Force Z

[dunmunro]

I'm reading it now, but it's pretty bad. The author just repeats the litany of KGV class criticisms with little in the way of comparative analysis or reference to primary documents. One example; he complains about the KGV class being wet forward and in the nearly the same breath compares them unfavourably to the SoDak class! Of course we now know that the SoDaks were probably the worst seaboats of any modern battleship class, and would have been quite unable to function in two of the three surface engagements fought by KGV class battleships due to their poor seakeeping, quite aside from the fact that they were a good 2-3 knots slower.

It's kinda like reading Tarrant and G&D's Allied Battleships all rolled into one.

[KevinD]

Hi Dm,

Will be interested on your take when finished. I read it within a week or so of its publication and was rather underwhelmed, although I did learn a few new things about 'Tom Thumb', who I (did and still) think has been harshly judged by history and various 'armchair admirals' (although Phillips certainly did make some mistakes, that for sure, but.................)

Anyway rather than rewrite my opinion on certain segments of the book I will reprint here something I posted on another forum recently.

>>>>>The only book I am aware of being published 'concerning’ Force Z since our 2007 survey and subsequent analyses (Death of a Battleship by Garzke / Dulin / Denlay) is Scapegoat, authored by Martin Stephens, and although listing the above in the Biblio (but making a hash of the title, which should have rung alarm bells right then), and also referring to our actual wreck survey in the text, made a complete hash of interpreting what little he incorporated in his book from them.

I guess old habits die hard, as as I said, he refers to 'the latest survey' seemingly in the positive (and told me in an email he was glad he had become aware of it before publication), but then proceeds to apparently take no notice of it, and disappointingly falls back on the perennial (with regards PoW) “two torpedo hits to port, four to starboard” in the actual text throughout what little is in the book concerning the action. (As we now know, and is clearly stated / shown in the survey and subsequent survey analyses, it was one to port, three to starboard.)

However, in the three diagrams he uses to show the critical parts of action, which are simply direct (hence out-of date and incorrect with regards the first torpedo attack on PoW) copies from his earlier (1991) book Sea Battles in Close Up: World War 2; edited by Eric Grove (Chap. 5, The Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse), he actually shows three hits to port and states in the diagram ‘PoW hit by 2 or 3 torpedoes’. And then in the diagram for the starboard hits he shows only three hits and states ‘3 torpedo hits’, yet writes four in the books text. So seems he couldn’t be bothered updating even those to coincide / match what he (incorrectly) wrote in the books text.

Unfortunately, much worse is that he somehow completely misconstrues our detailed report of the outer port prop shaft separating at all but one of its flanges, and destroying the BULKHEADS along the shaft passage (with photos that cannot be misinterpreted - see http://www.rina.org.uk/hres/Death%20of% ... update.pdf), as ‘tearing a hole in the HULL (from the A Bracket) all the way to the engine room’! In the hull?!?!?!? All the way to the engine room?!?!?!? Really!!!!!

So, very disappointing (to me) to see this latest book, with access to the latest info on the wreck (and the actual number of torp hits) again parroting the out of date info, and getting what little of the new info he used very very wrong.<<<<<<

[alecsandros]

...Let's add that British forces, and Prince of Wales included, had good experience in the Mediteranean convoy battles, and had been under attack by dive, level and torpedo bombers numerous times (even if not directly under attack)

The results of the Italian level and torpedo bombers (very poor) may have influenced Phillips in his expectations - that his ships would escape a possible air attack even without air cover.

[RF]

The results of the Italian level and torpedo bombers (very poor) may have influenced Phillips in his expectations - that his ships would escape a possible air attack even without air cover.

Given that most participants in WW2 didn't regard the forces of Fascist Italy as being the most lethal or effective combatants, Philips should have benefitted from his involvement in the Bismarck operations, in that the ship was crippled by one torpedo hit from an obsolete bi-plane, should he not?

[aurora]

Posted by RF
"Given that most participants in WW2 didn't regard the forces of Fascist Italy as being the most lethal or effective combatants, Philips should have benefitted from his involvement in the Bismarck operations, in that the ship was crippled by one torpedo hit from an obsolete bi-plane, should he not?"

Indeed he should- but the very nature of the man- made him such that he could not "change his spots" and give such facts credence- even when all was lost.

aurora

[alecsandros]

The results of the Italian level and torpedo bombers (very poor) may have influenced Phillips in his expectations - that his ships would escape a possible air attack even without air cover.

Given that most participants in WW2 didn't regard the forces of Fascist Italy as being the most lethal or effective combatants, Philips should have benefitted from his involvement in the Bismarck operations, in that the ship was crippled by one torpedo hit from an obsolete bi-plane, should he not?

... Perhaps,
At the same time, Phillips knew that Bismarck succumbed to cumulative damage from Prince of Wales (speed reduction), then 1 torpedo hit from Victorious (speed reduction), and ultimately 2 more torpedo hits (one crippling) from Ark Royal. Bismarck was alone, her crew un-trained in torpedo-bomber AA duties, did not carry a complete AA equipment or armament, and even if it did , that would represent about 1/4 of the AA armament on board Prince of Wales, not to mention Repulse.

In March 1942, Tirpitz, with a complete AA suite (slightly larger than Bismarck 10 months before), fully worked up and trained crew, successfully defended herself against 18 Albacores launched from Victorious (6 recon + 12 actualy armed with torpedoes), off Lofotten islands, destroying 2 and damaging at least 3 more.

