Repulse/prince Of Wales Sinking

[R011]

The USN tested LAA weapons in 1941 to see what to put on their ships. The systems tested were the Navy 1.1 inch, already in service, the Army 37 mm air cooled land service, the British 40 mm 2 pounder, and the Anglo-Swedish-Dutch 40 mm Bofors naval water cooled. They were rated in that order with the Bofors being best and the 2 pounder being close behind. Note that the Army also decided to dump the 37 mm in favour of the air cooled land service version of the Bofors.

[Markus Becker]

Stop confusing us with facts.

[DougRichards]

Yet some ships still had the 1.1in gun at war's end.

 

Also, according to Wiki, the Cosmoliners use using M1 37mm AA with 90mm guns in anti-motor torpedo boat batteries, later replaced by Bofors, so at least the Army considered there was a role for the gun against floating things.

 

The Germans used the naval 3.7cm SK C/30 for a similar role (with some AA capability) but the effectiveness of a single shot weapon with such a small shell was doubtful. Of course Germany put the 5cm Pak 38 into the anti-torpedo boat role as well.

Edited January 15, 2019 by DougRichards

[R011]

They had to completely redraw everthing from metric to standard so it could be produced in the US. Production didnt start until mid or late 1942 and with all the ships the US was building or had built and the general increase in AAA fits, it is not surprising the 1.1 and 2 pounder remained in service and in production.

[R011]

Stop confusing us with facts.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say the 37 was a wonder weapon and Ernie King had the USN choose Bofors as a big FU to the Army. He also hogged all the naval Bofors production because he hated the British

[DKTanker]

They had to keep the Depression-era dollars flowing. The B-17 program was on a very frayed string, until war became imminent

Indeed, but my point is that the US Army believed the sales pitch. They told congress what congress wanted to hear and that's fine, they didn't also have to suspend critical thinking. It's like they sat around in a circle and talked about how Mitchell had sunk those ships in 1921 and refused to acknowledge that Mitchell performed his act against undefended and anchored ships. Mitchell was right, aircraft could sink ships, the lessons learned were wrong because nobody asked such mind bending questions such as, can he do it while the ships are moving? Can he sink those ships if the captain of the ship changes direction? Can he he sink those ships if the captain orders a course change and orders his AA guns to fire?

Edited January 15, 2019 by DKTanker

[R011]

The Navy certainly asked those questions and got a few good answers that stood up well in 1941-45

[shep854]

It may have been revisionism, but given all of Mitchell's writings and his passion, strategic bombardment seemed to be what the Army Air Corps really had in mind ('Airpower alone can win wars'), but an isolationist, pacifist Congress wasn't buying, so a 'defensive' mission had to be presented. If it put a thumb in the Navy's eye, so much the better.

The Army also pulled off several impressive long-range land missions during this time. I mind at least one to South America (Rio?)

Edited January 15, 2019 by shep854

[Markus Becker]

 

Stop confusing us with facts.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say the 37 was a wonder weapon and Ernie King had the USN choose Bofors as a big FU to the Army. He also hogged all the naval Bofors production because he hated the British

I was joking. I actually liked the facts but my inner comedian wanted to use the line from Graucho Marx. He is like that in the late evening, neither serious, nor entirely sober.

 

PS: The Bofors was "navalized", the 37mm wasn't, so they went with the former.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Markus Becker

[DougRichards]

 

 

What ships did have good AAA?

 

 

The new KGVs and the rebuild old ones like Warspite and Renown. British cruisers weren't bad too and even British destroyers were getting somewhere. The RN was doing ok in the Med provided ships stuck together

 

But Force Z was really the B-team by RN standards. Repulse had more or less 1920's AA-armament, the DD had a minimal self defence capability and cruisers were absent entirely.

 

 

 

This is an even more important point than it first appears: The RN: as early as 1934 thirteen C-Class cruisers (launched 1914 to 1919, not viable as cruisers by 1934) were slated for conversion to AA cruisers, with 4in HA guns and multiple pom-poms. Only nine were converted. There were similar plans to convert D-Class cruisers, that came to nought, except for the Dehli in 1941, that received a trial fit out of USN 5in/38 guns, with view to that weapon being adopt.

 

Even one of the the Didos, the first being commissioned in September 1940, would have been able to bring some worthwhile AA to the fight: 10X5.25in and 8 2pdr AA.

[R011]

 

 

Stop confusing us with facts.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say the 37 was a wonder weapon and Ernie King had the USN choose Bofors as a big FU to the Army. He also hogged all the naval Bofors production because he hated the British

I was joking. I actually liked the facts but my inner comedian wanted to use the line from Graucho Marx. He is like that in the late evening, neither serious, nor entirely sober.

 

PS: The Bofors was "navalized", the 37mm wasn't, so they went with the former.

 

 

I got it. I should have put a smiley in my answer too.

