Bismarck and her contemporaries

[phil gollin]

You're not thinking properly about the problem, nor how havies operated.

.

[madmike]

Still on the idea of attacking a battleship/battle cruiser with torps fired from destroyers/light cruisers.With its main guns destroyed and other damage is tough enough,BUT attacking a FULLY operational battleship/battle cruiser in a torp attack(destroyers/Lt cruisers)has got to be about the toughest job you could get.the idea sounds like a DEATH wish.Given the sort of fire power(Main and secondary guns) a battleship/battle cruiser would bring to bear on any thing that tried.To be honest i think a heavy shell(14in-18in)hitting just about anywhere on the hull of a destroyer,is goodbye ,and it would only take a few hits on a lt cruiser to take that out.AND BEFORE everyone gets on here and bags me for this.THINK OF WHAT RANGE A BATTLESHIP WOULD BE ABLE START FIRING,BEFORE ANY DESTROYERS/Lt CRUISER could get within torp range,and thats with just its main guns then we add the secondary guns(and all this is STILL outside torp range) remember this is just destroyers/lt cruisers on their own,Even a flotilla (6to8)destroyers would be in trouble.but that sort of attack was one reason MOST battleships/battle cruisers had destroyer escorts.to protect them from sub and destroyer attacks.AND IF THE IDEA OF ATTACKING A FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLESHIP IN A DESTROYER DOESNT SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF YOU.Then you are either TOTALLY MAD or a liar. Personally it scares the hell out of me.

[Bgile]

I would argue that the main armament of a destroyer was her torpedoes. In fact, if a destroyer was making a night attack she would invariably hold her gunfire if she had a chance to make a successful surprise torpedo attack first.

[phil gollin]

MadMike

Again, you are not thinking correctly, nor remembering the circumstances, nor equipment, prevalent at the time of the Bismarck episode.

.

[madmike]

hi again ,,,,,ok first reply to Bgile,your statement that torps were the main armament of destroyers.I would agree that torps were the main weapon destroyers used for sinking enemy ships,But were not classed as their main armament ,and you are correct about not using their guns at night in a surprise attack the gun flashes would give you away.but my statement was about attacking a FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLESHIP in daylight and open water.and i stand by what i said.

ok now to answer phil.......the use of destroyers against a battleship,was to shadow, harass,and call in heavy units/aircraft to attack IF POSSIBLE,If no heavy ships are around to intercept. THEN to attack with torps to slow/sink said battleship.,,,,Destroyers were never thrown at battleships on their own, unless there was no choice.
Naval commanders are practical people and dont throw the lives of their ships(men)away by doing crazy things.but use what they have in the most effective way they can.that doesnt mean they always get it right.

ok now to the torps themselves...the US navy had a HUGE problem with their torps in the early part of the war,most failed to explode. and the brits had probs with the magnetic pistol detonators.IE proven by their mistaken attack on the HMS Sheffield when most of the torps exploded on impact with the water,much to the relief of the crew of Sheffield.
if you look at the use of destroyers to harass the Bismarck the night before the KGV and Rodney engaged her,by doing this they denied the bismarcks crew the chance to sleep,,,and by doing so reduced the crews effectiveness(YOU TRY GOING WITHOUT SLEEP FOR 48 HOURS AND SEE HOW MUCH IT EFFECTS YOUR ABILITY TO OPERATE )
IF THE IDEA OF ATTACKING A FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLESHIP IN A DESTROYER DOESNT SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF YOU.Then you are either TOTALLY MAD or a liar. Personally it scares the hell out of me.

[madmike]

To phil,I was not trying to be a smart-arse............but the standard naval doctrine of the time(British,US,french,german) for use of destroyers against battleships was to stand off and shadow till heavy units could intercept and engage....then when said battleship was damage enough.....To launch a torpedo attack to finish off the battleship.I think that was what the brits did to the bismarck at the end,but they used a light cruiser to launch torps(HMS Sheffield) not a destroyer.As i said before, the use of destroyers only in attacking a battleship,was a last choice,NOT the first choice of a naval commander.just another point on the use of torpedoes at this time(1941) the British navy believed that a torpedo hit at ranges of more than 6000 yards against another ship still able to maneuver was less that 3% chance.And if you look at the DS battle the british destroyers were unable to keep up with Hood,,Pow,Because of sea and weather conditions at the time.

[phil gollin]

No.

Do more reading

.

