Jump to content


Photo

Battleships At D-Day

close in fire

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#41 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,854 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1534 PM

Point du Hoc was a CD battery? I thought the old-ish French 155mm guns were for shelling neighbouring beaches.
  • 0

#42 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 15 June 2019 - 1929 PM

what is the best book on D-Day naval operations?

clearly I need to brush up

This might help Tim,

​TROOPS%20LANDED%20D%20DAY%20MAP.jpg


  • 0

#43 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0131 AM

Point du Hoc was a CD battery? I thought the old-ish French 155mm guns were for shelling neighbouring beaches.

 

Please remember that guns very much like the 155mm French guns, that is 155 mm GPF mle 1917, had very recently been used by the US on the Panama mount.  A range of 21,000yds combined with decent SAP rounds and effective range finding and directors would have made those guns a risk to destroyers, monitors (British, not US) and cruisers, if not to battleships.  Six 155mm guns at Point du Hoc basically being as effective as three 6" cruisers.


  • 0

#44 Delta tank 6

Delta tank 6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 859 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pennsylvania, USA
  • Interests:Tanks, armored vehicles, World War II history, rifle shooting, hunting.

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0626 AM

Point du Hoc was a CD battery? I thought the old-ish French 155mm guns were for shelling neighbouring beaches.

 
Please remember that guns very much like the 155mm French guns, that is 155 mm GPF mle 1917, had very recently been used by the US on the Panama mount.  A range of 21,000yds combined with decent SAP rounds and effective range finding and directors would have made those guns a risk to destroyers, monitors (British, not US) and cruisers, if not to battleships.  Six 155mm guns at Point du Hoc basically being as effective as three 6" cruisers.

How does one calculate that six 155mm ground mounted guns is the equivalent to three 6” cruisers (18-45 guns depending on class)? I have always read that it was the other way, something like one light cruiser is the equivalent to 3 battalions of 155mm guns or some such. But, is there a mathematical formula dealing with all this?

Mike
  • 0

#45 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,854 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0641 AM


Point du Hoc was a CD battery? I thought the old-ish French 155mm guns were for shelling neighbouring beaches.

 
Please remember that guns very much like the 155mm French guns, that is 155 mm GPF mle 1917, had very recently been used by the US on the Panama mount.  A range of 21,000yds combined with decent SAP rounds and effective range finding and directors would have made those guns a risk to destroyers, monitors (British, not US) and cruisers, if not to battleships.  Six 155mm guns at Point du Hoc basically being as effective as three 6" cruisers.

If you have the mounts and fire control equipment but I think this battery didn't have that because it was intended to be an anti invasion battery.
  • 0

#46 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1249 PM

 

 

Point du Hoc was a CD battery? I thought the old-ish French 155mm guns were for shelling neighbouring beaches.

 
Please remember that guns very much like the 155mm French guns, that is 155 mm GPF mle 1917, had very recently been used by the US on the Panama mount.  A range of 21,000yds combined with decent SAP rounds and effective range finding and directors would have made those guns a risk to destroyers, monitors (British, not US) and cruisers, if not to battleships.  Six 155mm guns at Point du Hoc basically being as effective as three 6" cruisers.

If you have the mounts and fire control equipment but I think this battery didn't have that because it was intended to be an anti invasion battery.

 

 

No. Pointe du Hoc was 2./.H.K.A.-Abtl. 1260, a coast defense battery organized by the Heer. Longues sur Mer was a battery of M.A.A. 260, a coast defense battery organized by the Kriegsmarine. Both were equipped with mounts and fire control for engaging vessels at sea with direct fire, albeit different mounts and fire control to fit each services doctrine.

 

The "anti invasion" batteries, i.e., those intended to engage the troops once landed on the shore with indirect fire, were the artillery batteries of the divisions occupying the defenses, such as those of Artillerie-Regiment 352. and 1716.

