From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPACT ON
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:12:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: giraffe.bakc.269.726563554
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

In article <1993Jan8.225415.18304@den.mmc.com> hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:
>From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
>Subject: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPACT ON
>Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:54:15 GMT
>In article <1570.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes:
>|> I would have to disagree. If the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF they
>|> would have had free reign in the channel and the Royal Nazy would have
>|> had great difficulty operating at all. As we discovered in the Pacific
>|> warships are quite vulnerable to aircraft. I suspect the Luftwaffe could
>|> have neutralized the Royal Navy if they had Air Supremacy. It is even
>|> possible that the German surface Navy could have been brought into play.
>|> With continuous air cover the German capital ships could have moved
>|> fairly easily.
>|>                                         Rocky
>|>                                                                                                                      
>
>	I have to disagree with your disagreement.  If the Luftwaffe had
>destroyed the RAF they would have had air superiority.  Air superiority does
>not automatically imply control of the channel.  Destroyers and cruisers, using
>wakes along, could have caused catastrophic casualties among the German invasion
>forces.  The Germans had to have control of the channel to invade England.

Agreed!  This would make for a most interesting strategy/tactics simulation.
Without getting too far away from the "charter" of this newsgroup -- much 
would appear to depend upon the capabilities of the German Navy to hold 
command of the Channel and North Sea.  In 1940, their submarine force was 
but a fraction of what it would become two years later.  The German Navy's
surface fleet had also lost heavily (cruisers and destroyers) during the
earlier Norwegian campaign, whilst their heavy units in any sort of fleet 
action against the Home Fleet would be inviting very difficult odds.  

>	It should be noted the the Repulse and the Prince of Wales 
were sunk>in broad daylight, and had no other escorts with them.  Two ships 
sunk in good>conditions does not extrapolate to sinking hundreds of ships in 
the dark.>

The Repulse and the PoW did in fact have 2 destroyer escorts.   What they 
lacked was fighter cover -- the 1st fighters arrived within minutes of the 
last sinking.   What is interesting is that both ships were sunk by torpedo
bombers.  The only hit recorded by a level bomber was on the Repulse: the 
bomb itself was light, hit the ships' aircraft hanger and didn't penetrate 
the armoured deck -- started a small fire but limited the ships' fighting 
ability in no way.    The question is, in 1940 just how capable was the 
Luftwaffe at torpedo strike missions?   I imagine that in 1940 in fact their 
weapon of choice against a surface target would have been the good old Stuka 
divebomber -- as was the case a year later in the Mediterranean.  The Stuka
proved to be strong medicine versus the relatively small convoys the RN 
sent to (say) Crete, Greece or Tobruk -- a light cruiser and (e.g.) two
destroyers could easily find their AA defenses overwhelmed by two squadrons 
of Stukas.   However, against a powerful surface flotilla featuring heavy 
units, a Stuka force making conventional dive attacks could suffer crippling 
losses.   Remember, that on the RN's heavy units the AA defenses were 
designed expressly around the need to counter high-level and dive-bomb 
attacks.   Overall, to have a reasonable chance of taking out a heavy unit
flotilla -- the Luftwaffe would have to rely upon having about 50plus Stukas
on hand, or around 40 Ju88 divebombers  -- guesstimates but probably a point 
of departure for further speculation.

BTW, re the Repulse and PoW: Contributing causes of the disaster --
1.
PoW's high-angle 5.2" AA guns shot poorly on the day.  Range and speed 
estimation of the fast Nell and Betty torpedo bombers by the central 
director were "off-target" for too long.
2.
Repulse's 4" AA guns were deficient -- being outmoded (manual training) and 
limited in numbers.
3.
PoW's 5.2"'s were power-operated.  An early torpedo hit caused a loss of 
current to at least 4 of the ship's 6 5.2" turrets.
4.
Once the PoW listed over 11 degrees, those 5.2" turrets with power could not 
be traversed -- only elevated, a major design flaw.  (Attempts were even 
made with a block and tackle to traverse the affected turrets.)
5.
Both ships were equipped with 8-barrel 2pounder pom-pom batteries.  Power 
failure on the PoW again meant that their performance was affected.  Also
both ships pom-pom guns were cursed with ammunition failures -- shells were
separating from the cases inside the guns causing serious jams.   The pom-pom
guns had a limited effective range (1500 yards max) -- they could not disrupt
the torpedo bombers approach and release.   (Two bombers were, however, 
obliterated when contrary to orders a pom-pom battery on Repulse tracked them
*after* torp release and dropped them as they flew over the bow of the ship.)

Important additional lessons learnt that were subsequently built into RN
ships AA capabilities: (a) Close range AA guns should be supplied with 
tracer ammunition as a means of putting the wind up bomber pilots and 
providing gun crews with aiming assistance.  (b) The 20mm Oerlikon guns and 
40mm Bofors guns performed superbly throughout -- no jams and naturally with 
no stoppages due to power failures.  (c) Power back-ups for the heavy AA 
turrets and ability to traverse at greater angles of list.
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military