Why was the "Minensuchboot 1935" called a 'Channel Destroyer'?
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ ... /tech.html
I've read references to this as the "Channel Destroyer" what is mean't by this? It has only 4" guns and the Germans didn't even have AP ammo for their warships. The 4"gun was probably at best equal to a basic 88mm AP ammo ,while RN destroyer guns were similar to German 5" guns in penetration. Worse the Minensuchboot 1935 has only 2 x 4"guns while most RN destroyers had 4-8 guns. Also RN destroyers could do > 30Knts while the best Minensuchboot 1935 can do is 18knts.
Any one know where that notion comes from?
Why "Minensuchboot 1935" called a Channel Destroye
-
Paul Lakowski
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
- Location: Canada
-
Mark McShane
- Member
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 10 Sep 2003 03:00
- Location: Brunei
I'm only guessing here, but the name may have derived from the fact the these vessels were primarily invovled in mining operations around channel ports. many of the KM destroyers were involved in carryiing out mine laying operations during the war.
Any more enlightened responses are welcomed.
Cheers,
Mark
Any more enlightened responses are welcomed.
Cheers,
Mark
-
OHara
- Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004 04:35
- Location: San Diego
I'll dip my toes into this one.
They were durable and expendable warships and filled many the destroyer's functions (particularly the defensive functions) in the English Channel and Baltic. They escorted convoys, fought in a large number of surface engagements, even transported troops for commando operations. I think of the name "Channel Destroyer" as a tribute to one of the more versatile and capable classes of warships in the German navy.
Vince
They were durable and expendable warships and filled many the destroyer's functions (particularly the defensive functions) in the English Channel and Baltic. They escorted convoys, fought in a large number of surface engagements, even transported troops for commando operations. I think of the name "Channel Destroyer" as a tribute to one of the more versatile and capable classes of warships in the German navy.
Vince
-
Paul Lakowski
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
- Location: Canada
Are their any instances where these MB-35/40 where every used to defend convoys from enemy warship attacks? How did they do? It seems like most were destroyed from air attacks. If you look at allied destroyer attacks, Schnell boots had a much better record against DD than MB-35/40...even Torpedoboots did better.
-
OHara
- Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004 04:35
- Location: San Diego
The Germans ran coastal convoys along all the occupied coasts. M Class minesweepers routinely preformed escort duties and they fought surface actions against destroyer sized (and larger) units as follows:
6 July 41 Baltic against the Russians
28 April 43 Breton coast against the British
10 July 43 Breton coast against the British
5 Feb 44 Breton coast against the British
14 Jun 44 English Channel against the British and Poles
6 Aug 44 Biscay Coast against the British
11 Aug 44 English Channel against the USN
13 Aug 44 English Channel against the British and USN
15 Aug 44 Biscay Coast against the British and Canadians
19 Aug 44 English Channel against the British and ? (more information desired)
12 Nov 44 Norway Coast against British and Canadians
21 Nov 44 Baltic against the Russians
11 Jan 45 Norwary Coast against the British
8 Mar 45 English Channel against the USN (against a 500 ton subchaser, not exactly a destroyer, but worth recording.)
In addition there many more actions involving coastal units (MTBs, MGBs, etc.) The M classes were never designed to fight fleet destroyers, but in fact they did, and on occasion with success.
Vince
6 July 41 Baltic against the Russians
28 April 43 Breton coast against the British
10 July 43 Breton coast against the British
5 Feb 44 Breton coast against the British
14 Jun 44 English Channel against the British and Poles
6 Aug 44 Biscay Coast against the British
11 Aug 44 English Channel against the USN
13 Aug 44 English Channel against the British and USN
15 Aug 44 Biscay Coast against the British and Canadians
19 Aug 44 English Channel against the British and ? (more information desired)
12 Nov 44 Norway Coast against British and Canadians
21 Nov 44 Baltic against the Russians
11 Jan 45 Norwary Coast against the British
8 Mar 45 English Channel against the USN (against a 500 ton subchaser, not exactly a destroyer, but worth recording.)
In addition there many more actions involving coastal units (MTBs, MGBs, etc.) The M classes were never designed to fight fleet destroyers, but in fact they did, and on occasion with success.
Vince
-
Paul Lakowski
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
- Location: Canada
-
panzerkrieg
- Member
- Posts: 367
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004 06:00
- Location: USA
check out "German Fleet at War" by Vincent OHara for more details
it covers 69 engagements and it is by far the best book on this subject i have ever seen
REVIEWS cut and paste from amazon
Book Description
The realities of naval combat as well as the facts are presented in this authoritative study. Using both a tabular and narrative format, it tells the story of all sixty-nine surface naval actions fought by major warships of the German navy against major warships of the British, French, American, Polish, Soviet, Norwegian, and Greek navies. While focusing on the operational details of these actions, the author also paints a broad overview of the naval war to give each battle context. Vincent O’Hara is the first to provide so much information in a single volume. Most books emphasize the famous actions—like those involving Bismarck and Graf Spee—at the expense of lesser known engagements, and in doing so distort the historical record.
This unusual mix of macro and micro reveals the big picture and helps illustrate how designs, doctrine, and leadership withstood the stress of combat. It also shows that the German navy’s war was far more that a U-boat war, that its surface fleet was much more than a few star-crossed battleships, and that the fleet was more successful in carrying out the tasks allocated to it than is generally acknowledged. Everyone interested in naval history and how ships and men withstand the ultimate test of battle will welcome this priceless resource that is free from the nationalistic bias that sometimes taints works like this. 368 pages. 23 photos. 9 line drawings. Appendices. Notes. Bibliography. Index.
