Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by tommy303 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:57 am

he small projectiles had a burster(Zerleger) see column "Größte Reichweite" (burster time number in Brackets)
as difference column "Größte Schussweite" horizontal range without burster
column "wirksame Reichweite" optimal range for this weapon
Yes exactly. The range was limited by one of two methods generally, the most common in this case being the length of tracer burn. When the tracer finally burnt down to the end, it fired a self-destruct detonator to burst the explosive filling. In a few designs, mostly larger shells than 4cm, a fuze might incorporate a spin degradation self destruct, particularly for those shells without tracer or a time fuze mechanism. AP shot, not having an explosive filler, would carry to the Größte Schussweite, or maximum range.

Thank you Thorsten for the table. That is very useful.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:09 am

alecsandros wrote:Dave,
I may be mistaken, but, IIRC, the type 285 radars were not functioning properly at the time of the battle... Thus, the 5.25" guns were of limited value...
We know the 282s, which ranged for the pom poms were not functional. I'm also pretty confident that the Type 273 surface search was not fully functional. The Type 281 was functional as tracked the approach of the Japanese aircraft.

The 5.25s did damage several of the torpedo bombers of the second wave. So apparently they were close but not close enough. During the first wave the 5.25s were thrown off by POW's manouvering. After the second wave the list and the power outages combined to essentially take the 5.25s out the fight.
Also, PoW was not alone, but in company of Repulse and 4 DDs... But it's true that neither of the 5 escorting ships possessed serious AA capabilities...
It was only three DDs. Tenedos had been detached to re-fuel the previous evening. One of the DDs, HMAS Vampire, had no real AA capabilities. The others were Express and Electra with 12cm guns. The Repulse's AA was as you say, not much. Its six 4" guns were completely manually operated so they could only lead very slow aircraft, and they could not be depressed enough to engage torpedo bombers. It had been equipped with three sets of pom poms. During the fight Repulse's Pom Pom's all jammed from faulty ammo.
in better company (say 1 AA cruiser and 1-2 modern CLs, and 6-7 well armed DDs), and with all systems and weapons operational, PoW may have been better off that day... But I doubt it wouldn't have been sunk.
I'm a little comfused, because what you outline here resulting in POW still getting sunk is close to what the American BBs had in the Solomons with weaker flak or probably equal flak to POW. How would you say NC or SD would do substituted for POW on Dec, 10, 41?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by alecsandros » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:02 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
I'm a little comfused, because what you outline here resulting in POW still getting sunk is close to what the American BBs had in the Solomons with weaker flak or probably equal flak to POW. How would you say NC or SD would do substituted for POW on Dec, 10, 41?
:D

There were to many torpedo bombers there...

I would expect SD or NC to destroy or severely damage a good number of attackers, as their real shootings were much better than the one provided by Prince of Wales (IIRC, the PoW 2-pdr also experienced ammo problems, while the 5.25" did not have proper radar guidance, leaving practicaly no AA weapon system funcitonal on board...)

However, 85-100 elite torpedo planes... it's a bit to much for the AA defense of either task force, IMO.

IF , on the other hand, we would have South Dakota AND NOrth Carolina (both with late-1942 armament) along with, say, 4 US modern CAs and 10 modern DDs... I would put my money on the battleships...

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:57 pm

alecsandros wrote:(IIRC, the PoW 2-pdr also experienced ammo problems, while the 5.25" did not have proper radar guidance, leaving practicaly no AA weapon system funcitonal on board...)
...
The accounts seem to indicate that AA Officer Kempson was relying on optical range finding for the 5.25s. Nonetheless, it appears that NC also had problems with fire control for its heavy flak as you wrote above. Additionally, it had no 40mm weaponary at the time.
[from the action report:
The North Carolina fired 841 rounds of 5-inch (127 mm) shells, 1037 rounds of 1.1-inch ammunition, 7425 rounds of 20-mm shells, and 8641 rounds of .50 caliber machine gun bullets during the attack.[15] The gunners of her 5-inch antiaircraft guns "...estimated that the rate of fire exceeded 17 rounds per minute on all guns...", but they reported that vibrations hampered their optical range-finding and that the Mark 4 FD radar had difficulty acquiring targets]
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 751
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

POW AA performance

Post by Thorsten Wahl » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:21 pm

POW

as far as I remember correct Thomas Middelbrook in his book Battleships mentioned that flooding along the shafts also cause problems with power supply. Therfor some guns lost theire electrical assisted directing abilities.