[Colin]

It may have been revisionism, but given all of Mitchell's writings and his passion, strategic bombardment seemed to be what the Army Air Corps really had in mind ('Airpower alone can win wars'), but an isolationist, pacifist Congress wasn't buying, so a 'defensive' mission had to be presented. If it put a thumb in the Navy's eye, so much the better.

The Army also pulled off several impressive long-range land missions during this time. I mind at least one to South America (Rio?)

The Soviets shook everyone up with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-25

[DougRichards]

 

It may have been revisionism, but given all of Mitchell's writings and his passion, strategic bombardment seemed to be what the Army Air Corps really had in mind ('Airpower alone can win wars'), but an isolationist, pacifist Congress wasn't buying, so a 'defensive' mission had to be presented. If it put a thumb in the Navy's eye, so much the better.

The Army also pulled off several impressive long-range land missions during this time. I mind at least one to South America (Rio?)

The Soviets shook everyone up with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_ANT-25

 

 

Then the Brits beat that range with a practical warplane not so long after: The Vickers Wellesley. Only Two ANT-25 were built, but the Wellesley reached squadron service (13 squadrons) and did a fair job for the time.

 

Exactly which aircraft had a greater impact? Two Soviet experiments or 177 in service?

 

ANT-25 more Red propaganda

 

Exactly what destruction did the ANT 25 inflict on an enemy?

[Markus Becker]

 

They had to keep the Depression-era dollars flowing. The B-17 program was on a very frayed string, until war became imminent

Indeed, but my point is that the US Army believed the sales pitch. They told congress what congress wanted to hear and that's fine, they didn't also have to suspend critical thinking. It's like they sat around in a circle and talked about how Mitchell had sunk those ships in 1921 and refused to acknowledge that Mitchell performed his act against undefended and anchored ships. Mitchell was right, aircraft could sink ships, the lessons learned were wrong because nobody asked such mind bending questions such as, can he do it while the ships are moving? Can he sink those ships if the captain of the ship changes direction? Can he he sink those ships if the captain orders a course change and orders his AA guns to fire?

 

 

About Mitchell and the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland. Friedmann and some other works have given me the impression that the US Navy took the result of this exercise far more seriously than they gave Mitchell or the Air Corps credit for. Large and fast carriers were definitely on now.

 

 

And a thought about the 37mm vs the 1.1" and why army and navy went with different guns: I only recall pictures of 37mm single mounts and I don't doubt that a 1.1" quad is more effective against early-30s aircraft than a single 37mm, while at the same time lighter and more compact than a 37mm quad. Which would have been more effective than the 1.1" but warships of the treaty ear had little room and weight to spare.

 

So the good enough and smaller gun it was.

[DKTanker]

 

About Mitchell and the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland. Friedmann and some other works have given me the impression that the US Navy took the result of this exercise far more seriously than they gave Mitchell or the Air Corps credit for. Large and fast carriers were definitely on now.

 

 

That was true for Japan, for the US Navy, not as much. One of the charges Mitchell faced at his courts martial stemmed from his berating of the Navy for not doing more to create a naval air arm. Of the three major sea powers of WW2, Japan had the largest fleet of Aircraft carriers to start the war (10), then Britain (8), and finally the United States (7). It wouldn't be until August of 1943 that the US Navy would receive it's 10th fleet carrier.

[DougRichards]

 

 

About Mitchell and the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland. Friedmann and some other works have given me the impression that the US Navy took the result of this exercise far more seriously than they gave Mitchell or the Air Corps credit for. Large and fast carriers were definitely on now.

 

 

That was true for Japan, for the US Navy, not as much. One of the charges Mitchell faced at his courts martial stemmed from his berating of the Navy for not doing more to create a naval air arm. Of the three major sea powers of WW2, Japan had the largest fleet of Aircraft carriers to start the war (10), then Britain (8), and finally the United States (7). It wouldn't be until August of 1943 that the US Navy would receive it's 10th fleet carrier.

 

 

I thought that the USN received the USS Robin in February 1943?

[R011]

 

 

They had to keep the Depression-era dollars flowing. The B-17 program was on a very frayed string, until war became imminent

Indeed, but my point is that the US Army believed the sales pitch. They told congress what congress wanted to hear and that's fine, they didn't also have to suspend critical thinking. It's like they sat around in a circle and talked about how Mitchell had sunk those ships in 1921 and refused to acknowledge that Mitchell performed his act against undefended and anchored ships. Mitchell was right, aircraft could sink ships, the lessons learned were wrong because nobody asked such mind bending questions such as, can he do it while the ships are moving? Can he sink those ships if the captain of the ship changes direction? Can he he sink those ships if the captain orders a course change and orders his AA guns to fire?

 

 

About Mitchell and the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland. Friedmann and some other works have given me the impression that the US Navy took the result of this exercise far more seriously than they gave Mitchell or the Air Corps credit for. Large and fast carriers were definitely on now.

