone, so she was overall able to inflict a loss rate of about 0.3%. Again, that is not a good outcome for her, and does not justify the huge expense lavished on her (except it tied down huge RN resources as well) and certainly does not lend any credence to the claim that her flak arrangements were equal or superior to anything the allies possess. Quite the opposite in fact. In terms of disrupting attacks she had suffered a total of 18 hits out of approximately 150 deliveries. Thats quite low, but still potent, but cannot be compared to conventional combat because of the peculiar situation the Tirpitz was in....she had massive shore based flak support, smoke detectors, favourable (defensive) weather, and formidbale terrain to help her defences.
 
This above AAA discussion is more then childish and hasn't anything to do with an sophisticated analysis about different AAA philosophy's of different Navies with flaws and technologie advantages!

USA and German AAA armament off capital chips WWII!

USA AAA armament

5/38
From ballistics an average (more to poore) gun with very good turrents (high training rates) and a very good rate of fire for this caliber!
The amazing highlight was the VT-fuzes and this was the technology advantage of this gun compare to all other nations and all other AAA guns. To compare the the 5/38 against other nations AAA guns without the mention of the VT-fuzes, is to compare apples with pebbles. With MT-fuzes it is average, with VT-fuzes it is excellent. One major flaw was the efficiency at high altitude, the efficiency limit against high altitude bomber was at 6000m (ballistic efficiency).
Against the Japanese it was totaly ok, but against a Do-217 with a Fritz-X, this weapon would be over it's limit and without effect,even with VT-fuzes.

40 mm/56
Best overall midrange AAA of WWII. Good ballistics, good rate of fire, good trainings rates.
One single flaw was the allied ammo with only 0.068 kg TNT, that's not enough bursting charge for a secure kill on an a/c.
German mineshell (average munition on german capital ships since 1944)for the Bofors was 0,370 kg Nitropenta, much more fatal for an a/c.

20 mm/70
Good ballistics, good rate of fire, good trainings rates, average bursting charge (

German AAA arment:

10.5 cm/65 SK C/33 L. C/37
From ballistics one of the best AAA guns in naval service WWII, with good turrents (triaxial mounting, average to good training rates) and an average rate of fire for this caliber! Effective to 7500m high altitude. No VT-fuzes were introduce in WWII.
Germany had developed VT-fuzes at March 1945 and VT-fuzes were in production but never inroduced at KM AAA's

3.7 cm/L83 SK C/30
Good ballistic, average training rate, very powerfull shell (0.360kg Nitropenta), the worst rate of fire from all AAA guns in this category!

2 cm/65 C/38
Good ballistic, good training rate, very powerfull shell (0.022kg Nitropenta), good rate of fire.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Later since 1943

4 cm/56 (1.57") Flak 28 (Bofors 40mm)
Best overall midrange AAA of WWII. Good ballistics, good rate of fire, good trainings rates.
One single flaw was the allied ammo with only 0.068 kg TNT, that's not enough bursting charge for a secure kill on an a/c.
German mineshell (average munition on german capital ships since 1944)for the Bofors was 0,370 kg Nitropenta, much more fatal for an a/c.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To the above dicussion:
To my opinion BS (Bismarck) would never be allowed to operation Rheinübung with it's AAA armament.
Many things would be explained from Siegfried. To claim that the AAA armamen of Tirpitz isn't better then Bismarck is simply bogus.
You can't compare a single ship in a harbour, with a task force on open sea with the advantage of VT-fuze!
At sea Tirpitz did a good to average job, that's it!

The introduction of the the 3.7 cm/L83 SK C/30 was a very big mistake, that was reported at 1936 to the KM! Nothing happened, even though the germans were well aware of the 4 cm/56 (1.57") Flak 28 (Bofors 40mm), guaranteed after the occupation of austria, because there were several 4 cm/56 (Bofors 40mm) AAA captured, but the KM showed no interests. To my opinion the KM was well aware of the Bofors 40mm much earlier because Bofors was a piece of Krupp and Krupp was well aware of the Bofors 40mm AAA gun.

Many to all problems of the german AAA armament of capital ships were home made! The technologie (for all weapons above) was developed till 1938, but the KM was to stupid to recognize this, and so it was 1943/44 till all capital ships were equiped with the best possible AAA armament and all major flaws were sorted out.

To compare the AAA performance of german capital ships with USA capital ships, Prinz Eugen would be a much better choice then Tirpitz!
First PG (Prinz Eugen) was not a fleet in being, the ship was permanent at missions from early 1944 till April 1945, with a trained crew at sea and the AAA armament was the same from radar to weapons except that Tirpitz didn't get any Bofors weapons.
The AAA efficiency of PG was legendary at the baltic sea, she scored several IL2 and Pe-2 Bomber in many missions. She claimed at one mission 9 killed shots to enemy bombers. She defend more then one time the whole task force with her AAA efficiency. She defend many times german harbour's with her AAA efficiency. PG was the most efficiencied AAAb german capital ship and showed, what is possible, when all flaws were disabled, and all "advantages" came to work.

To make this clear PG was also benefit, from the low altitude of USSR bombers, just as the USA capital ships from the japanese bombers!

And I make this clear, all other argumetation are simply bogus!
 
"Douglas Bader, after being shot down, and having lost his 2 artificial legs in the fight, had 2 new parachuted by a british bomber allowed by Goering to fly over Germany."

Bader actually got 2 new artificial legs parachuted by a british bomber, but it was during a bombing.

