Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby LWD » 13 Dec 2008 15:05

Kurfürst wrote: ...
Some more information from Hahn, regarding the rocket-assisted armored piercing anti shipping bomb of the Luftwaffe. These were based on the standard AP bomb designs, and received additional speed boost from an added rocket engine.
...

Were these in service during the period in question? Indeed were all the bombs on the previous list?

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 15:04
Location: Hungary

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby Kurfürst » 13 Dec 2008 15:39

LWD wrote:
Kurfürst wrote: ...
Some more information from Hahn, regarding the rocket-assisted armored piercing anti shipping bomb of the Luftwaffe. These were based on the standard AP bomb designs, and received additional speed boost from an added rocket engine.
...

Were these in service during the period in question? Indeed were all the bombs on the previous list?


Good question. I suppose at the very least, the smaller PC series were available at the start of the war, and the larger bombs are valid for the 1939-1941 period, but were perhaps later introduced? From what I gather, the extreme large sized bombs appeared shortly after the war started, in 1940 (ie. SC 2500 etc).

Reference for the SD 1000 series for example I can find in the June 1940 He 111 operating manual.

Looking at a transcript of the Luftwaffe's instructions from April 1940, describing what bombs are to be used against different types of targets, it mentions SD 500, 1000, 1400, SC 1000, 1800 (plus smaller SC/SD series bombs) and PC 1000 for specific land targets. I am not sure that the transsript is complete, as the notes also mention:

PC 500 RS
PC 1000 RS
PC 1400
SC 1700 (w improved penetration)
PC 1700

It would appear the Luftwaffe was generously provided with bomb types against 'hard' targets.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby LWD » 13 Dec 2008 15:54

Thanks for the info. And of course large HE bombs can be effective even if they can't penetrate armor. Sometimes near misses with such bombs can be worse than hits.

Kurfürst
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: 01 Apr 2005 15:04
Location: Hungary

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby Kurfürst » 13 Dec 2008 16:01

Your welcome. I just found some more bits in my archives, listing the monthly average 'consumption' of bombs types on the on the Eastern Front, between 22 June and 30 November 1941. I will some types only, relevant to the discussion.

Monthly avarage number of bombs dropped on the EF.

774 PC 1000s
56 PC 1400s and PC 1600s
47 SC 1800s

Monthly avarage between 1 December 1941 and 30 April 1942:

602 PC 1000s
14 PC 1400s and PC 1600s
54 SC 1800s.

The vast majority of course was normal sized bombs between 2 and 500 kg, typically of the 50 and 250 kg kind.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17478
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby phylo_roadking » 13 Dec 2008 17:41

Like I said, your general, agitated behaviour and wanton mishandling of the facts made me lost interest replying, or even reading your posts.
Please consider yourself ignored


Kurfurst - you openly and directly accused me in at least TWO places of doctoring the figures on LW bombing sorties in the Dunkirk area. You had the book in front of you I was taking the figures from, were able to confirm them for yourself as accurate, but STILL persisted in accusing me of misrepresenting what was down in print for all to see...even after I specifically drew your attention in writing to the EXACT location and nature of the figures.

So I provided the figures concerned, in a scan STRIAGHT from the book - and thus proved YOU were the one lying when you accused me of those actions. In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.

You, sir, committed libel and lied about my actions and I require a retraction. Don't think you can openly lie about someone and slander them and expect not to be shown as the real liar yourself. You were given every chance to correct your assertions and accusations about the data in Hooton's Phoenix triumphant, but CHOSE not to. Learn to loose a point of debate gracefully, rather than throw your toys out of your playpen AND make slanderous accusations.

panzerkrieg
Member
Posts: 364
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 06:00
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby panzerkrieg » 14 Dec 2008 00:42

the Luftwaffe flew one thousand one hundred and thirty-five sorties in the Dunkirk area between the 29th of May and the 1st of June. That averages out at 75.6 sorties per ship...81 per ship when you remember the RN sunk the Havant themselves. That's not actually a very impressive performance


but not all sorties were directed against ships plus we are only discussing warships
secondly fighter sorties are also included in the total [ am assuming] which dosent count

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17478
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby phylo_roadking » 14 Dec 2008 00:47

secondly fighter sorties are also included in the total [ am assuming] which dosent count


Panzerkrieg - if you care to examine the scan I posted of the table being discussed - you'll find the total does very clearly NOT include fighter sorties. The total of 1135 sorties is in the TWO columns marked "Bombers" and "Ju87" and ONLY for the four days during which RN destroyers were sunk. Ive even been so kind as to specifically highlight in colour the four days' bomber ONLY sorties I totalled.

If you actually examine the table you'll find that fighter sorties are accounted for in two completely separate columns to the right of the table. And that if you use pencil and paper or a calculator you'll find that fighter sorties for those four days are most specifically NOT included in the 1135 total.

Here is the section again for convenience if you have a calculator handy...

Image

...if you compare it with the FULL table I gave on page two of this thread you'll see it doesn't include fighter sorties.

panzerkrieg
Member
Posts: 364
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 06:00
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby panzerkrieg » 14 Dec 2008 00:58

sorry , but i guess the problem is that there is no scan showing up on my computer [even when u posted it again]....thats why i was confused

panzerkrieg
Member
Posts: 364
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 06:00
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby panzerkrieg » 14 Dec 2008 01:00

but i still think a better comparison wud be crete ...which was fight directly between luftwaffe and RN
and luftwaffe [as far as i know ] didnt interfere too much with evacuation of the ground troops on the beaches

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17478
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby phylo_roadking » 14 Dec 2008 01:14

The problem with Crete is I don't have a figure for Luftwaffe sorties flown "just" against the RN north of the island as distinct from those LATER flown against RN surface units during the evacuation from the south of the island - note the evacuation was done at night, and the RN ships attacked were caught in daylight as they steamed south-west away from Crete...and as distinct again from the LW sorties flown against Commonwealth forces actually ON Crete in the two weeks' immediately before the invasion, and the first three days of fighting there.

