Naval History Forums

[quote="phil gollin"][i][quote="paul.mercer"]

I agree, but the subject was on the use of searchlights, not on the range which, as you say was point blank.

[/quote][/i]


Strange

I was responding to your specific post

.[/quote]
We appear to be at cross purposes, apologies for the confusion

[i][quote="paul.mercer"]

I agree, but the subject was on the use of searchlights, not on the range which, as you say was point blank.

[/quote][/i]


Strange

I was responding to your specific post

.

[quote="phil gollin"]It has always amused me when I hear the "gee wizz" naval gunnery accuracy fans exclaiming how wonderful WW2 era gunnery was to remember Matapan.

Warspite managed to hit her (ridiculously short-ranged) target with 5 out of the 6 shells of her first salvo (only three turrets bore on the target). Cunningham said words to the effects of " My God ! We've hit her ! " - I don't think he was as optimistic as many on the internet nowadays.[/quote]
I agree, but the subject was on the use of searchlights, not on the range which, as you say was point blank.

[quote="paul.mercer"]It certainly worked when Warspite, Barham & Valiant blew the Italian cruisers to pieces at Matapan, just imagine, 24 X 15" shells smacking into relativly lightly armoured cruisers - carnage![/quote]

Quite a few searchlights here - and a disaster that could only befall the Italians....

It has always amused me when I hear the "gee wizz" naval gunnery accuracy fans exclaiming how wonderful WW2 era gunnery was to remember Matapan.

Warspite managed to hit her (ridiculously short-ranged) target with 5 out of the 6 shells of her first salvo (only three turrets bore on the target). Cunningham said words to the effects of " My God ! We've hit her ! " - I don't think he was as optimistic as many on the internet nowadays.

It certainly worked when Warspite, Barham & Valiant blew the Italian cruisers to pieces at Matapan, just imagine, 24 X 15" shells smacking into relativly lightly armoured cruisers - carnage!

There was an interesting observation by Theodor Detmers in his account of hilfskreuzer Kormoran - after the first nightime attack on a merchantman he decided to dispense with his searchlight in favour of starshell as the field of vision of the searchlight was too narrow and appeared to illuminate objects such as smoke and spray in front of the target rather than the target itself. This decision was made he says even though one one of Kormoran's four guns would be needed to fire the rocket shells.

The USN found that seachlights were almost useless in firing against a target that was firing against you; the haze of spray thrown up by enemy 'shorts' quickly reduced one's own visibility to near-zero. And, of course, they also provided an excellent aiming point for the enemy. If an enemy ship using searchlights engaged you, the best practice was to fire 'shorts' until he was blinded. If he doused searchlights, which was the smart thing to do, then so be it. If he kept searchlights on, then range up until you felt hits were more probable. Never turn on one's own searchlights at an enemy that had the potential to shoot back; illuminating someone else's target could be very productive indeed.

Bill Jurens.

I think you are correct, Dave. I had a conversation some time ago with a guy who asked me if Bismarck used her searchlights during that night, and I have never found anything to suggest that she did. Müllenheim-Rechberg said that the night was pitch-black, but they tracked the destroyers on their rangefinders from 8,000 meters down to 3,000. The British did however use starshells.

Indeed starshell remained a intergral part of RN night fighting throughout WWII, with or without radar. The starshell practice probably helped to spot the fall of shot for bearing with either 284M or 274 radar direction. 284M used an A-scope presentation, and if the antenna was not aimed directly at the target the trace would blink, but if it was aimed directly at the target the trace would hold solid. Type 274 10cm surface gunlaying radar introduced in 1944 could not spot the fall of shot.

[quote="Terje Langoy"]G´day all

The searchlights aboard the Scharnhorst class were, if I remember correctly, linked directly to their range finder equipment via something called [i]Synchron-Richtgeräte[/i] ... thus whatever direction their range finders were pointed their searchlights would automatically be pointed in the very same direction.

I presume they were to aid the artillery process by illuminating the target for the range finders; enhancing the stereoscopic image at night, rather than acting as a blinding instrument upon the target. Range would of course be a variable crucial to their effectiveness.

Best regards[/quote]

Just to clarify this would be the special night optics and not the regular large range finders used in daylight. The night optics had an effective range of about 10,000 meters and required some form of artificial light to illuminate the target for the night range finders. Usually this was starshell, unless the range to target was rather short. The KM also had infared equipment to assist the night optics mainly for target acquisition and bearing. Note that when Bismarck drove off Vain's destroyers it used no artificial light to target the destroyers.

Looking at "early" (pre-radar) WW2 Royal Naval practice, their main idea would be to have supporting destroyers using their large stabilised searchlights to illuminate targets "from the side" - whilst the big ships used their flashless or reduced flash charges to fire to keep relatively hidden. (See Matapan).

However, the development of an effective, long-lasting star-shell was an alternative - such that tactics for star-shell use were practiced extensively.

If/when the enemy started firing on a lit searchlight the idea would be to change to another destroyer and depending on circumstances the big ships would use theirs.

Searchlights were extremely effective, but a very good aiming point. Except in major engagements star-shells SEEM to have been more effective and flexible. Radar obviously changed the game, but note how star-shell were used at North Cape - they were an integral part of RN night-fighting (remember the early Battle class destroyers being completed with an extra low-angle 4.5" "star-shell" gun !)

.

G´day all

The searchlights aboard the Scharnhorst class were, if I remember correctly, linked directly to their range finder equipment via something called [i]Synchron-Richtgeräte[/i] ... thus whatever direction their range finders were pointed their searchlights would automatically be pointed in the very same direction.

I presume they were to aid the artillery process by illuminating the target for the range finders; enhancing the stereoscopic image at night, rather than acting as a blinding instrument upon the target. Range would of course be a variable crucial to their effectiveness.

Best regards

Thanks for your replies guys.

30knots

There are a fair number of references to their use in the battles off Gaudalcanal. I haven't gotten the new book out on this yet but the author did a pretty good job with [u]Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors[/u]. See:
http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=055380670X
or
http://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal/dp/055380670X/ref=pd_sim_b_5
or your favorite book seller.

I think searchlights would be impractical. Given the great distance, the 'beam' needs to point exactly at the enemy's optics, even a fraction of a degree off, and you would ruin the blinding effect. Think about how difficult it would be to 'hit' the small optics and to keep the beam on a moving target - which btw, is maybe as large (small!) as your thumb if you look at it with the naked eye.

Happy lighting ~ Olaf!