I think this one's pretty much true. The Germans contacted the British and told them they could fly over and drop Bader some legs. This the British did, but in doing so also decided to have the bombers hit the base at the same time.
 
Myth: The Hurricanes during the Battle of France used a spread-out harmonisation pattern.

In fact they used as tight of a group as possible throughout. Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons based in Britain, however ...
 
This above AAA discussion is more then childish and hasn't anything to do with an sophisticated analysis about different AAA philosophy's of different Navies with flaws and technologie advantages!

Dont know about SG, he is trying to sing the technological praises of the German ships the same as you. All very interesting, but the the proof of the pudding is in the results. i have analyses what was achieved by all that investment. For the tirpitz, about 12 aircraft over two years with 10 of them over a 7 month period. Not a lot to show for all that trouble.

The amazing highlight was the VT-fuzes and this was the technology advantage of this gun compare to all other nations and all other AAA guns. To compare the the 5/38 against other nations AAA guns without the mention of the VT-fuzes, is to compare apples with pebbles. With MT-fuzes it is average, with VT-fuzes it is excellent.

Which overlooks a crucial point in the preceding discussion. The Sth Dakotas best day occurred on the 26th October 1942, some 6 months before the introduction of the VT fuse. She achieved that score with her prewar FC arrangements using MT fuses and 1942 style radars. There were no whiz bang ultra high tech weaponary used to achieve that score. The targets were higher performance than those used against the tirpitz at sea in 1942

One major flaw was the efficiency at high altitude, the efficiency limit against high altitude bomber was at 6000m (ballistic efficiency).

Not sure how much difference this actually would make, but we could try and take a look at USN AA efforts in the Med to see how the gun performed against the LW high level bombers. High level bombers operating with conventional ordinance are not much of a threat against a moving target. An FX bomb is a different proposition, but then, the delivery vehicle is outside range of the 5/38 anyway.

I was trained using the 5/54. There were no complaints about it high altitude performance....

Against the Japanese it was totaly ok, but against a Do-217 with a Fritz-X, this weapon would be over it's limit and without effect,even with VT-fuzes.

Quite possibly, but we would need to look at specific combats to determine that. might not be possible with the resources we have.

10.5 cm/65 SK C/33 L. C/37
From ballistics one of the best AAA guns in naval service WWII, with good turrents (triaxial mounting, average to good training rates) and an average rate of fire for this caliber! Effective to 7500m high altitude. No VT-fuzes were introduce in WWII.

I can agree with all of that, but the results of this gun are disappointing even when comparing to non-VT armed Allied AA.

To my opinion BS (Bismarck) would never be allowed to operation Rheinübung with it's AAA armament.
Many things would be explained from Siegfried. To claim that the AAA armamen of Tirpitz isn't better then Bismarck is simply bogus.

I didnt. I agreed in fact that tirpitz's AA was better than Bismarcks. What i said was I couldnt understand why Bismarcks AA effort was so bad, not that tirpitz was bad. Then there was the claim that tirpitz 's AA was equal or superior to Allied AA. No allowance made by the claimant for VT or improved directors or better radars....just a barefaced claim that the AA technology fitted into the tirpitz was superior to anything the allies had. It was me that tried to compare apples to apples by choosing a midwar enegagement by BB57 and comparing that to a late war series of engagements with Tirpitz.

When you compare Tirpitzs performance to Sth Daks, there is no comparison, The US ship is far more efficient. We can do that for other similar ships and will reach the same conclusion. The facts are the facts.

You can't compare a single ship in a harbour, with a task force on open sea with the advantage of VT-fuze!
At sea Tirpitz did a good to average job, that's it!


I agree, but Sth Dakotas effort on the 26th October was more or less a single handed effort. Other ships in the TG contributed, but the lions share of the kills were done by BB57 all on her own. In comparison the Tirpitz whilst in harbour had tremendous land based support as well as the support of other ships as well moored near to her on several occasions (for example at the time of the strikes 3 april 1944, she had 5 destroyers moored within 3 km of her). During the single at-sea strike against her, she had 4 DD involved as her escort.

Claiming that Tirpitzs effort at sea was average to good is simply ignoring the numbers and the situation. She managed to shoot down 2 a/c out of 12, flying too high to get cover from the waves closing more slowly than they should (about 50mph). that is not good, its Bl**dy terrible.

Many to all problems of the german AAA armament of capital ships were home made! The technologie (for all weapons above) was developed till 1938, but the KM was to stupid to recognize this, and so it was 1943/44 till all capital ships were equiped with the best possible AAA armament and all major flaws were sorted out.

No argument that German AA efforts for her heavy ships were improving as the war progressed. I agree. The claim was they were better than the allies. Operational results dont support that. Allied AA was markedly superior to German, the results speak for themselves...with or without VT fuses, individually or as a group.

To compare the AAA performance of german capital ships with USA capital ships, Prinz Eugen would be a much better choice then Tirpitz!
First PG (Prinz Eugen) was not a fleet in being, the ship was permanent at missions from early 1944 till April 1945, with a trained crew at sea and the AAA armament was the same from radar to weapons except that Tirpitz didn't get any Bofors weapons

Why is it more comparable? when Sth Dakota joined the Pacific Fleet she had been operations for a little over a month. Before that she had spent many months being rebuilt. Her crews would have been as raw as donkey do-do in many respects.

By comparison, when the tirpitz engaged the Fleet Airm in 1942 she had been commissioned for over 6 moths. her crews were fuly worked up, as were Bismarcks for thjat matter.

