Jump to content


Photo

Effectiveness Of Straffing Aircraft Against Ships


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#141 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,064 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 0817 AM

Only because the pen can be used to plot artillery fires.

 

Good one!


  • 0

#142 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,085 posts

Posted 04 July 2019 - 1036 AM

Given how data bit rot or worse, some badly executed scripts or delete command can make things go.... I'm rather enamored with hard copy backups or at least a backup scheme that's off site and immune to idiots with too much access.

We had a rather bad scare this past week where someone trying to deal with untagged virtuals (and thus no departmental accounting) managed to delete EVERY single virtual in our AWS environment.

 

I'm unware of anything being permanently lost electronically, despite the best efforts of one individual who will remain nameless and is currently suspended pending a disciplinary. In paper days, we had clerks who had their own unique ways of misfiling (letter substitutions etc.) that the other clerks were aware of and helped them find the misfiled notes in an ocean of paper. A (>20x larger) sister health board decided to put a good chunk of their paper records in a basement, pending scanning. It won't surprise you that the basement promptly flooded. Many of the records were declared irretrievable. It's unusual, even here, for a filing clerk to require a commercial diving qualification to do their job. 


  • 0

#143 Delta tank 6

Delta tank 6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 861 posts

Posted 14 January 2020 - 1557 PM

Since spelling has been a tangent on this thread, Admiral Thomas C. Kinkaid is spelled with a k not a c.

​

​I read about 5 pages of this thread and nobody blamed MacArthur for this debacle off Samar.  That is refreshing!

​

​Mike

 

 

 


  • 0

#144 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 711 posts

Posted Today, 02:35 AM

How good will https://en.wikipedia...45_aircraft_gunthis be? Can it crippel or sink real warships? Like a Destroyer.


  • 0

#145 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,351 posts

Posted Today, 03:08 AM

How good will https://en.wikipedia...45_aircraft_gunthis be? Can it crippel or sink real warships? Like a Destroyer.

The Swedes probably borrowed the idea from the Mosquito tsetse, as the Swedes recovered the bodies of German warship crew sunk by Mosquitos using the 57mm Mollins gun.

 

wiki

 

Another fighter-bomber variant was the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII (sometimes known as the Tsetse) of which one was converted from a FB Mk VI to serve as prototype and 17 were purpose-built. The Mk XVIII was armed with a Molins "6-pounder Class M" cannon: this was a modified QF 6-pounder (57 mm) anti-tank gun fitted with an auto-loader to allow both semi- or fully automatic fire.[nb 23] 25 rounds were carried, with the entire installation weighing 1,580 lb (720 kg).[142] In addition, 900 lb (410 kg) of armour was added within the engine cowlings, around the nose and under the cockpit floor to protect the engines and crew from heavily armed U-boats, the intended primary target of the Mk XVIII.[179] Two or four .303 (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns were retained in the nose and were used to "sight" the main weapon onto the target.[142]

 

The Air Ministry initially suspected that this variant would not work, but tests proved otherwise. Although the gun provided the Mosquito with yet more anti-shipping firepower for use against U-boats, it required a steady approach run to aim and fire the gun, making its wooden construction an even greater liability, in the face of intense anti-aircraft fire. The gun had a muzzle velocity of 2,950 ft/s (900 m/s)[142] and an excellent range of some 1,800–1,500 yards (1,600–1,400 metres). It was sensitive to sidewards movement; an attack required a dive from 5,000 ft (1,500 m) at a 30° angle with the turn and bank indicator on centre. A move during the dive could jam the gun.[180] The prototype HJ732 was converted from a FB.VI and was first flown on 8 June 1943.[142]

 

The effect of the new weapon was demonstrated on 10 March 1944 when Mk XVIIIs from 248 Squadron (escorted by four Mk VIs) engaged a German convoy of one U-boat and four destroyers, protected by 10 Ju 88s. Three of the Ju 88s were shot down. Pilot Tony Phillips destroyed one Ju 88 with four shells, one of which tore an engine off the Ju 88. The U-boat was damaged. On 25 March, U-976 was sunk by Molins-equipped Mosquitos.[181] On 10 June, U-821 was abandoned in the face of intense air attack from No. 248 Squadron, and was later sunk by a Liberator of No. 206 Squadron.[182] On 5 April 1945 Mosquitos with Molins attacked five German surface ships in the Kattegat and again demonstrated their value by setting them all on fire and sinking them.[183][184] A German Sperrbrecher ("minefield breaker") was lost with all hands, with some 200 bodies being recovered by Swedish vessels.[183] Some 900 German soldiers died in total.[183] On 9 April, German U-boats U-804, U-843 and U-1065 were spotted in formation heading for Norway. All were sunk with rockets.[183][185]U-251 and U-2359 followed on 19 April and 2 May 1945, also sunk by rockets.[186]

 

 

 

So probably one Swedish aircraft with a 57mm gun may have had a good chance of damaging a destroyer, a flight of such aircraft would have a very good chance.


  • 0

#146 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,348 posts

Posted Today, 03:10 AM

In the article, it mentioned old, armored boats. Did these old, armored boats fire back?, maneuver much? Damage control parties on board? The whole article reads like a Bofors advertisement; '...the 57 mm was the perfect replacement for the torpedo."  :blink: Ask any sailor which is worse, a 2 1/4 inch wide, 6 pound shell or an 18" wide, 400+ pound warhead.


  • 0

#147 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,351 posts

Posted Today, 06:07 AM

In the article, it mentioned old, armored boats. Did these old, armored boats fire back?, maneuver much? Damage control parties on board? The whole article reads like a Bofors advertisement; '...the 57 mm was the perfect replacement for the torpedo."  :blink: Ask any sailor which is worse, a 2 1/4 inch wide, 6 pound shell or an 18" wide, 400+ pound warhead.

And these seem to be the only ships that fit into both the category and the timeframe

 

https://en.wikipedia...ki/HSwMS_Fylgia


  • 0