 

Then there were the anti-boat and anti-tank batteries in the beach emplacements, mostly sited to fire in enfilade, such as the 8.8cm in WN62 and WN72, various 7.5cm field guns (Belgian and French types predominately), and redundant 5cm tank guns.


  • 0

#47 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1251 PM

 

what is the best book on D-Day naval operations?

clearly I need to brush up

This might help Tim,

​TROOPS%20LANDED%20D%20DAY%20MAP.jpg

 

 

Quelle horreurs! That cannot be true since Gary Stine knows that nobody knew the Maisy battery existed... :D


  • 0

#48 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1636 PM

 

 

Point du Hoc was a CD battery? I thought the old-ish French 155mm guns were for shelling neighbouring beaches.

 
Please remember that guns very much like the 155mm French guns, that is 155 mm GPF mle 1917, had very recently been used by the US on the Panama mount.  A range of 21,000yds combined with decent SAP rounds and effective range finding and directors would have made those guns a risk to destroyers, monitors (British, not US) and cruisers, if not to battleships.  Six 155mm guns at Point du Hoc basically being as effective as three 6" cruisers.

How does one calculate that six 155mm ground mounted guns is the equivalent to three 6” cruisers (18-45 guns depending on class)? I have always read that it was the other way, something like one light cruiser is the equivalent to 3 battalions of 155mm guns or some such. But, is there a mathematical formula dealing with all this?

Mike

 

I do not think that there is any particular mathematics to it, but a recognition that a properly emplaced coastal defence battery is small and harder to hit (actually harder to even see) than a ship at sea  (a ship can be put out of action by hits anywhere, but a coastal defence weapon really needs a direct hit, or more), is a tougher target as protection is not limited by weight and that they are more accurate because of better fire control and because they are stationary and not moving on three axis.

 

The Dardanelles campaign is instructive, and shows the capability of coastal guns particularly when combined with minefields.

 

In the late 1880s the Royal Navy conducted tests of battleship fire against coastal forts, which showed that, at that time, coastal forts, that were not even firing back, were very difficult targets to hit and even harder to knock out.  It must be accepted though that fire control was at best rudimentary and at worst non existent, and that some tests were by RML guns.   Later tests against emplacements equipped with heavy HP (hydro-pneumatic - disappearing - guns) showed that hits were few and damage was minimal to the guns, the fortifications and to the dummy figures set up to gauge casualties.  Once again, this is without the forts firing back.


Edited by DougRichards, 17 June 2019 - 0142 AM.

  • 0

#49 Adam Peter

Adam Peter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sopron, Hungary
  • Interests:history, music

Posted 16 June 2019 - 1645 PM

Not the best topic (but found nothing over there the history forum), and Arte got not the best review over there among the tanks, but maybe interesting piece of D-day history: Cyclonic Bomb - How an Irish weather forecast won WWII


  • 0

#50 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,728 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1203 PM

Pointe du Hoc was unfinished, and only had two gun casemate type bunkers near completion. It was exposed and subjected to a lot of bombing prior to D-Dy and that caused the Germans to remove the guns to the rear.

 

There were other CD shore batteries north of Utah Area, and one of them, the Crisbecq battery of Army Coastal Battalion 1261, located near  Saint-Marcouf fired effectively on D-day with its four 210mm Skoda guns, sinking destroyer USS Corry at 0630. But the three US battleships began to hit this battery starting at 0800 and silenced it initially in an hour. One gun only faced Utah and kept firing on the beach from 1100 onward. This battery was well defended by ground troops and was only taken by 4th I.D. on 11 June. 

300px-Crisbecq_battery.jpg

 

The USN histories recorded Corry's loss to a torpedo or mine. I'm not sure they have ever revised this.

 

German CD doctrine emphasized the defense of ports, so the heaviest works were not to be found at the D-day beaches and surrounding zone.


  • 0

#51 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:World War II history. Crime and action novels

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1641 PM

I hadn't realized the Sword beach guns weren't neutralized.  Any idea why they'd been able to stay in action?