In April 1944 when Operation Tungsten was initiated against her, it was the same crews that went back to the ship. They had nearly as much time to get ready as BB57 had for Santa Cruz....

The AAA efficiency of PG was legendary at the baltic sea, she scored several IL2 and Pe-2 Bomber in many missions. She claimed at one mission 9 killed shots to enemy bombers. She defend more then one time the whole task force with her AAA efficiency. She defend many times german harbour's with her AAA efficiency. PG was the most efficiencied AAAb german capital ship and showed, what is possible, when all flaws were disabled, and all "advantages" came to work.

To make this clear PG was also benefit, from the low altitude of USSR bombers, just as the USA capital ships from the japanese bombers
!

We dont have any solid information to gauge her actual performance against claimed performance. If you could give specific dates of the actions you want looked at, we mighht be able to look somewhat into it (probably using the Seekrieg war diaries I expect). Claims versus actual kills is tricky. Sth Dakota claimed 26 kils on the 26 October, post action research suggest 14 kills. During the attacks on the tirpitz in July or august she claimed 12 FAA a/c shot down when in fact she shot down 2. Prinz Eugen might claim 9 kills, that means almost certainly she shot down less than 4.


And I make this clear, all other argumetation are simply bogus!


A very brave claim indeed. You have mentioned nothing about radar direction, Fire Control, explosives used, new technologies by both sides. But fundamentally, you are dismissing operational research....research into actual combats and the reults achieved as "bogus"....Why??? Is it because the results achieved cant live up to the hype?
 
Last edited:
You have something misunderstood!

I never ever claimed that german capital ships, had a better AAA armament then USS capital ships!
My intention was to show, the the KM capital ships could reach a much better performance then Tirpitz as a fleet an being!
Also one problem of the operation Rheinübung were the fuses, they were not enough sensitive to the Swordfish! That problem was solved at the operation cebereus! I would never claim that PG was as good as USA ships in task forces with VT-fuzes!
PG was legendary for her performances at baltic sea, that's different from the atlantik! What I want to show is, that the german AAA wasn't bad, it had it's flaw's with no doubt! But when this flaws were rejected, PG was a very very effectiv AAA plattform!
 
I never ever claimed that german capital ships, had a better AAA armament then USS capital ships!

I didnt say it was you who made that claim, it was another memeber, Siegfried

My intention was to show, the the KM capital ships could reach a much better performance then Tirpitz as a fleet an being!

Again what you are claiming is different from what Siegfried was claiming. his claim, with no qualification was that the tirpitz AA suite was superior to anything the allies fielded. I simply pointed out that looking at the theory is fine, but the results dont support that. Tirpitz's best day is about 1/4 as good as the best day for Sth Dakota, and Sth Dakota did that without a great deal of new whiz bangery

Also one problem of the operation Rheinübung were the fuses, they were not enough sensitive to the Swordfish!


Which is fine and something I didnt know. The original "myth" was that the slow speed of the Swordfish made them invulnerable. i accepted that, but simply pointed out that Bismarcks effort was still very poor in her final action, and wanted to know why. Ive was then told it was because half her directors had been pulled out and replaced with dud ones. i was then told that all that had been solved in the tirpitz and by 1944, she could outshoot and outdance any Allied ships. Oh really!!!!! so i went away and had a look at actual results for her as well. Turns out, she did better than the Bismarck, but nowhere near as good as some Allied ships (with or without VT fuses) . i poinmted to BB57 as an example, and got all this dirty laundry thrown at me in a hissy fit.

That problem was solved at the operation cebereus! I would never claim that PG was as good as USA ships in task forces with VT-fuzes!

Thats another strike worth looking at, but I tend to agree, the two BCs and their TG of escorts shot the Swordfish that attacked them out of the sky from memory. But that was not the issue. My issue is not about german AA generally. mine was in response to the claim that the Tirpitz was superior to any allied ship in her AA suite. Her performance does not support that.

PG was legendary for her performances at baltic sea, that's different from the atlantik! What I want to show is, that the german AAA wasn't bad, it had it's flaw's with no doubt! But when this flaws were rejected, PG was a very very effectiv AAA plattform!


I can only repeat what i said a minute ago. We would need to look at the specific engagements, and try and find a reasonably reliable source to verify the claim. it may be true, or it may be one of the myths we are talking about. We dont have the information to verify at this minute. Give us specific dates, and engagements, and we can then assess the veracity of the claims.
 
IMHO Don's analyze was good
All I'd like to add is that Germany conquered countries which had 40mm Bofors manufacturing facilities straight from the begining of WWII, at least Poland, Norway and Holland, so they had early on both war booty 40mm guns and also production facilities for them.
On Prinz Eugen, it was remarkable how she and Scheer could operate and give fire support to the hard pressed Heer in 44-45 while VVS had more or less air superiority over the area, the KM ships had to rely mostly on their AA fire for protection against Soviet air threat.

Juha

addum: Forgot one question, US 40mm shell vs German 37mm and 40mm shell. While light case Minen shell produced powerful blast for its size the effectiveness of an airburst didn't depend solely on blast but also on fragments it produced, too light fragments didn't necessarily produce sufficient damage to structures and lost their speed more rapidly than heavier fragments. Of course also their initial velocity for given power is higher. Finns and Germans found out that 20mm Minen or HE, these were contact fused shells, wasn't very effective against armoured Il-2s and both added more AP shells to their AA gun mixture when firing at Il-2s, IIRC Finns used 50-50 mixture against Il-2s. So was the high HE content 37-40mm shells in fact optimum against well protected late war a/c?
 
