Some Interesting Military Data

[Timerover51]

Timed fuses yes, for both AA and howitzers.

But not the radar proximity fuses that came later on.

The 5" projectiles we had were impact. I'm not a gunner's mate, so I am unsure.

I have read that in WW2 the bigger ships used their secondaries, 5" etc. as AA guns.

The U.S. 5"/38 had a very good time fuze well prior to the war, as did the 3 inch guns in the Philippines. The problem in the Philippines was that the 3 inch was using a powder train fuze rather than the newer mechanical time fuze, which posed an altitude limit on the powder train fuze. A shipment of 3,000 mechanical time fuzed shells was sent by submarine to Corregidor prior to the surrender.

The Mark 37 fire control system for the U.S. Navy 5"/38 is even considered by the British to be the finest system available during the war, and the proximity fuze simply made it that much better. I did a study for a game company on the effectiveness of the U.S. Navy anti-aircraft fire during the war, and even in 1942, the U.S. was shooting down at least 25% of the attackers, half of that with the 5 inch guns. The 40mm did have an impact fuze, as did the 20mm. By the end of the war, U.S. anti-aircraft fire was shooting down roughly 90% of attacking planes. Japanese anti-aircraft fire is best not to be discussed.

The Germans never developed a proximity fuze during the war, and used only mechanical time fuzes. The first use by the U.S. of the proximity fuze was in the summer of 1943 in the Solomon Islands, when the light cruiser U.S.S. Helena shot down an attacking Japanese dive bomber with one.

I am not sure where that garbage about leaky magazine roofs comes from and would like to see a source besides someone's questionable memory.

 

[JimMarn]

The U.S. 5"/38 had a very good time fuze well prior to the war, as did the 3 inch guns in the Philippines. The problem in the Philippines was that the 3 inch was using a powder train fuze rather than the newer mechanical time fuze, which posed an altitude limit on the powder train fuze. A shipment of 3,000 mechanical time fuzed shells was sent by submarine to Corregidor prior to the surrender.

The Mark 37 fire control system for the U.S. Navy 5"/38 is even considered by the British to be the finest system available during the war, and the proximity fuze simply made it that much better. I did a study for a game company on the effectiveness of the U.S. Navy anti-aircraft fire during the war, and even in 1942, the U.S. was shooting down at least 25% of the attackers, half of that with the 5 inch guns. The 40mm did have an impact fuze, as did the 20mm. By the end of the war, U.S. anti-aircraft fire was shooting down roughly 90% of attacking planes. Japanese anti-aircraft fire is best not to be discussed.

The Germans never developed a proximity fuze during the war, and used only mechanical time fuzes. The first use by the U.S. of the proximity fuze was in the summer of 1943 in the Solomon Islands, when the light cruiser U.S.S. Helena shot down an attacking Japanese dive bomber with one.

I am not sure where that garbage about leaky magazine roofs comes from and would like to see a source besides someone's questionable memory.

The leaky magazine roof came from a book, I think I mentioned it here, on the Phillipines during WW2.

A quick look in this thread and I don't see it.The author stated it in the book.

As for best AA practice, the US had both anti-submarine and anti-aircraft trainers. The AA one had a spherical ceiling, and images were projected on it. Possibly with the planetarium type gear. Started on the east coast, and probably had others before WW 2 was over.

edit: I found it on page 9 of this thread.

'Crisis in the Pacific' sub-titled: 'The Battles for the Phillipine Islands by the Men Who Fought Them'

 

[Timerover51]

Here are some quick AA rules I worked up based on analysis of U.S. Navy anti-aircraft action reports. When you add fighter intercept, the odds of a Japanese plane surviving an attack on U.S. naval vessels was around 10 per cent, with a less than 10 per cent hit rate. Based on that, the kamikazis make sense. If you are going to die anyway, you might a well do some damage on the way out.

