8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
peter b
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:28 am

8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by peter b » Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:43 am

Gentlemen:
This is my first visit to this site as I have come to a full stop on other WWII aviation sites in search of an answer. I wonder if anyone can help please?

On the day of the sea battle with Glow Worm, the Admiral Hipper's aircraft, an Arado 196A-2, was launched and flown by Oblt Techam and Observer Lt. Polzin. This aircraft, due to either a) the battle, and/or b) the rough sea state, failed to return to the ship and ran ot of fuel in a Norwegian fjord. The aircraft was commandeered by the Norwegians and the crew captured.

The Arado had it's orginal markings overpainted with Norwegian colours and the aircraft was eventually flown to the Shetland Islands on 18.4.1940. The German crew were sent as POW's to England also on 18.4.1940.

Unfortunately there are no records (so far discovered by me and others) of the original markings for the Arado.

Can anyone help here please? Are there any surviving logs of the Hipper? Any suggestions?

Peter

frankwl
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:32 am

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by frankwl » Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:45 am

Glowworm represents an ongoing irony of the Royal Navy. Possesed of a preponderance of firepower that could have blown away the German, French, Russian, maybe even the U.S. navy, it always seems to find its finest hours as the underdog. Glowworm versus Hipper? Ridiculous. Acasta steaming suicidally through its own smoke to try and save Glorious from the ineptitude of that Custer of the high seas Oily Hughes. Ridiculous. A destroyer against two of the best battle cruisers ever launched? Even old Exeter, shot to hell by the 11 inch guns of Graf Spee limping back into battle with just its aft turret functioning on local control to try and get an 8 inch shell into that German raider. I sound so bloodthirsty which I'm not but I wish a KGV had loomed up over the horizon when Marschall's squadron found Glorius.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by RF » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:14 am

peter b wrote: On the day of the sea battle with Glow Worm, the Admiral Hipper's aircraft, an Arado 196A-2, was launched and flown by Oblt Techam and Observer Lt. Polzin. This aircraft, due to either a) the battle, and/or b) the rough sea state, failed to return to the ship and ran ot of fuel in a Norwegian fjord. The aircraft was commandeered by the Norwegians and the crew captured.

The Arado had it's orginal markings overpainted with Norwegian colours and the aircraft was eventually flown to the Shetland Islands on 18.4.1940. The German crew were sent as POW's to England also on 18.4.1940.
Peter
This is the first I have heard of this capture. It would be interesting to know what became of this captured aircraft particulary as far as I am aware the British never tried to copy it or reproduce it - it would have been useful as convoy escort work for example.

Richard Garrett in his book ''Scharnhorst and Gneisenau'' does make reference to an Arado being sent from Hipper to Norway on the orders of Admiral Marschall but there is nothing about the plane and crew being captured.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by RF » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:22 am

frankwl wrote:Glowworm represents an ongoing irony of the Royal Navy. Possesed of a preponderance of firepower that could have blown away the German, French, Russian, maybe even the U.S. navy,
I sound so bloodthirsty
In the words of Ronald Reagan, about Jimmy Carter, ''there he goes again''

Glowworm only had 4.7 inch guns, so it wasn't that prepondarant in firepower. This action was at close range in poor visibilty. Those 4.7 inch guns did land hits on Hipper but Glowworm rammed in the knowledge that it was sinking and not going to escape the battle.

And don't under rate Hipper either. It smashed Achates into a wreck at very long range using radar for gunnery ranging.

Scharnhorst was only hit because Kapitan Hoffmann misjudged the timings of the torpedo run and stopped combing tracks too early.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Tiornu
Supporter
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:13 am
Location: Ex Utero

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by Tiornu » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:21 pm

I think you mistook the point. The Royal Navy, as a military body, far exceeded the power of most possible opponents, yet Glowworm found herself individually at a disadvantage.
As I remember it, Glowworm's senior surviving officer stated that the ship had lost steering control during the gun battle, which means the ramming was entirely fortuitous.

frankwl
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:32 am

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by frankwl » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:04 am

Thanks Tiornu, at least you the post correctly. Makes me glum that I could be so misunderstood.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by RF » Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:47 am

frankwl, I didn't misunderstand you, you made an error of syntax apparently saying that HMS Glowworm had a preponderence of firepower that could have blown the Germans away - which is why I mentioned those 4.7 inch guns.

But you are quite right in meaning the RN itself, rather than just one destroyer. But the conduct of that destroyer in the face of overwhelming odds does explain how the RN bacame so preponderent in the first place.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

frankwl
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:32 am

Re: 8.4.1940 Admiral Hipper v Glow Worm

Post by frankwl » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:22 am

Yes, RF, but I have never posted a single thing on this site that you haven't reacted in the negative. And you have been dead wrong sometimes as in Glow Worm. I don't make errors in syntax, it's my business not to. Read it again.

Post Reply