Last edited:
what analysis? so far we have a description of the gadgets that might have been fitted, plus a claim that one ship was exceptional. Ive read about Prinz Eugens Fire Support Missions on the Eastern Front as well, but there is a specific, unsupported claim that she was "very very efficient" at shooting down Soviet A/C. Time for you KM Ra Ra boys to name names, dates and places so we can get stuck into analysing the claims. It might not be possible to pin the numbers down, but lets give it a try....
 
Last edited:
You should understand that I'm not Siegfried!

What I have written can be simply recognize at the "Kriegstagebuch" of PG!
To all of you, I don't ever claim that german AAA armament could match USS VT-fuzes with the support of of USS task forces!

I simply claim that PG was the most developped AAA ship of the KM and did an amazing job (from the view of the KM/PG) at the baltic sea and was more then 1 and a 1/2 year at permanent missions and the VVS couldn't manage to take out this ship! Also Lützow and Scheer were also in action and could manage with there much much improved AAA to avoid any damage! That are hinsights of the technology explanation I claimed!

Again parsifal that's a challenge, you were on the way to show how poor the the german AAA were, without any explanation to the circomstances, that's the same to claim how poor BS was at her last battle, with a rudder at 45 degree and no chance to be a stable gun plattform, even with only 9 knots speed! You all neglect how she performed against Hood and POW at Denmark Sraight, when she was a full functional battleship! I have said this before and I do this again, BS last battle showed nothing and to claim anything out of this battle with the full circumstances are nothing more then to provoke! What BS is able to do was shown at the real fight of the Denmark Straight, 2 days ago!
 
Last edited:
Hello Parsifal
I meant Don's analyze on the guns and ammo used. I have read a couple books on naval operations on Baltic Sea years ago, and recall the ability of PE and Scheer to operate even under fairly constant VVS air attacks in same small area for several days duration while shooting coastal targets. I cannot remember exact days but at least early 45 maybe also in very late 44. In the end PE had to withdrawn because of the wear of its 8" barrels and lack of bunker oil, Scheer was in better position because its Diesel engines, the Diesel oil situation wasn't so critical in spring 45. In the end VVS begame so frustrated on situation that they demanded USAAF strikes against Swinemünde which was used as a base by those fire support ships, maybe even BC's hunt of Lützow was at least partly motivated by Soviet demands even if I don't have any recollection on that.

JUha

Juha
 
What I have written can be simply recognize at the "Kriegstagebuch" of PG!
To all of you, I don't ever claim that german AAA armament could match USS VT-fuzes with the support of of USS task forces!

Okay, I have no issue with this. The claim that was made was that the tirpitz (in 1944) was superior to any allied ship. She wsnt. The only other issue that i have is that Tirpitz's AA was not even as good as some of the claims made pre-VT fuse for the Allies. As for the german effort generally, nobody can make any claims until we look at the spefic battles, perhaps on a random sample basis and see what comes up. Until then, anything anybody says is unsupported opinion

I simply claim that PG was the most developped AAA ship of the KM and did an amazing job (from the view of the KM/PG) at the baltic sea and was more then 1 and a 1/2 year at permanent missions and the LVV couldn't manage to take out this ship! Also Lützow and Scheer were also in action and could manage with there much much improved AAA to avoid any damage! That are hinsights with the technology explanation I maked!

You can make the claim, and you can postulate (guess) as to reasons, but until we look at a good representative sample of engagements, we cannot draw any conclusions, either way

Again parsifal that's a challenge, you were on the way to show how poor the the german AAA were, without any explanation to the circomstances, that's the same to claim how poor BS was at her last battle, with a rudder at 45 degree and no chance to be a stable gun plattform, even with only 9 knots speed!

Sorry but no. i made no comment whasover about bismarcks last battle. I made the observation that her AA failed, and was surprised that the traditional reason given was now branded a myth. From there there were claims about tirpitzs fantanstic performance which are now disproven. I think we are now both in agreement about that. I have not made any other claims or insinuations. I analysed the PoWs and Replulses experiences, in the pacific,

You all neglect how she performed against Hood and POW at Denmark Sraight, when she was a full functional battleship! I have said this before and I do this again, BS last battle showed nothing and to claim anything out of this battle with the full circumstances are nothing more then to provoke! What BS is able to do was shown at the real fight of the Denmark Straight, 2 days ago
!

The only claim that can be made is that the bismarcks AA failed her, allowing a small pathetic bunch of Biplanes hard pressed to even catch her get to within 1000 yds of her, and place one torpedo, that should have done nothing to her in exactly the right spot to totally disable her. You guys are now saying her AA was nearly non-operational at the time, and Siegfried has tried to say that the tirpitz functioned much better. In point of fact Tirpitzs effort was better, and was improving, but still fell far short of satisfactory against the allies (with or without VT fuses), and cannot be said to be much better....now we have another KM champion but you guys wont produce the circumstances for analysis. I say, bring it on lets have a look and see just how good she is, this new champion of yours.....
 