[RF]

At the same time, Phillips knew that......... her crew un-trained in torpedo-bomber AA duties, did not carry a complete AA equipment or armament, and even if it did , that would represent about 1/4 of the AA armament on board Prince of Wales, not to mention Repulse.

He wouldn't have known any of that, he would have to assume Bismarck was as fully operational in its aircraft defence as it was in quickly despatching a battle cruiser whilst at the same time being fired on by POW.

[Francis Marliere]

Agreed the Buffalos were similarly armed to the Wildcat, but had comparatively worse performance (speed, climb, range).

No offense Alecsandros, but I don't think that is true.In level speed Buffalos and Wildcat were roughly equals and the Brewster fighter had better climb rate and range than the Grumman one.

Best,

Francis

[Francis Marliere]

Given that most participants in WW2 didn't regard the forces of Fascist Italy as being the most lethal or effective combatants, Philips should have benefitted from his involvement in the Bismarck operations, in that the ship was crippled by one torpedo hit from an obsolete bi-plane, should he not?

RF, sorry if I was not clear. I did not mean that Admiral Philipps was not afraid of torpedo bombers. He was aware that they could be dangerous. He, as every non Japanese admiral in the world at this time, did not know that Japanese bombers could attack with a torpedo at such a long range. Hence he expected that the Japanese planes would perform ineffective high altitude level boming.

[alecsandros]

At the same time, Phillips knew that......... her crew un-trained in torpedo-bomber AA duties, did not carry a complete AA equipment or armament, and even if it did , that would represent about 1/4 of the AA armament on board Prince of Wales, not to mention Repulse.

He wouldn't have known any of that, he would have to assume Bismarck was as fully operational in its aircraft defence as it was in quickly despatching a battle cruiser whilst at the same time being fired on by POW.

... He knew all of that, based on the interogation of BIsmarck survivors , May - June 1941.

[alecsandros]

Agreed the Buffalos were similarly armed to the Wildcat, but had comparatively worse performance (speed, climb, range).

No offense Alecsandros, but I don't think that is true.In level speed Buffalos and Wildcat were roughly equals and the Brewster fighter had better climb rate and range than the Grumman one.

Best,

Francis

... Buffallo F3A3 / Wildcat F4F3

Speed at 0m: 457km/h || 519km/h
Rate of climb 0 - 10,000ft: 700m/minute || 940 meters/minute
Service Ceiling: 10100m || 11500m

Data from :
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/brewster/f2a-3.htm;

[Francis Marliere]

... Buffallo F3A3 / Wildcat F4F3

Speed at 0m: 457km/h || 519km/h
Rate of climb 0 - 10,000ft: 700m/minute || 940 meters/minute
Service Ceiling: 10100m || 11500m

Data from :
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4f/f4f.html
http://www.aero-web.org/specs/brewster/f2a-3.htm;

With respects, Alecsandros, that is not a proof.
It's very difficult to guess the "real" characteristics of a planes because there are many, many sources that show different numbers. You can compare two planes only if you use the same methodology (and even it's a dangerous and difficult task), otherwise it's comparing orange and apples.
Look at this website that shows official reports : http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/SAC.htm
You will see that F4F-3 is rated at 329 mph and 2450 fpm while F2A-2 is given 322 mph / 2760 fpm.
Note also that while the Wildcat turns better than the Buffalo (wing loading 29.1 lb / Sq in versus 31.3) but has less power (power loading of 7.6 lb / hp vs 7.3).
Hence the two planes are roughly in the same league, as far as main characteristics (level spedd, rate of climb, turn, etc.) are concerned. The Wildcat is of course a better warplane because of his stong construction and the weakness of the Buffalo's landing gear.

[alecsandros]

@Francis
The 453rd RAAF sq was issued the B-339E version of the Buffallo, which did not have the specifications of the F2A-2 that you posted.
The B-339 had a 1000hp engine and many were fitted with 7.7mm mgs instead of the original 12.7mm. Climb was 700m/minute and ceiling 10500m.
[the performance of the B-339E was very close to that of the late production model F2A3 that I have posted above]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F ... evelopment

[RF]

... He knew all of that, based on the interogation of BIsmarck survivors , May - June 1941.

I agree he would be aware of the German POW interrogations - but these (at that time) may not have been regarded as completely reliable as for the most part we are talking of ratings rather than officers, people with limited knowledge outside their own sphere of duties, people often keen to ingratiate with their interrogators by telling them what they think they want to hear, and if I was in Philips' shoes I would be very circumspect about their testimony without supporting evidence derived from elsewhere. There is the evidence of the DS battle (albeit aircraft not involved) and the universal motto of any commander - never underestimate your enemy.
But there again I wasn't there.

[Francis Marliere]

@Francis
The 453rd RAAF sq was issued the B-339E version of the Buffallo, which did not have the specifications of the F2A-2 that you posted.
The B-339 had a 1000hp engine and many were fitted with 7.7mm mgs instead of the original 12.7mm. Climb was 700m/minute and ceiling 10500m.
[the performance of the B-339E was very close to that of the late production model F2A3 that I have posted above]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_F ... evelopment

Alecs,

The B-339 was a degraded version of the Buffalo, but IMHO was still roughly in the same league as the Wildcat (speed 300-320 mph, climb 2300 fpm).
Note that the link you quote in your first message give a max speed of 516 kph, roughly the same as the F4F-3.
I think that the rate of climb for the F4F-3 (3300 fpm) is wrong. I guess the real value is close to 700 m / mn.
My point is that F2A has many drawbacks (weak landing gear, etc.) but as far as speed, climb, etc. are concerned, is not so inferior to the Wildcat.

Best,

Francis