 

 

And a thought about the 37mm vs the 1.1" and why army and navy went with different guns: I only recall pictures of 37mm single mounts and I don't doubt that a 1.1" quad is more effective against early-30s aircraft than a single 37mm, while at the same time lighter and more compact than a 37mm quad. Which would have been more effective than the 1.1" but warships of the treaty ear had little room and weight to spare.

 

So the good enough and smaller gun it was.

 

 

It looks as if the Navy gun was ready first. I don't know when the Army started to look for a new LAA gun, but they may have seen how troublesome the 1.1 was and went another way. Thirty-seven mm was also an existing Army caliber.

 

As for whether a single 37 mm was better or worse, I suspect the 37 mm was better. It had better range and was much lighter. though being air cooled was a theoretical disadvantage. It also doesn't seem to have broken down as much and a gun that's not working might as well not be there. A twin water cooled 37 mm, though, would have weighed no more than a quad 1.1 inch and taken up no more space. It would have been much more effective. As there was a naval Bofors and no naval 37 mm when the Navy started looking for something (anything) better than the 1.1, a Navy 37 mm was not to be.

[Markus Becker]

 

 

 

About Mitchell and the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland. Friedmann and some other works have given me the impression that the US Navy took the result of this exercise far more seriously than they gave Mitchell or the Air Corps credit for. Large and fast carriers were definitely on now.

 

 

That was true for Japan, for the US Navy, not as much. One of the charges Mitchell faced at his courts martial stemmed from his berating of the Navy for not doing more to create a naval air arm. Of the three major sea powers of WW2, Japan had the largest fleet of Aircraft carriers to start the war (10), then Britain (8), and finally the United States (7). It wouldn't be until August of 1943 that the US Navy would receive it's 10th fleet carrier.

The Navy saw the need for CV fairly early. As in early 20s at the latest. Initially for recon and spotting and countering enemy recon and spotting.

 

And the ten Japanese CV include the experimental Hosho and three light CV. The only US carrier of dubious combat value was Ranger, so the US and Japan had parity in fleet carriers.

[Adam Peter]

Then the Brits beat that range with a practical warplane not so long after: The Vickers Wellesley.

What is the range of this two aircrafts?

[MiloMorai]

Wellesley - 2000km

ANT-25 - 7200km

[Colin]

The problem is that West had very little idea of what the Soviets had or were capable of, so them having aircraft that could fly over the pole and still have range to travel deep into US territory was a first and technically made the US homeland vulnerable to bombardment. I recall reading somewhere that the soviet flight was used by the USAF to increase funds to fighter squadrons and fighter development. Never let a crisis go to waste...

[DougRichards]

Wellesley - 2000km

ANT-25 - 7200km

Well yes and no:

 

Wellesley was a service aircraft, that was used for a Long Range Development Unit that established a non-stop flight of 7,162 miles / 11,526 km in November 1938.

 

The ANT-25 was an experimental aircraft, of which only two were built that the Soviets tried as a bomber, unsuccessfully.

 

Relevant wiki entry:

 

Another widely publicized feat was the Moscow–San Jacinto non-stop flight in a backup aircraft just three weeks after Chkalov's. This journey, via the North Pole, covered 11,500 kilometres (7,100 mi) and ended in a dairy pasture outside of San Jacinto, California, after they had encountered fog conditions in San Diego and as far inland as March Air Force base in Riverside. The landing site is marked by California State Historical Landmark Number 989. The crew, still composed of Gromov, Yumashev, and Danilin, flew for 62 hours and 17 minutes between 12 and 14 July 1937. After landing, the aircraft still had sufficient fuel for approximately 1,500 kilometres (930 mi), enough to reach Panama. This would have involved crossing the Mexican border without the permission of FAI sporting officials.

Gromov became an unofficial Soviet Pilot No. 1, though Chkalov remained the favourite pilot of the Soviet people. Joy at the achievements were tempered by Levanevsky crashing on the same route in a brand-new four-engined DB-A.

The record set by the Soviets was broken by two British Vickers Wellesley bombers which flew from Egypt to Australia in November 1938; a distance of 11,523.9 kilometres (7,160.6 mi).^[9] The USSR did not continue the race as aviation design bureau work stalled due to repression: Tupolev was jailed, and Gromov was also on the brink of arrest. Chkalov mysteriously crashed while testing a new fighter on 15 December 1938

[DougRichards]

The problem is that West had very little idea of what the Soviets had or were capable of, so them having aircraft that could fly over the pole and still have range to travel deep into US territory was a first and technically made the US homeland vulnerable to bombardment. I recall reading somewhere that the soviet flight was used by the U S A A F to increase funds to fighter squadrons and fighter development. Never let a crisis go to waste...

[Colin]

My bad

[shep854]

My bad

No problem; Doug is off, too. In '38, it was the Army Air CORPS. Zoomies were just getting their wings (and attitude )