Hello Parsifal
I meant Don's analyze on the guns and ammo used. I have read a couple books on naval operations on Baltic Sea years ago, and recall the ability of PE and Scheer to operate even under fairly constant VVS air attacks in same small area for several days duration while shooting coastal targets. I cannot remember exact days but at least early 45 maybe also in very late 44. In the end PE had to withdrawn because of the wear of its 8" barrels and lack of bunker oil, Scheer was in better position because its Diesel engines, the Diesel oil situation wasn't so critical in spring 45. In the end VVS begame so frustrated on situation that they demanded USAAF strikes against Swinemünde which was used as a base by those fire support ships, maybe even BC's hunt of Lützow was at least partly motivated by Soviet demands even if I don't have any recollection on that.

JUha

Juha


I get your position more clearly now, thanks. I agree that ther are many valid an good points in DonLs posts, but you cannot expect me to take on face value that Prinz Eugen was this wonder ship at AA when we dont have specific events to look at. Perhaps the LVV didnt try that hard to get her....perhaps she bombarded mostly at night, perhaps the aircrews had training issues. Perhaps not, perhaps the Eugen was all that was claimed of her, maybe more. Fact is we have no idea, because we have no incidents to look at....no representative samples to analyze. thats what i am pushing you guys to provide.....samples that we can look at and assess
 
Very interesting your answer but as always you don't get it!

I know Juha for a long time, I have read his answers about naval war about more then 5 years and what I can say with security, he isn't a KM boy!
If you use google, you should tipp Prinz Eugen Kriegstagebuch and there are more then enough answers!
The performances of the AAA of ADS(Admiral Scheer), Lützow and PG (Prinz Eugen) are well documented at the I-net.
We have no new champion, I only have explained the development, flaws and advatges of german AAA's through the war compare to US capital ships, but at anytime you are not able to get it, or do some research on your one.

You have claimed so many stupid issues about german ships, Bismarck at her last fight and SH ( Scharnhorst at North Cap) that I'm very tired to mention it all. You have even claimed that the GB 14"/45 Mark VII is less powerfull then the USA 12"/50 Mark 8, what is totaly ridiculous!
Alone from the physiks it is impossible but you can look here------------->
Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
United States Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables
Britain Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables

Do some research and get some information and one hint, you should read less victory historical books, that would help very much to improve your historical knowledge!


Edit:
Which is fine and something I didnt know. The original "myth" was that the slow speed of the Swordfish made them invulnerable. i accepted that, but simply pointed out that Bismarcks effort was still very poor in her final action, and wanted to know why. Ive was then told it was because half her directors had been pulled out and replaced with dud ones. i was then told that all that had been solved in the tirpitz and by 1944, she could outshoot and outdance any Allied ships. Oh really!!!!! so i went away and had a look at actual results for her as well. Turns out, she did better than the Bismarck, but nowhere near as good as some Allied ships (with or without VT fuses) . i poinmted to BB57 as an example, and got all this dirty laundry thrown at me in a hissy fit.

This whole post is absurd and absolutley not logical!

If you had done some research you would know that the 2cm C38 and the 3,7cm/83 SK C/30 are shooting without ignition advance assembly. Only the 10,5 cm was shooting with ignition advance assembly! But the difference between the triaxial mounting and biaxial mounting with different training rates and the different radar systems/operators make it more then logical, that Bismarck can't score any hits with the 10,5cm without luck! This problem and the problem with the no sensitive fuses of the 2cm and 3.7cm were the real problems of Bismarck.

With all truth the AAA of Bismarck was bad, even worse, against a swordfish totaly helpless, against more solid a/c perhaps a little better, but as I mentioned above, Bismarck had not be sent out with this **** of an AAA armament. That's a fact and very well documented!
 
Last edited:
Thats interesting. The record set by BB57 occurred in October 1942, just 10 days after she had been declared operational in the Pacific. At that time she had 40x 40mm or 1.1 in, and 40 x 20mm plus her as built 5/38 AA suite. She did not have the later AA directos that were also fitted later in the war.

Lumping in the USN's 1.1 (1.1 inch) inch with the 40mm Boffors would be bizzare: if The 1.1 was not only a much smaller gun with much poorer ballistics: it had a very low rate of fire of 100RPM. This weapon was considered a failure. The weapon would not even count as effective as the 20mm Oerlikon. I won't say its ballistics was bad, it wasn't, its performance in terms cadence and its bulk mad this an anvil.

Of course you are comparing a **** commisioned 2 years after Bismark about 1.5 years after her maiden voyage and 4 months after Tirpitz's lone fight with the Albacore Torpedo bombers.

The Sth Dakota or the carrier task groups was not attacked by '100 fanatic japanese' aircraft compared to (Under trained Albacore crews). Many were intercepted by the task forces combat air patrol.

The claim of 14 aircraft shot down is as on the nose as the 26 shot down is likely nonsense. I'd like to see the workings of the adjusted claim. I doubt they even marry against Japanese losses.

Noteworthy is that your claim of superior fire control doesn't make sense. The most effective weapon was the 20mm Oerlikon. It was aimed by hand, it did not use any fire control unless you count the latter introduction of a gyro reflector sight, which the Germans also used.

The much vaunted US 5 inch DP guns For Mk 37 directors were not superior to the German ones and in anycase are attributed only 5% of claims.

The 40mm Boffors is clearly a standout weapon expecially when combined with the lead computing remote sight and the RPC mount. Most of these things AFAIKT were NOT ready by Santa Cruz.

For the Germans vissibillity was an extreme issue not faced in the pacific.
 
Very interesting your answer but as always you don't get it!

I know Juha for a long time, I have read his answers about naval war about more then 5 years and what I can say with security, he isn't a KM boy
!

