Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
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 »

Dave Saxton wrote: I'm sure you understand that aircraft have to fly through several hot/kill zones to reach the primary target when several warships are arranged in an AA formation regardless of the effective range of their light AA. There's a big difference between fighting alone and fighting within a group.
That would be normal and logical.
The hystorical results , however , seem to point out that the Japanese fleet could not protect herself from enemy air attacks, either in groups or with individual ships. Battle of Samar comes to mind - with that great concentration of Japanese surface forces, under attack from warplanes coming from several US carriers. The sinking of the Yamato [which, allthough not a part of a very large group, was nevertheless escorted by 8 DDs and 1 CL, which had a good deal of AA weapons on board also], and others, indicate poor effectiveness of ship AA ...
This isn't very good light flak for 1942. The 1.1 were almost useless, and the 20mm Oelikon wasn't that effective, nor very accurate. As for .50cal MGs... well... POW probably had equal or superior flak capability in Dec 41.
Looking more into Friedman, I counted that:

- North Carolina fought very welll during the battle of Eastern Solomons.

[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]

- South Dakota yielded 57x20mm Oerlikons + 20 x 1.1" + 16 x 40mm Bofors by Oct 1942 (battle of Santa Cruz)
- of course, both had the additional radar-directed 20 x 127mm guns.
Last edited by alecsandros on Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Dave Saxton wrote:
This also doesn't compare well at all to TP in 42. The 20mm Oerlikon in no way compares to the German 20mm weapons. The effective range of the German 20mm weapons was at least 2,750 meters and it could accurately be put on target.
Well, yes, clearly the light AA defense of Tirpitz was good to very good. And I see now that, until mid-1942 at least, Tirpitz's flak battery was quite powerfull compared to her contemporaries. After that moment though, the US fast battleships got the lead...

And there are problems firing 20mm shells at targets beyond 1.5km, as time of flight is quite long, and the area of effect of the explosions is not large at all. Not to mention that the explosive charge isn't that big, and many late war planes could (and did) resist multiple light flak hits.
That's why most navies, American and Japanese included (but I don't know about the Germans ?), restricted the use of light AA flak at 1000m or less, because the expenditure of ammo was to great.

And , at 1000m or less, the ship is already under threat from aerial torpedoes, level bombing, and dive bombing.

That's why medium and heavy flak is required, IMO, and Tirpitz retained her initial design configuration of 16x37mm and 16x105mm throughout the war... I've always wondered why they didn't increase the number of 37mm mounts, especialy as it was evident that the British would make every effort to sink or cripple the battleship with air attacks...

[by comparison, in Fev 1943, BB South Dakota already possessed 68x40mm Bofors and 80x20mm Oerlikons...]
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton »

Wouldn't time of flight considerations also effect 37mm and 40mm?

The Germans probably didn't add more 37mm because the 20mm Vierling was proven more effective. They added more Vierlings wherever they could instead. The naval version of the 37mm had a very slow rate of fire, although it was fully stabilized and rather accurate. The land version of the same weapon had very good rate of fire by using (IIRC) 8 round clips. D Brown implies that some of the naval versions were eventually modified, and Tirpitz's, were modified to take the clips.

On Prinz Eugen they just replaced the 37mm with 40mm Bofers, which the German Navy also used extensively.

Tirpitz's 1944 AA performances really arn't that bad when one get looking at them in detail, and especially considering that not one Luftwaffe fighter ever helped defend it. The AA Wuerzburg conical scanning radar installed early 44 was a huge improvement late war, (Wuerzburg was the best AA radar in the world in 1944). FuMO26 could also be used to acquire, track, and target aircraft.
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.
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 »

Hi Dave,

I don't think the manually loaded 3,7cm Flak C/30 was ever successfully converted to using a clip or magazine. Instead, it was replaced on surviving ships with the 3,7cm KM42 or KM43 as they became available, or the 4cm Bofors. These were proper magazine or clip fed weapons. The KM42 was a longer barreled version of the Army and Luftwaffe 3,7cm Flak 36, while the KM43 was based on the successful Luftwaffe MK108. The ammunition used in the 3,7cm C30 was not, if I recall. interchangeble with the others.