Additional some of the mountings became sluggish/immobile due to the list (beeing around 12-15 degrees) of the ship.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7593
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by RF » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:33 pm

alecsandros wrote: IF , on the other hand, we would have South Dakota AND NOrth Carolina (both with late-1942 armament) along with, say, 4 US modern CAs and 10 modern DDs... I would put my money on the battleships...
But then of course we have an entirely different scenario. It would be rather like replaying the 8 December 1914 Battle of the Falklands battle with the twins from WW2 in place of von Spees' two armoured cruisers.... or perhaps even the WW2 Hipper and Prinz Eugen.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by dunmunro » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:52 pm

Even in the last level bomber attack, PoW managed to damage 5 of 8 IJN bombers, even though she only had about 4 x 5.25" guns still functioning. Middlebrook P250) actually quotes from directly the IJN Official history (p478):

"...Consider just the Takeda Squadron of 8 aircraft which bombed last, when PoW had already reduced speed to about 6 knots and was sinking. 5 of Takeda's aircraft were hit."

ede144
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by ede144 » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:20 pm

Even two Hippers would give the RN a hard time. The Twins or two Deutschland's would sink the RN ships available.
Regards
Ede

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7593
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by RF » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:18 am

Basically that was my point!
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by alecsandros » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:06 pm

RF wrote:Basically that was my point!
I don't understand.
HOw would 2 Hippers sink Repulse + PoW + 4 DDs ?

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7593
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by RF » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:49 pm

I didn't actually suggest that two Hipper class cruisers would sink Inflexible and Invincible, let alone POW+Repulse+4 destroyers!!!!

Perhaps you would like to reread my post above.....
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by alecsandros » Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:10 pm

AAaaa, Falklands 1914 :P

Djoser
Senior Member
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:45 am
Location: Key West Florida USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Djoser » Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:57 am

alecsandros wrote:
However, 85-100 elite torpedo planes... it's a bit to much for the AA defense of either task force, IMO.

IF , on the other hand, we would have South Dakota AND NOrth Carolina (both with late-1942 armament) along with, say, 4 US modern CAs and 10 modern DDs... I would put my money on the battleships...
Maybe I am mistaken, but herein lies the misunderstanding, I believe. I think Alecsandros meant 'modern' as in newly commissioned around '41 or '42, as opposed to the 30's era CAs and DDs, and not 'modern' as in warships from our 'modern' area. Thus the confusion with the Falklands being refought with opponents from the next generation of warships. He is not proposing a science fiction 'time warp ships from the future' scenario.

I'm still thinking that 85-100 elite torpedo planes would do some serious damage against a late '41/'42 US BB task force as described (and understood by me), though probably at extremely heavy cost.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by alecsandros » Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:39 am

@Djoser
Thank you!

That's exactly what I meant.

I didn't even understand the misunderstanding until now :)

I was thinking about some Wichitas/Baltimores and heavy US DDs around SD and NC.

Given that the Japanese attack occured in several waves, my opinion is that the concentration of flak batteries would overwhelm the attackers, and, allthough some damage may be suffered by the US forces, I don't think any BB would be sunk...

cimmee
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Taranto.

Post by cimmee » Sun Dec 09, 2012 2:12 am

pg55555 wrote:.

I cannot speak for other navies, but the RN appreciated it had weak AA defences in the late-30s and started programmes such as the AA cruiser conversions, AA upgrades on battleships and cruisers and even the Didos.

What the problem was was the vast re-armament programme had many other priorities. What really woke the RN up was the Norwegian campaign, when dive bombers in particular - this led to emergency fitting of what LIMITED guns were available.

The real problem from then on was the availability of oerlikons and bofors to fit - the army lost vast amounts of equipment in France and needed re-equipping, and the RAF grew hugely, let alone the vast effort for the U-Boat war. There was going to be a vast input of guns from the US, but once Pearl Harbor occurred the promises evaporated.

Eventually the oerlikons were produced in reasonably numbers in the UK and Canada, but the dribble of bofors which were spared from the UK production really wasn't sufficient.

.
Common sense...

Post Reply