It was a joke,, the serious bit is to produce examples that you are relying on to male the claims that you are.

If you use google, you should tipp Prinz Eugen Kriegstagebuch and there are more then enough answers!
The performances of the AAA of ADS(Admiral Scheer), Lützow and PG (Prinz Eugen) are well documented at the I-net.
We have no new champion, I only have explained the development, flaws and advatges of german AAA's through the war compare to US capital ships, but at anytime you are not able to get it, or do some research on your one.

i see that you are telling me to go and do the research. if you already have examples, why not share them with us.
You have explained the theory behind the KMs AA development, now it is time to produde the operational examples to back up the claims that you are making

You have claimed so many stupid issues about german ships, Bismarck at her last fight and SH ( Scharnhorst at North Cap) that I'm very tired to mention it all. You have even claimed that the GB 14"/45 Mark VII is less powerfull then the USA 12"/50 Mark 8, what is totaly ridiculous!

I have no idea what you are talking about here. In this thread, I have not metioned or analysed the big guns even once. If not this thread, which one are you specifically referring to. if you have an issue in another thread, why not raise it in that thread, instead of in another thread, where all it will do is stir up a fight.

Moreover i dont think I have ever made that claim. I think the claim was whether the Alaska class could beat the Scharnorst. from memory that discussion, which included Soren (so more than a year ago?) claims were that the Scharnhorst could actually better an Iowa. If you want to post a late reply on that thread, or start a new one, happy to participate. otherwise, why dont we just stick to the issues raised in this thread.

Oh, I have never done this before, but call me stupid, or any other abusive name again even once more and I will report the post. I will leave it up to the mods to decide if either one of us, or both of us are in the wrong, but please take note: I have tried to show you the utmost courtesy in this thread, and will continue to do so. We have had our moments in other threads, but it is not appropriate to bring those fights into yet another thread. that is unfair to the other members and is bl**dy juvenile. I am asking you, just once, keep the personal attacks out of it, and keep focussed on the issue.

Do some research and get some information and one hint, you should read less victory historical books, that would help very much to improve your historical knowledge!

Ah most of the material that my posts for this site come from, come from pretty well respected sources. What is it that you find wrong with authors like Corelli Barnett, or Conways, Campbell for example. One or two of the Internet sites are German in background, including the Seekrieg war diaries site. I have a translated book on German Heavy ships, which I know Juha uses. My sources are fine.

This whole post is absurd and absolutley not logical!

If you had done some research you would know that the 2cm C38 and the 3,7cm/83 SK C/30 are shooting without ignition advance assembly. Only the 10,5 cm was shooting with ignition advance assembly! But the difference between the triaxial mounting and biaxial mounting with different training rates and the different radar systems/operators make it more then logical, that Bismarck can't score any hits with the 10,5cm without luck! This problem and the problem with the no sensitive fuses of the 2cm and 3.7cm were the real problems of Bismarck.

With all truth the AAA of Bismarck was bad, even worse, against a swordfish totaly helpless, against more solid a/c perhaps a little better, but as I mentioned above, Bismarck had not be sent out with this **** of an AAA armament. That's a fact and very well documented
!


I dont understand this tirade. For the record your comments relate to this extract of my previous post

Which is fine and something I didnt know. The original "myth" was that the slow speed of the Swordfish made them invulnerable. i accepted that, but simply pointed out that Bismarcks effort was still very poor in her final action, and wanted to know why. Ive was then told it was because half her directors had been pulled out and replaced with dud ones. i was then told that all that had been solved in the tirpitz and by 1944, she could outshoot and outdance any Allied ships. Oh really!!!!! so i went away and had a look at actual results for her as well. Turns out, she did better than the Bismarck, but nowhere near as good as some Allied ships (with or without VT fuses) . i poinmted to BB57 as an example, and got all this dirty laundry thrown at me in a hissy fit.



I can only repeat how this whole discussion developed perhaps in a totally humorless wau, which seems to be more to your liking . Readie posted that it was a myth that speed of Swordfish made them invulnerable. I posted that I accepted that but queried that if it wasnt the Swordfish speed issue, then what was it. At some point we got into an analysis about Bismarcks AA performance and there was a post where Siegfried said that the Tirpitz was a much superior AA platform, because the obsolete Directors that had been placed in the Bismarck were not in the tirpitz. He stated that the tirpitz was superior to any other allied warship 9or words to that effect). That prompted me to undertake some actual operational research,, which got us to the result that the tirpitz was not superior

I never made any points about gun characteristics or their performance. From the very beginning my analysis was on the basis of observed results....what a particular ship achieved....not what it carried.

At least you are saying that the Swordfish had some advantage over the Bismarck, which is not what SG was saying. Truth is, it doesnt matter the reasons. the results are that the Bismarck shot very poorly as you say, and paid a price for that.
 
I dont understand this tirade. For the record your comments relate to this extract of my previous post

Which is fine and something I didnt know. The original "myth" was that the slow speed of the Swordfish made them invulnerable. i accepted that, but simply pointed out that Bismarcks effort was still very poor in her final action, and wanted to know why. Ive was then told it was because half her directors had been pulled out and replaced with dud ones. i was then told that all that had been solved in the tirpitz and by 1944, she could outshoot and outdance any Allied ships. Oh really!!!!! so i went away and had a look at actual results for her as well. Turns out, she did better than the Bismarck, but nowhere near as good as some Allied ships (with or without VT fuses) . i poinmted to BB57 as an example, and got all this dirty laundry thrown at me in a hissy fit.