However - what Crete DID prove was that there were TWO contributing factors to RN vulnerability; and neither of them were down to the Luftwaffe...

1/ evacuation ships running short on AA munitions, or ships being tasked BACK into the LW's combat radius to protect the evacuation ships BEFORE they had time to replenish their AA munitions. This did for HMS Juno for example. This was force of circumstance; Cunningham freely admitted in his memoirs that this was a mistake, but he had had no option;

2/ Destroyers were severely unwieldy with the extra weight of 800-1000 men aboard. Although the RN moved evacuees belowdecks ASAP after leaving the beaches at Sphakia, to get them as far down towards the waterline as possible, the ships were heavily overloaded and still badly out of trim, and they couldn't rely on the high-speed manouvering that helped protect them against conventional bombs;

HOWEVER - where RN destroyers were well-stocked with AA ammunition and properly trimmed, Crete ALSO proved they were able to hold off air attack; this was also demonstrated off Norway in 1940, where the Resolution's battlegroup held off two days' intense air attacks at the cost of only one destroyer being sunk, and one hit on the Resolution's side armour that penetrated but only killed two marines and the minor damage was repaired by the ships' crew while the Resolution stayed on-station.

panzerkrieg
Member
Posts: 364
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 06:00
Location: USA

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby panzerkrieg » 14 Dec 2008 01:46

^ those are valid points IMHO add to this the weather over crete was probably much better than in north sea

however destroyers were probably overloaded in dunkirk as well

but how many sorties were launched against the resolution battlegroup ?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17478
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby phylo_roadking » 14 Dec 2008 02:06

however destroyers were probably overloaded in dunkirk as well


There were two other factors aiding the LW in DYNAMO; the first was the time that destroyers and other evacuation ships spent tied up in the inner harbours in the first couple of days of evacuation, then tied up to the Mole. The SECONd however was possibly more influential - there were only THREE routes through the minefields and shallows that the evacuation ships could take in and out of Dunkirk. Especially when loaded, vessels didn't have the room in the shallows when the tide was ebbing or flowing for violent manouvers.

how many sorties were launched against the resolution battlegroup ?


This I don't have a separate figure for; off Crete or off Dunkirk, the RN ships were only suffering attack for a few hours at any time before they could leave the combat zone or in the case of the Channel when not covered by fighters from Eleven Group in Kent. However, the attacks on the Resolution and its accompanying destoyers (Warspite's destroyer group; Resolution replaced Warspite on-station at Narvik on the 26th of April) are referred to in accounts as two days of "almost constant" attack.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17478
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby phylo_roadking » 14 Dec 2008 02:24

Still looking for figures for sorties around Narvik, but interestingly - on the 17th of April, the day the Suffolk raced in to bombard Stavanger-Sola, the LW had to fly eighty-two sorties to hit the Suffolk only TWICE...

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 3688
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby Urmel » 14 Dec 2008 11:33

panzerkrieg wrote:thanks for responses everyone
But by 1941 the luftwaffe crews must have had much practice in hitting ships esp. after norway and crete


It's not a question of experience, it is one of training. Many of the crews who flew in Norway or at Dunkirk would have been quite dead by 1941. Attrition means you can not rely on crew experience to grow, you need to make sure that you have some crews that are properly trained.

There's a reason why the Luftwaffe had pretty dedicated anti-shipping units.
The excellence of [German] forward repair and recovery organisation gives us a salutary lesson in this respect. 7 Armoured Division report, Sept. 1941

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle in the Desert 1941/42

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 3688
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Luftwaffe anti-shipping capability

Postby Urmel » 14 Dec 2008 17:09

Kurfürst wrote:During the Crete operations, on 21 May HMS Juno was sunk, and the next day battleship HMS Warspite was damaged and the cruiser HMS Gloucester was sunk with the loss of 45 officers and 648 ratings. The Ju 87s also crippled HMS Fiji that morning, (she was later finished off by Bf 109 fighter bombers) whilst destroying HMS Greyhound with a single hit. On 23 May the Royal Navy also lost HMS Kashmir, HMS Kelly sunk followed by HMS Hereward on the 26 May. HMS Orion and HMS Dido were also severely damaged. HMS Orion had been evacuating 1,100 soldiers to North Africa and lost 260 of them killed and another 280 wounded during the attacks.


Wikipedia wrote: On 21 May HMS Juno was sunk, and the next day battleship HMS Warspite was damaged and the cruiser HMS Gloucester was sunk with the loss of 45 officers and 648 ratings. The Ju 87s also crippled HMS Fiji that morning, (she was later finished off by Bf 109 fighter bombers) whilst destroying HMS Greyhound with a single hit. As the Battle of Crete drew to a close the Allies began yet another withdrawal. On 23 May the Royal Navy also lost HMS Kashmir, HMS Kelly sunk followed by HMS Hereward on the 26 May. HMS Orion and HMS Dido were also severely damaged[65]. HMS Orion had been evacuating 1,100 soldiers to North Africa and lost 260 of them killed and another 280 wounded during the attacks.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87
The excellence of [German] forward repair and recovery organisation gives us a salutary lesson in this respect. 7 Armoured Division report, Sept. 1941

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle in the Desert 1941/42


Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]