I would have expected the RN to be better than the USN at ship to shore bombardment in 1944 ETO.

 

Why would you expect the RN to be better than the USN at shore bombardment ?

 

The USN had much more experience in amphibious support in World War II with landings not only in Africa and the Med, but also the PTO. 


  • 0

#52 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,854 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1714 PM

The RN did a lot of that during the Great War, retained quite a lot of monitors and put them to use.
  • 0

#53 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1936 PM

 

I hadn't realized the Sword beach guns weren't neutralized.  Any idea why they'd been able to stay in action?

I would have expected the RN to be better than the USN at ship to shore bombardment in 1944 ETO.

 

Why would you expect the RN to be better than the USN at shore bombardment ?

 

The USN had much more experience in amphibious support in World War II with landings not only in Africa and the Med, but also the PTO. 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm traveling and giving abbreviated and confusing replies. The coastal guns that gave SWORD such problems were along the coast east of the Orne at Cabourg, Houlgate, and Le Havre. Counterbattery suppressed them periodically, but the threat of the heavy batteries at Le Havre and the human torpedoes created such a problem that it was eventually decided to abandon unloading across the beach there.

 

Interestingly, postwar it was discovered the Germans analyzed the counterbattery effectiveness of the allies vis a vis their own gunhouse designs and, counter-intuitively, found that it was the enclosed bunkers that were most problematic and the simple, open "kettle" positions (similar to fixed Panama mount positions) that were most survivable. The problem was that the embrasures of the covered positions acted as funnels, rounds impacting the glacis or front tended to ricochet into the gun houses with devastating effect - a prime example was the Crisbecq battery at Marcouf, when two of the three 21cm guns were knocked out by single hits from Nevada. The open pits though were very hard to cripple, since ricochets tended to skip over and explode far from the position...so long as the gun crew shelters were intact they could be re-manned. It took a rare direct hit by sustained bombardment or bombing to take them out.


  • 0

#54 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 17 June 2019 - 2029 PM

 

 

I hadn't realized the Sword beach guns weren't neutralized.  Any idea why they'd been able to stay in action?

I would have expected the RN to be better than the USN at ship to shore bombardment in 1944 ETO.

 

Why would you expect the RN to be better than the USN at shore bombardment ?

 

The USN had much more experience in amphibious support in World War II with landings not only in Africa and the Med, but also the PTO. 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm traveling and giving abbreviated and confusing replies. The coastal guns that gave SWORD such problems were along the coast east of the Orne at Cabourg, Houlgate, and Le Havre. Counterbattery suppressed them periodically, but the threat of the heavy batteries at Le Havre and the human torpedoes created such a problem that it was eventually decided to abandon unloading across the beach there.

 

Interestingly, postwar it was discovered the Germans analyzed the counterbattery effectiveness of the allies vis a vis their own gunhouse designs and, counter-intuitively, found that it was the enclosed bunkers that were most problematic and the simple, open "kettle" positions (similar to fixed Panama mount positions) that were most survivable. The problem was that the embrasures of the covered positions acted as funnels, rounds impacting the glacis or front tended to ricochet into the gun houses with devastating effect - a prime example was the Crisbecq battery at Marcouf, when two of the three 21cm guns were knocked out by single hits from Nevada. The open pits though were very hard to cripple, since ricochets tended to skip over and explode far from the position...so long as the gun crew shelters were intact they could be re-manned. It took a rare direct hit by sustained bombardment or bombing to take them out.

 

 

Those open positions would be more vulnerable to air attack, wouldn't they?


  • 0

#55 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 17 June 2019 - 2058 PM

Or VT fuzes or timed air bursts. But, does Naval Artillery HAVE air burst? 


  • 0

#56 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,423 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 17 June 2019 - 2151 PM

Or VT fuzes or timed air bursts. But, does Naval Artillery HAVE air burst? 