[Bgile]

To phil,I was not trying to be a smart-arse............but the standard naval doctrine of the time(British,US,french,german) for use of destroyers against battleships was to stand off and shadow till heavy units could intercept and engage....then when said battleship was damage enough.....To launch a torpedo attack to finish off the battleship.I think that was what the brits did to the bismarck at the end,but they used a light cruiser to launch torps(HMS Sheffield) not a destroyer.As i said before, the use of destroyers only in attacking a battleship,was a last choice,NOT the first choice of a naval commander.just another point on the use of torpedoes at this time(1941) the British navy believed that a torpedo hit at ranges of more than 6000 yards against another ship still able to maneuver was less that 3% chance.And if you look at the DS battle the british destroyers were unable to keep up with Hood,,Pow,Because of sea and weather conditions at the time.

Hmmm .... definitely some factual errors there.

[madmike]

IF anyone knows of a action were destroyers were the FIRST CHOICE weapon in attacking a battle ship could you please post it,i have been talking to a few retired naval officers,2 British and 3 American.and they all say that the standard destroyer doctrine of that time was for destroyers to shadow a battleship and pass info too the fleet on the battleships movements,and to stay in contact till heavy units can intercept and engage.THEN when the battleship is damaged enough to finish it off with torps.NOT to charge in and attack on sight.AND i must say NONE of these gentleman(all of them saw combat at one time or another)were thrilled with the idea of attacking a fully operational battleship in a destroyer at anytime.Cant say that i blame them.

close the range I cant see enough hits. Admiral Cunningham RN

and before anyone has a go at these gentleman,for their comments to me PLEASE remember these men served their countries with honor and courage in war.i will not give their names but one of the British officers and two of the American officers commander ed their own ships. I think these men would know a lot more about this subject than those of us who havent served at sea and learned from books only.

not trying to be rude to everyone here,there are some very clever people here and very passionate.and i enjoy reading so many well informed opinions.

[Bgile]

IF anyone knows of a action were destroyers were the FIRST CHOICE weapon in attacking a battle ship could you please post it.

Surigao Strait. The US battleships were the very last ships to engage. PT boats were first, then destroyers.

[lwd]

To be fair that was a night action in close waters. On the other hand DDs and DEs were (not counting aircraft) the first (and only) ships used to attacke the Japanese center force off Samar. While they did acomplish quite a bit they didn't prove very resistant to battlship caliber rounds. There were also a number of battleships sunk by gunfire alone during the war so I think he has some valid points. Continueing to state "Do more reading" or words to that effect are hardly helpful.

[madmike]

thanks Bgile and lwd for your answers...the use of pt boats then destroyers in attack, would make for a interesting gunnery problem(i must say attacking a battleship with pt boat is even scarier than in a destroyer.) I know pt boats had their speed and agility, But even shell fragments are lethal to them. What sort of losses did the Pt/Destroyers suffer.

[madmike]

to Bgile my comment on the use of destroyers in attacking a FULLY OPERATIONAL BATTLESHIP. Was in daylight and open water.but your point of the use of pt boats then destroyers in the Surigao Strait, is interesting ,Do you think the choice to use the pt boats/destroyers in that way could have been to slow/sink and to keep IJN ships engaged, Till the US battleships could close and engage.

I would like to hear your views.And yours to lwd,and everyone else too.

[lwd]

If you can get a copy of the Tully's The battle for Surigao Strait you'll get an in depth answer to your questions. The short answer was that the PT-boats and Destroyers were used to attrit the Japanese force as much as possible before it reached the battle line. They were successful in this sinking Fuso and putting at least one torpedo into Yamashiro as well as hits on some of the escorting vessels. A fair amount of info on both this action and the one off Samar is available on the web as well. This is a bit OT for this thread and is perhaps a subject worthy of it's own thread.

[madmike]

i would put this piece of info out there and see what you good people think,,,,the Bismarck took more than 400 heavy shell HITS plus torps to destroy her can ANYONE show any other battleship EVER to have stood up to so much damage,,,,and the Yamato doesnt even come close.....the statements that bismarck was a poor design compared to other battleships of the time just doesnt add up if you look at what happened in REAL LIFE , not what some ships might have done ,,,BISMARCK stands out as a very powerful ship for her time,,,,,the US Iowa's were more powerful but they were'nt around in 1941,,,,against her contemporaries, bismarck PROVED she was the most powerful battleship,,,even against the US new jersey class bismarck would have proved herself capable. just my humble thoughts