Quick AA rules against dive bombing and torpedo planes attacking ships:
U.S. ship AA effectiveness:
1942 to mid-1943: 25% chance, half shot down by 5 inch before drop, half shot down by 20mm after dropping either their bomb or torpedo.
Mid-1943 to Fall-1944: 33% chance, one-fourth shot down by 5 inch before drop, one-half shot down by 40mm (one-half down before drop), one-fourth shot down by 20mm (all drop). Note: I suspect that the lower efficiency of the 5 inch gun is due to wartime personnel expansion.
Fall 1944 to end: 50% chance, one-third shot down by 5 inch before drop, onehalf shot down by 40mm (one-half down before drop), one-sixth shot down by 20mm (all drop). The increased effectiveness of the 5 inch at this time was due to the use of the proximity fuze.

Note, that was against all types of ships. Attacking a battleship from 1943 onwards was just about impossible. There was just too much firepower pointing at the Jap plane.

And jsut for a contrast, my analysis of Japanese AA effectiveness or lack thereof.

Japanese AA effectiveness: Japanese ship AA effectiveness was somewhere between horrible to nonexistent for most of the war. Only with massive batteries of 25mm guns was any improvement obtained.
1942 thru Mid 1944: Actual loss rate was between 0.6 and 1.6 per cent. For torpedo plane attacks, at loss rate of 3.5 per cent was recorded. The loss rate for masthead bombing looks similar to the torpedo rate. [What I would recommend is a 4% loss rate for dive bombers, with a 50% chance for a saving roll for the aircraft to survive until dropping its bomb. I would recommend a 5% loss rate for torpedo and masthead bombing attacks, with no saving throw. The 5% rate is close to the loss rate plus operational losses. I would give the players the actual loss rates to use if they wish. This is suggested rules fo U.S. losses for the miniature game.]
Mid 1944 to end:
With the increase in 25mm batteries, it appears that the following is about
correct: 1) destroyers = 4% chance, 2) heavy cruisers = 6% chance,
3) carriers = 6% chance, 4) old battleships = 8% chance, 5) Yamato-class
battleships = 10% chance. [With every bomb hit on an heavy cruiser, carrier, or old battleship of 500 pounds or greater; 1,000 pounds or greater on the Yamato-class, reduce the AA effectiveness by one (1) percentage point. This accurately reflects both U.S. tactics and actual bomb effects on reducing AA fire. It also forces you to use bombs on the battleships as well as torpedoes. Again, rules for use in the miniatures game.]

 

[Timerover51]

The following comments on the housing of men on Royal Navy ships come from Edward Attwood, Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, book Modern Warships, published in 1913.

The stowage of provisions, messing, sleeping, washing and sanitary arrangements all have to be considered in their turn and it is not always an easy matter to provide satisfactory accommodation. It may be mentioned in this connection that the standard of comfort on board ship has steadily risen during the last twenty years or so as it has on shore, and this has meant additions to weight and space to what was formerly considered to be sufficient. As an example, stokers only used to be provided with wash-places, but the seamen now have wash-places set apart for their use. Formerly the sailors had to perform their ablutions in a tub somewhere on the deck, a practice which neither conduced to cleanliness nor decency.(Pages 12-13) Emphasis Added.

Stokers were the individuals who were responsible for feeding the coal fuel into the furnaces of the boilers, and also moving the coal from bunker to bunker as it was used. This tended to get them covered in coal dust, which was no easy to cleam off. Coaling a ship, be it military or civilian, tended to be a very dirty business.

It may be stated that only senior officers have a water supply tap in their apartments. Ordinary cabins are simply provided with a washbasin with water can and drain can below. (Page 63, bottom)

You knew you were senior in the Royal Navy when you no longer had to have water carried to your cabin to use and then the drain can carried away.

Edward Attwood was in charge of battleship design during the First World War, and as such was one of the most senior of the naval design staff. His books, available on archive.org, would be very useful for anyone working on a nautical warship design sequence.

 

[JimMarn]

I just finished reading a book about the British attempts to sink the KMS Tirpitz.

'The Hunt for Hitler's Warship' by Patrick Bishop.

He interviewed survivors on both sides. Covers the X-boat attacks, the RAF, RN, and other British establisments.