 

The BB main guns were fused point detonating or mechanical time for HC rounds, difficult to do again when the graze would likely activate the PD fuse too soon. Ditto for the base detonating fuse used in the bombardment round detonated too late. The kettle emplacement for the 155mm GPF was only around 50 feet in diameter, so a tiny target. Guns also turn out to be fairly resistant to blast damage, although fragments can damage recoil mechanisms and sights...but the burst still needed to be inside the kettle. Eventually many of the positions were put out of action, but it took a lot of time and effort.


  • 0

#57 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 18 June 2019 - 0038 AM

The RN did a lot of that during the Great War, retained quite a lot of monitors and put them to use.

 

Actually built a couple of new monitors.

 

But the USN certainly had lots of experience in the Pacific.


  • 0

#58 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,094 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 18 June 2019 - 0041 AM

 

 

I hadn't realized the Sword beach guns weren't neutralized.  Any idea why they'd been able to stay in action?

I would have expected the RN to be better than the USN at ship to shore bombardment in 1944 ETO.

 

Why would you expect the RN to be better than the USN at shore bombardment ?

 

The USN had much more experience in amphibious support in World War II with landings not only in Africa and the Med, but also the PTO. 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm traveling and giving abbreviated and confusing replies. The coastal guns that gave SWORD such problems were along the coast east of the Orne at Cabourg, Houlgate, and Le Havre. Counterbattery suppressed them periodically, but the threat of the heavy batteries at Le Havre and the human torpedoes created such a problem that it was eventually decided to abandon unloading across the beach there.

 

Interestingly, postwar it was discovered the Germans analyzed the counterbattery effectiveness of the allies vis a vis their own gunhouse designs and, counter-intuitively, found that it was the enclosed bunkers that were most problematic and the simple, open "kettle" positions (similar to fixed Panama mount positions) that were most survivable. The problem was that the embrasures of the covered positions acted as funnels, rounds impacting the glacis or front tended to ricochet into the gun houses with devastating effect - a prime example was the Crisbecq battery at Marcouf, when two of the three 21cm guns were knocked out by single hits from Nevada. The open pits though were very hard to cripple, since ricochets tended to skip over and explode far from the position...so long as the gun crew shelters were intact they could be re-manned. It took a rare direct hit by sustained bombardment or bombing to take them out.

 

 

Germany copied the Panama mount, then built a mobile version, which was copied for the US M1 155mm as the Kelly Mount


  • 0

#59 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa

Posted 18 June 2019 - 1204 PM

The sinking of the USS Corry, http://www.uss-corry...-day_photos.htm
  • 0

#60 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,728 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 19 June 2019 - 0856 AM

https://en.wikipedia...inking_of_Corry

Discrepancy over the sinking of Corry

The official loss of ship report for Corry states that at 06:33 she hit a mine, which was said to have exploded below her engineering spaces.[4]Initial reports by the commanding officer, however, state that Corry was sunk by a salvo of heavy caliber projectiles which detonated amidships below the water level in the engineering spaces and caused the breaking in half and sinking of the vessel.[5] German reports also state that the Saint Marcouf (Crisbecq) battery commanded by Walter Ohmsen, located 1 12 miles (2.4 km) inland, with its three 210-millimeter (8.25 in) guns scored a direct hit on an American warship at approximately H-Hour (0630), causing its sinking. The warship was initially believed to be a light cruiser (due to Corry's silhouette resembling that of a light cruiser at a distance).[6] About two weeks after D-Day, a detailed report stating that heavy artillery fire had sunk Corry was about to be submitted as the official loss of ship report, but it was suddenly scrapped and rewritten stating that Corry had struck a mine. No officers or crew were consulted for input on the rewrite of the report. This final official loss report for Corry stated on its last page that shelling received simultaneously with the proposed mine resulted in "merely incidental damage".

 


Edited by Ken Estes, 19 June 2019 - 0857 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users