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: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton »

Oh, this may be what Brown was alluding to.
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 »

Dave Saxton wrote:Wouldn't time of flight considerations also effect 37mm and 40mm?
Yes, they would; but they have larger explosion radius, thus giving more chances of actualy inflicting damage at medium range...
Tirpitz's 1944 AA performances really arn't that bad when one get looking at them in detail,
I don't think they were bad at all; especially during several raids in 1944, Tirpitz's flak brought down a good number of enemy planes, allthough firing through smoke...

Cheers,
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by dunmunro »

alecsandros wrote:

The 127mm guns at least were directed by the Mark1A computer...


The mark 1a was post war, NC used a mark 1.
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 »

dunmunro wrote:
alecsandros wrote:

The 127mm guns at least were directed by the Mark1A computer...


The mark 1a was post war, NC used a mark 1.
That's correct, thanks :ok:
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 »

Yes, they would; but they have larger explosion radius, thus giving more chances of actualy inflicting damage at medium range...
The 2cm and 3,7cm and 4cm explosive rounds were a hit or miss projectile--either you hit the target directly or you missed. Unlike the heavy flak, they did not have settable time fuzes to burst the shells in the area of the target should a direct hit not be made. They did have a self destruct mechanism to burst the shell after it had traversed its effective range zone so that it did not come down live. This self destruct was usually triggered at the end of the tracer burn, but could also be mechanically triggered in some fuzes by spin degradation.

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.
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 »

@Thomas,
From what I udnerstand, 40mm Bofors shells were set to self-destruct at 3000m by the British and 4000m by the Americans.
Giving the very dense volume, I would expect a "wall" of explosions at those ranges, very difficult to traverse by an incoming plane. Radius of explosion also helped...
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 »

The modern day 40mm Bofors round, which has a VT fuze is rated as having an effective radius against aircraft of about 6.5m, however this is with modern explosives and preformed fragmentation. The WW2 era 40mm and 3,7cm were much less powerful and probably would have had an effective radius of perhaps a two meters or so at best against aircraft. Their fuzes were contact only, so a miss was going to do no harm at all. Granted, a plane flying through a zone where shells were self destructing might suffer some damage, but the main potential would be psychological. It would be a daunting experience to fly through such a zone, even if the chances of receiving damage or wounds was minimal, and could well interfer with a pilot's aim as he closed the target. If your fire causes the enemy pilot to miss at the crucial point he releases his ordnance, then you have defeated him, albeit without the satisfaction of seeing him shot down.

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.
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 »

Yes, 2 meters is always what I imagined...

Additionaly to the 40mm "wall" of explosions, the attacking planes needed to avoid explosions from 20mm shells , and of course, trajectories from all shells fired...

It would be interesting to see a diagram with the density of AA volume, for various battleships... and for various ranges...
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Dave Saxton »

tommy303 wrote: but the main potential would be psychological. It would be a daunting experience to fly through such a zone, even if the chances of receiving damage or wounds was minimal, and could well interfer with a pilot's aim as he closed the target. If your fire causes the enemy pilot to miss at the crucial point he releases his ordnance, then you have defeated him, albeit without the satisfaction of seeing him shot down.


I'm glad you brought up the psychological factor. This was one of the things noted by Gunnery Officer McMullen when he reported about the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of POW's AA weapons after the sinking. He noted that tracer rounds from the 20mm weapons and the single 40mm Bofers caused several Japanese pilots to jink away although few rounds found the mark. He reccomended that all AA munitions be tracer rounds.

Among other things mentioned by McMullen:
Point 6. Due to lack of an AA destroyer or cruiser screen, fighter escort, and the determination and skill with which the enemy pressed home their attacks, it is doubtful if anything could have prevented torpedo bombers from achieving their object.
So how would POW had faired if it was part of a large intergrated AA formation? The POW's AA armament consisted of 16- 5.25" heavy flak with Type 285 radar ranging, six sets of 8 barrel 2 pounder (40mm) pom- poms, One 40mm Bofers gun on the quarter deck, and 8 (IIRC) -20mm Oerlikons. This isn't bad for late 1941 and one could say also better than most USN BBs in 42.
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 »

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...

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...

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.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Taranto Effect on Naval Warfare

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

The 2cm and 3,7cm and 4cm explosive rounds were a hit or miss projectile
the 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
Image
Attachments
MDV 700 Seekriegsanleitung, Teil 3 Waffentaktik, Heft c Luftverterteidigung1.jpg
(238.51 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Post Reply