The torpedo nets, the lack of Luftwaffe assistance, and the officers and crew of the ship itself. 426 pages including the index and notes. Includes 398 pages of text. From the cover, it looks like a part of a series of books from the Regnery History World War II Collection. Contains a few pages of photos. Intyerior of an X-boat, the charioteers based on the Italian version, and photos of several people involved on both sides.

I bought it at an Ollie's, they buy up things that aren't selling, for $3.99. It lists on the back for $18.99.

Found it very interesting.

Anyone else read a copy ?

edit: also covered is the sinking of the Scharnhost.

 

[whartung]

Covers the X-boat attacks, the RAF, RN, and other British establisments.

Rather than googling it, what's an "X-Boat"? and how were they used?

 

[JimMarn]

Rather than googling it, what's an "X-Boat"? and how were they used?

Mini-sub. Four crew. The diver would cut the torpedo nets. On both sides of the hull were amatol loaded mines that could be set for various time periods.

The x-boat would dive under the ship, set the timers, and drop the charges under the hull. They had lots of trouble with both the x-boats and the mines.

One mention was the mines dropped by one crew would only set for 2 hours. They complained it was barely time for them to get clear, and well outside the nets.

The ship's crew did spot them, but only had rifles and grenades to stop them with. Didn't work.

 

[whartung]

Didn't work.

Bet it looked great on paper, though.

 

[wellis]

Is there anything on modern warship design or habitability or anything?

 

[Timerover51]

Is there anything on modern warship design or habitability or anything?

Norm Friedman has a book on modern warship design, Modern Warship: Design and Development, that is available in used form online quite cheaply. As for habitability, the U.S. Coast Guard has the current standards for crew habitability as part of their regulations, along with crewing requirements. Some of the older naval architecture manuals also give crew habitability requirements or at least suggestions. It depends a lot on what Tech Level you are operating at. Earlier levels can be pretty basic except for the ship captain's quarters, which typically were quite large compared to everyone else.

You also have to distinguish between civilian ship standards and warship standards, as those can be quite different. In addition, for warships, you have to take into consideration are they being designed for extended peace-time service, or as war-emergency builds. War-emergency builds are going to shave habitability quite a bit to save cost, with the crew being expected to put up with it. Mission duration is also going to be a factor. The longer the mission, the better the crew quarters are going to have to be to keep morale up.

 

[JimMarn]

Bet it looked great on paper, though.

They said the crew was frantic because they couldn't bring any guns to bear on the x-boats along side. Only rifles and grenades would work. I understood the text to infer that the main guns were wanted, but of course wouldn't drepess at that angle.

I think some sailors would have tried to dismount the 37mm anti-aircaft guns, but it may not have been possible.

 

[JimMarn]

Is there anything on modern warship design or habitability or anything?

I remember one of my shipmates finding out that our berthing space on an early DDG ( built early 1960s), had less cubic space per person than that required by law for a federal prisoner accomidation.

Bottom bunk of 3 in a tier, is what new guys got. After 2 years I got the top one. I then had 2 or so feet of space over my head. I could actually stretch my arms.

The lowest of the 3 gave me claustrophobia. About 14 or 16 inches of vertical room.

 

[Timerover51]

Concentration Camps

Since concentration camps seem to be in the news of late, I thought that posting the link to the 7th Army report on the liberation of Dachau would be in order, so that the understanding of what is meant by a "concentration camp" might be increased. If for some reason that does not get you to the report, let me know. Otherwise, just search the Combined Arms Research Library Digital Library for World War 2 documents using Dachau. You can also send me a PM and I will email you the PDF file of the report.

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/2858/rec/5

Also, is should not be forgotten that the British used concentration camps against the Boer civilian population during the Second Boer War.

 

[Condottiere]

They used them in Malaya as well, with the specific purpose to cut communications and support between civilian sympathizers and communist insurgents, but otherwise maintain civic and commercial activities.

I guess the modern term would be gated communities.

 

[kilemall]

They used them in Malaya as well, with the specific purpose to cut communications and support between civilian sympathizers and communist insurgents, but otherwise maintain civic and commercial activities.