About the author
Vincent P. O’Hara is a business consultant and researcher living in San Diego, California. His work has appeared in Warship and World War II, among other magazines.
it covers 69 engagements and it is by far the best book on this subject i have ever seen
REVIEWS cut and paste from amazon
Book Description
The realities of naval combat as well as the facts are presented in this authoritative study. Using both a tabular and narrative format, it tells the story of all sixty-nine surface naval actions fought by major warships of the German navy against major warships of the British, French, American, Polish, Soviet, Norwegian, and Greek navies. While focusing on the operational details of these actions, the author also paints a broad overview of the naval war to give each battle context. Vincent O’Hara is the first to provide so much information in a single volume. Most books emphasize the famous actions—like those involving Bismarck and Graf Spee—at the expense of lesser known engagements, and in doing so distort the historical record.
This unusual mix of macro and micro reveals the big picture and helps illustrate how designs, doctrine, and leadership withstood the stress of combat. It also shows that the German navy’s war was far more that a U-boat war, that its surface fleet was much more than a few star-crossed battleships, and that the fleet was more successful in carrying out the tasks allocated to it than is generally acknowledged. Everyone interested in naval history and how ships and men withstand the ultimate test of battle will welcome this priceless resource that is free from the nationalistic bias that sometimes taints works like this. 368 pages. 23 photos. 9 line drawings. Appendices. Notes. Bibliography. Index.
About the author
Vincent P. O’Hara is a business consultant and researcher living in San Diego, California. His work has appeared in Warship and World War II, among other magazines.
-
Andreas
- Member
- Posts: 6938
- Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
- Location: Europe
-
Mark McShane
- Member
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 10 Sep 2003 03:00
- Location: Brunei
-
Paul Lakowski
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
- Location: Canada
-
Mark McShane
- Member
- Posts: 330
- Joined: 10 Sep 2003 03:00
- Location: Brunei
-
Andreas
- Member
- Posts: 6938
- Joined: 10 Nov 2002 14:12
- Location: Europe
Hi Mark
I am well, thank you. I will respond to your PM shortly.
It would be welcome if you purchased the book following this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 37-0946408
Since that means that Amazon will reward Marcus for the sale. It is a no-cost way of contributing to the running of the forum for members.
All the best
Andreas
I am well, thank you. I will respond to your PM shortly.
It would be welcome if you purchased the book following this link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 37-0946408
Since that means that Amazon will reward Marcus for the sale. It is a no-cost way of contributing to the running of the forum for members.
All the best
Andreas
-
Paul Lakowski
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
- Location: Canada
-
Paul Lakowski
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
- Location: Canada
OK I got Vinces book "The German Fleet At WAR, 1939-1945". Its definately an impressive work and worthy of a lot of study. Excellent details.
How did you determine if the night had 51% moon?
One thing that puzzles me is the gunfire rating of the ships. I realise its only a point of reference , but I was searching from details on NAVWAR site and the figures don't appear to match up for the germans but do appear to match up for the RN weapons I checked. Why where the german figures consistantly underrated?
http://www.navweaps.com/
How did you determine if the night had 51% moon?
One thing that puzzles me is the gunfire rating of the ships. I realise its only a point of reference , but I was searching from details on NAVWAR site and the figures don't appear to match up for the germans but do appear to match up for the RN weapons I checked. Why where the german figures consistantly underrated?
http://www.navweaps.com/
-
OHara
- Member
- Posts: 102
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004 04:35
- Location: San Diego
Paul,
The moon question is easy. I used moon phase software. You input date, time, latitude and longitude and it returns a value indicating how much of the moon is visible as a percentage of full. Pretty neat.
The gunnery question is harder. I went back and forth whether to include this because trying to reduce such a complicated subject as weapon effectiveness to a simple mathematical formula hides as much as it reveals. Page 268 tells what I considered (weight of shell, rate-of-fire and pound-per-minute) and what I didn't consider (a long list like fire control, morale, training, doctrine, conditions, weather, etc. etc.) But the simple answer to your question is that the German destroyer weapons had a lower EFFECTIVE rate-of-fire compared to their British counterparts. I know NAVWAR gives the 127-mm SK C34 weapon a rate-of-fire of 15-18 rounds per minute, but in combat a sustained rate-of-fire of six to eight rounds per minute was more realistic. I used ten. My forthcoming book deals with the surface naval battles of the USN and IJN. I'm open to suggestions on how to approach the subject of making comparisions between weapon systems that don't get too techinical. These days I've become more interested in factors like reliability of fuzes, quality of ordanance.
Vince
The moon question is easy. I used moon phase software. You input date, time, latitude and longitude and it returns a value indicating how much of the moon is visible as a percentage of full. Pretty neat.
The gunnery question is harder. I went back and forth whether to include this because trying to reduce such a complicated subject as weapon effectiveness to a simple mathematical formula hides as much as it reveals. Page 268 tells what I considered (weight of shell, rate-of-fire and pound-per-minute) and what I didn't consider (a long list like fire control, morale, training, doctrine, conditions, weather, etc. etc.) But the simple answer to your question is that the German destroyer weapons had a lower EFFECTIVE rate-of-fire compared to their British counterparts. I know NAVWAR gives the 127-mm SK C34 weapon a rate-of-fire of 15-18 rounds per minute, but in combat a sustained rate-of-fire of six to eight rounds per minute was more realistic. I used ten. My forthcoming book deals with the surface naval battles of the USN and IJN. I'm open to suggestions on how to approach the subject of making comparisions between weapon systems that don't get too techinical. These days I've become more interested in factors like reliability of fuzes, quality of ordanance.
Vince