I can only repeat how this whole discussion developed perhaps in a totally humorless wau, which seems to be more to your liking . Readie posted that it was a myth that speed of Swordfish made them invulnerable. I posted that I accepted that but queried that if it wasnt the Swordfish speed issue, then what was it. At some point we got into an analysis about Bismarcks AA performance and there was a post where Siegfried said that the Tirpitz was a much superior AA platform, because the obsolete Directors that had been placed in the Bismarck were not in the tirpitz. He stated that the tirpitz was superior to any other allied warship 9or words to that effect). That prompted me to undertake some actual operational research,, which got us to the result that the tirpitz was not superior

I never made any points about gun characteristics or their performance. From the very beginning my analysis was on the basis of observed results....what a particular ship achieved....not what it carried.

At least you are saying that the Swordfish had some advantage over the Bismarck, which is not what SG was saying. Truth is, it doesnt matter the reasons. the results are that the Bismarck shot very poorly as you say, and paid a price for that.

The swordfish is more a WWI design of an a/c. It isn't solid, it is stringed with "paper" as WWI a/c's and if you would have done some research, then you would know that all swordfish from the attack of BS were "heavily" damaged and were striked many times, but without an ignition of the fuses, because the stringed "paper" wasn't hard enough to ignition the fuse. So your conclusion is right but also wrong, the swordfish's got many hits but without fatal damage! Now you can claim the AAA from BS were shooting bad, but that's not the real explanation!

I have no idea what you are talking about here. In this thread, I have not metioned or analysed the big guns even once. If not this thread, which one are you specifically referring to. if you have an issue in another thread, why not raise it in that thread, instead of in another thread, where all it will do is stir up a fight.

Moreover i dont think I have ever made that claim. I think the claim was whether the Alaska class could beat the Scharnorst. from memory that discussion, which included Soren (so more than a year ago?) claims were that the Scharnhorst could actually better an Iowa. If you want to post a late reply on that thread, or start a new one, happy to participate. otherwise, why dont we just stick to the issues raised in this thread.

Oh, I have never done this before, but call me stupid, or any other abusive name again even once more and I will report the post. I will leave it up to the mods to decide if either one of us, or both of us are in the wrong, but please take note: I have tried to show you the utmost courtesy in this thread, and will continue to do so. We have had our moments in other threads, but it is not appropriate to bring those fights into yet another thread. that is unfair to the other members and is bl**dy juvenile. I am asking you, just once, keep the personal attacks out of it, and keep focussed on the issue.
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/scharnhorst-vs-alaska-21877-4.html#post596391

It was a discussion between you, me and Kurfürst, but Soeren wasn't involved and you have claimed many many stupid things about german capital ships similar to this thread!

i see that you are telling me to go and do the research. if you already have examples, why not share them with us.
You have explained the theory behind the KMs AA development, now it is time to produde the operational examples to back up the claims that you are making

I'm not your researcher! If you claim somthing be sure that it is right!
 
Last edited:
Lumping in the USN's 1.1 (1.1 inch) inch with the 40mm Boffors would be bizzare: if The 1.1 was not only a much smaller gun with much poorer ballistics: it had a very low rate of fire of 100RPM. This weapon was considered a failure. The weapon would not even count as effective as the 20mm Oerlikon. I won't say its ballistics was bad, it wasn't, its performance in terms cadence and its bulk mad this an anvil.

I agree with everything here, but just point out that the source i was using presented the data in that format. Some of BB57s armement was still the 1.1" in October '42

Of course you are comparing a **** commisioned 2 years after Bismark about 1.5 years after her maiden voyage and 4 months after Tirpitz's lone fight with the Albacore Torpedo bombers.

Yes, true, but we are also comparing an action where the attacking aircraft have a huge speed and significant firing range advantage over both the Albacores that fired at Bismarck and Tirpitz. We are also comparing Tirpitzs 1944 efforts to South Dakotas 1942 efforts. ive got no complaints or rationalizations doing that.

The Sth Dakota or the carrier task groups was not attacked by '100 fanatic japanese' aircraft compared to (Under trained Albacore crews). Many were intercepted by the task forces combat air patrol.

If you are right, when you think about it makes it even more decisive in its superiority. If the South Dakota was only shooting at say 50, but managed to shoot down 14, that makes her effort even more significant, not less.

Cross checking my original source with David Browns Carrier Operations In WWII -Vol II The Pacific Navies December 1941-Feb 1943 (London 1974), where it gives quite a bit of detail on the battle and the effects of the CAP.

Enterprise was the Fighter Direction Ship, but although 38 Fighters were airborne it proved impossible to sort out the incoming Japanese strikes from the the outgoing US strikes. Enterprise was at this time in the cove of a heavy squall (which also reduced her AA effectiveness).

The Fighter Direction Officer managed to eventually overcome the incessant radio chatter of the US CAP, and vectore 8 of VF-72s aircraft onto one group (headed for Hornet), these aircraft managed to shoot down several attackers they were (largely inneffective) in breaking up the strike.

At 1010 15 vals and 12 kates made a well co-ordinated attack on the hornet......

At page 123 Brown describes that Hornet was dead in the water with a destroyer alongside when Sth Dakota detected a large strike about 60 miles out. All strike and CAP aircraft (including CAP from Hornet) had just completed recovery.....(there was no CAP airborne at that moment).