I guess the modern term would be gated communities.

Possibly used first in the KC area with the infamous Order #10. The rounding up and incarceration of relatives of the varying groups were put in unsafe buildings, and one collapsed killing a few. This precipitated Quantrill's Raid. the Raid in turn led to Order #12, a systematic depopulation of a region to cut off supply and support.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_massacre#Collapse_of_the_Women's_Prison_in_Kansas_City


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Order_No._11_(1863)

 

[Timerover51]

I came acroos the following quote in England and the Orleans Monarchy, by Major John Hall, copyright 1912, available as a download from Project Gutenberg.

It appears that the last was fought by Switzerland was a brief civil war in 1847. Quite interesting.

No sooner had the Diet, on November 4, decreed the forcible suppression of the Sonderbund than the Genevese general, Dufour, who had at his disposal an army of 100,000 men and 260 guns, was ordered to begin operations. The isolated canton of Fribourg having been easily overwhelmed, the Federal commander advanced with his whole force against Lucerne. Salis-Soglio, a Protestant of the Grisons, whose army amounted to some 80,000 troops with 74 guns, awaited him in a selected position between the Reuss and the Lake of Zug. The decisive battle was fought on November 23, Dufour’s victory was complete. On the following day, the Jesuits and the executive council having fled, Lucerne surrendered. The Valais, the last of the seven Cantons to abandon the struggle, capitulated on the 29th. Twenty-five days after the Diet had formally resolved upon its suppression, the Sonderbund ceased to exist.

Another interesting tidbit in the book was the assistance given by the Prussians to Turkey to re-work its army in the 1840s. The assistance included a certain Major von Moltke, of later fame. This means that the Turks were consistent when seeking German help for the same thing prior to World War One. Just a different group of Turks doing the asking.

The book is also fascinating for the incredible amount of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries by England, along with France. And they did not even have the Internet to do it.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

just come back form a visit to The Tank Museum, in Bovington, Dorset, UK. Im currently on a training coruse at the adjacent army base (home of the Royal Armoured Corps, the parent unit for all the army's armours regiments). I had a poke around because it was free for UK forces, and it was most intresting (worth a look if your ever in the South West of England and looking for somewhere to go).

Anyway, while browsing around I came across this wonderful quote, form a Lieutenant Ken Giles, who I know nothing about, other than he was a tank commander, specifically of a M3 Grant in North Africa.

The 75mm main gun is firing,
The 37mm secondary gun is firing, but it’s traversed round the wrong way.
The Browning is jammed.
I am saying ‘Driver advance’ on the A set, but the driver – who can’t hear me – is reversing.

And as I look over the top of the turret, and see 12 enemy tanks, just 50 yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich.

the browning is very likely to be a .30 cal M1919, but it could be a .50 cal M2. The "A set" is one of his two radio sets, and not the intercom that the driver can hear (all three are on a the same headset and changed by a toggle swtich. it was apparently quite common for commanders to forget to change it to the right setting, and give crew orders over the air or give detailed recce reports to the vehicle crew and not command).



I just think its the most... British description of a tank battle I have ever heard, and thought i'd share it with you guys.

 

[JimMarn]

I have several of the Ballantine War Books, paperback books of one subject per book. The author was there; as in, Destroyer Captain, Infantry Company Captain, etc. First hand.

One of them was by a British officer commaning a tank in North Africa. It may have been a Grant. Its been a number of years ago when I read them.

 

[Timerover51]

I have several of the Ballantine War Books, paperback books of one subject per book. The author was there; as in, Destroyer Captain, Infantry Company Captain, etc. First hand.

One of them was by a British officer commaning a tank in North Africa. It may have been a Grant. Its been a number of years ago when I read them.

I think that the book you are thinking of is Brazen Chariots, and the tank was an M3 Stuart light tank, called a "Honey" by the British.

 

[JimMarn]

I think that the book you are thinking of is Brazen Chariots, and the tank was an M3 Stuart light tank, called a "Honey" by the British.

Yes, thats it.

Thanks.