At 1100 Enterprise detected the 1st wave of the strike reported by Sth Dakota. It contained 44 aircraft, and were 26 miles from the carrier. There were only a few fighters airborne (less than 10) , when the order was given to strike all aircraft below decks and flood the AVGas lines with CO2.

At this juncture I-21 fired a torpedo at the Enterprise, hitting (and eventually sinking) the Destroyer Porter. This had the the unforunate effect of distracting the lookouts of most of the screen. Only Sth Dakota, which was on the opposite side of the carrier and did not see the the torpedo hit remained alert to the airborne attack developing.

Whilst the CAP concentrated on the kates, the 24 vals involved in this initial attack were hit by Sth Dakota. three bombs hit (hit to launch ratio of 12.5%). no less than 14 of these attacking Divebombers were claimed as shot down by the Sth Dakota (of the total 26 that she claimed). It is believed that in fact she shot down 8 of the attackers, the remainder being shot down by the carrier itself

14 of the B5Ns broke through the CAP (meaning all but one of them , the remaining 5 a/c were escorting zeroes) which split and attempted an anvil attack on the carrier. 7 of this group were shot down, all of which were claimed by Sth Dakota, but with 11 ships in the screen, and the strike coming from two directions and losses incurred in each group, it was impossible for the battleship to have shot down all of them. It is generally believed that she did shoot down no less than 3 of these attackers.

There were other attacks through the day including a number of attacks on the batleship iteslf after that, but the hits on the carriers precluded any further CAP. According to DANFs the initial claims of 26 a/c shot down were later revised down to 14. The figures I have given are adjusted losses that I know of....there were others in the battle.

But the important thing is that CAP was not a primary deterrent or killer in this battle for the Japanese....it was flak.

The claim of 14 aircraft shot down is as on the nose as the 26 shot down is likely nonsense. I'd like to see the workings of the adjusted claim. I doubt they even marry against Japanese losses.

Noteworthy is that your claim of superior fire control doesn't make sense. The most effective weapon was the 20mm Oerlikon. It was aimed by hand, it did not use any fire control unless you count the latter introduction of a gyro reflector sight, which the Germans also used.

I agree that the 26 number is suspect, no less so than tirpitzs claim of 12 shot down inpoace of the actual 2, or this latest one of 9 for Prinz Eugen raised by Donl , but the source for 14 is from DANFs, and several other sources. Brown mentions 11 losses in the main attack, whilst Polmar gives a figure of 14. Most people agree that 14 is the nearest we can get to the final number.

in relation to this battle, i made no claim as to superior control. That came later. US fire control was good for its AA fire, but the most significant advances came in 1944.

The Japanese lost a total of over 90 aircraft that day, the majority to combat, and the majority to flak. Since Sth Dakota was the only ship (along with the carrier) to initially engage, and was basically holding an entire flank for the carrier, and since the carriers AA was basically knocked out after the initial wave, it seems perfectly reasonable to me the kills that have been attributed to BB57

The much vaunted US 5 inch DP guns For Mk 37 directors were not superior to the German ones and in anycase are attributed only 5% of claims.

There were no Mk 37 directors in this fight. i never claimed the Mk 37 was superior to anything, and never claimed the mk 37 had anything to do with this tally. Infact I was at pains to point out this record was achieved without special whiz bag gadgets. I said that Sth Dakotas performance was superior to anything the tirpitz achieved. that should be obvious by now.

The 40mm Boffors is clearly a standout weapon expecially when combined with the lead computing remote sight and the RPC mount. Most of these things AFAIKT were NOT ready by Santa Cruz.

Dont know, could find out, but its not relevant either. We were comparing Sth Dakotas performance with the tirpitz. Your claim was that Tirpitz was superior to anything the allies put to sea. fair enough. But why then, in October 1942 did BB57 shoot down more aircraft in a singler day than the tirpitz did in two years.

For the Germans vissibillity was an extreme issue not faced in the pacific.

err true, but then there were other issues at work in the pacific, like the superior performance of the Japanese ordinance and a/c that one would think would balance that issue up more or less. And i see this as just a deflection to your original claim that the tirpitz outperformed all Allied ships in 1944. Please show me how that is....
 
The swordfish is more a WWI design of an a/c. It isn't solid, it is stringed with "paper" as WWI a/c's and if you would have done some research, then you would know that all swordfish from the attack of BS were "heavily" damaged and were striked many times, but without an ignition of the fuses, because the stringed "paper" wasn't hard enough to ignition the fuse. So your conclusion is right but also wrong, the swordfish's got many hits but without fatal damage! Now you can claim the AAA from BS were shooting bad, but that's not the real explanation!

If you claim somthing be sure that it is right!
Between wars design, in fact, and the aircraft were covered in fabric, not paper. It's Irish linen, a superior form of Egyptian cotton, and the underlying structure is solid metal, or wood. Some Swordfish were hit, and got away with not having anything major damaged (one had 180 holes,) so it would be nice if these hysterical overtones were put away where they belong.
A Bismarck officer said that some of the aircraft dropped their fish from as low as 2m, and they often disappeared from view between the waves, and he commented on the bravery of the crews who seemed to behave as if they never expected to see a carrier again.
One Swordfish crew member said that he didn't mind the fire going above and below (so Bismarck could lower her armament sufficiently); it was the fiery balls, nipping between the mainplanes that upset him.
 
Well done another thread descends into petty name calling and deliberate misreading and misquoting of posts.

Reported because I am getting pretty sick of interesting threads being ruined.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back