What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Interesting Photo ; ship under attack !! - help required with ship identification

butterfly

butterfly

HONOURED MEMBER RIP
Thought I would share this photographic postcard that I recently purchased, it shows a ship under attack. By the size of the waterspouts, I would say it is quite large calibre fire.

I suspect it is WW2 though I guess it could be First War, no indications to rear of card, other than it is a british card as it states 'Post card' and 'correspondence' / 'address only'

Can anyone help identify the ship ? Not a lot to go on but any help gratefully received.

kind regards Kev

001.jpg002.jpg003.jpg
 
No ideas as to ships nationality.
But surely if it is on a `British` postcard it would be a picture of `the enemy` being bracketed by British fire?
Not too good for moral on the Home Front to send out postcards of `our Boys` having the crap shot out of them (or about to be) - surely??
Although could just be a training target ship?
Would love to see the next sequence/series of pics (assuming it isn`t a British vessel of course).
 
Interesting indeed. Range appears to be only a few hundred yards. Looks like a full broadside and no hits. In fact, quite a few misses for such a close range. I doubt if it's a photo of actual combat. Too close to be target practice. Maybe sinking of a captured ship? In any event, that's very poor shooting.

JMHO

Ray
 
I go with Hicky . It looks like a target ship as it does n't appear to be moving . Could it be one of those confiscated German WW1 cruisers that were used by the Americans in the 1920's for aerial bombing tests ?
 
I was thinking along the lines of Siegfried as I thought the height of the spouts too much for shell falls/explosions.
Not being knowledgeable of of naval gunnery as as someone who Always had to `walk` the GPMG! onto target it looks to me - either way - as practice/target as opposed to combat. Be it ship to ship or aerial.
 
Yes , looking at the pictures again if that had been a Naval bombardment , you would n't see anything for cordite smoke at that short range ! Must be bombs .
 
Yes, probably bombs. But that makes the poor accuracy all the more embarrasing. 9 or 10 bombs all in a nice row and not a hit.

Ray
 
Great replies guys thanks, keep em coming!!

I stumbled across this one by accident and bought it because it fascinated me, I really have no background on it so am intrigued to find out more.

Target ships have been mentioned, does anyone have any further information about these?

Also is there a way of determining wether the spouts of water are caused by bombs or shells ?.........I'm not dismissing the bomb theory, just fascinated to find out if there is a difference in pattern of displaced water.

It is difficult to gauge just how far the splashes are from the 'targeted ship' they may be closer to the camera than first appears, distance being deceptive.

The ship does appear not to be moving, which, wether bombs or shells, shows perhaps just how difficult it was to hit something of that size.........a moving target would be much harder to hit.

I'm also trying to work out which end is which on the ship and cant decide for sure, thoughts on this??

thanks for all the input - I love these old images, throw up all kinds of questions..

regards Kev
 
my thoughts; 10 splashes means 10 guns, full broadside from a battleship?? height of splashes progressive so explosions not at the same time ie if gun fire staggered and a bit even with all missing?? normal gun scatter would give a pattern not a line of impacts. Think its bombs but someone forgot to drop the stick at an angle to the target to increase hit probability. If you look carefully there appears to be a ship just in front of the target in the distance. Is there a post card collectors equivalent to BOCN that could help, there must be other examples of this sort of picture?
 
2pounder

If all of the guns used the same powder charge, the distance would be the same so they would be in a line. The big turrets have a built in delay between the guns in order to create a dispersion, but that is only when both the target and the ship are moving. In this case, it looks like neither are moving.

Again, whether projectiles or bombs, whether moving or standing, that is a lot of misses for one salvo or one bomb dump.

Ray
 
I think the front of the ship [bow!] is on the left of the photo . There was a documentry on one of the history type channels some time ago about the American flyer Billy Mitchell trying to convince the US Navy that battleships could be sunk using 'planes . It looks like a sequence from that exercise in about 1923? They used several German warships for the tests .
 
siegfreid said:
I think the front of the ship [bow!] is on the left of the photo . There was a documentry on one of the history type channels some time ago about the American flyer Billy Mitchell trying to convince the US Navy that battleships could be sunk using 'planes . It looks like a sequence from that exercise in about 1923? They used several German warships for the tests .
Click to expand...


Mike, if it is a sequence from such trials, then judging by the splashes, the US Navy was perhaps right to be sceptical.





Tom.
 
Butterfly,
I guess I missed this post early on. Anway I can't figure out why so many shots are well forward of the target. Looking at the target it has a very long bow and lots of high superstructure and with that many salvos it has to be a battleship or heavy cruiser. It has to be a captal ship to shoot that many salvos. Don't know what the range is but jusdging from the height of the splashes it must be 8 inch or larger.
Not much help!
Regards,
John aka Bart
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom's post is very true but then we only managed to hit the Torrey Canyon with about 2 bombs out of 50 & that was the 1960's !!
 
siegfreid said:
I think the front of the ship [bow!] is on the left of the photo . There was a documentry on one of the history type channels some time ago about the American flyer Billy Mitchell trying to convince the US Navy that battleships could be sunk using 'planes . It looks like a sequence from that exercise in about 1923? They used several German warships for the tests .
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike for bringing the above to my attention.
After a quick online search here are a couple of links to the trials-

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb1.htm

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navybomb2.htm

Having glanced throught these documents the German ships used in the experiments dont appear to be the same as the one in my photo.....assuming that is that the cruiser "Frankfurt" and the battleship "Ostfriedland" are the two contenders, the rest being too small.

However one thing that is interesting is the reference in the first document to tests carried out on the USS Indiana, in which explosives were detonated below water to replicate mines, depth charges, torpedoes and bombs in order to determine the strength of her watertight compartments and armour. Although the USS Indiana of that vintage yet again appears different in profile to the ship in my photo, it does throw up another possibility in the way of trials and could explain why the explosions are away from the ship. However, I have my own doubts about this theory as I would have thought such trials would have been carried out individually and not en-mass to determine the distance at which the damage occured???

Some very interesting photographs in these documents too, showing hits and close misses on the ships........what does appear to be evident though is the limited amount of explosions in each. In fact the document states that use of heavier bombs was restricted in order to get the most out of the experiments.


I am pleased to see so many people taking an interest in this one, it has certainly thrown up more questions than answers !!!

again appreciate all comments
kind regards Kev
 
Last edited:
I`m with you butterfly.
It`s exactly these kinds of threads I find interesting, as the feedback/replies show the variety of experience & knowledge the members have.

Just a thought, but if this is a target ship being bombed (or an attempt at same?) maybe this is why the Japs went for Kamikazes?
Also wouldn`t most aircraft used to bomb an ship only carry one or three big bombs (attack/fighter/bomber)? Given the ten or so water spouts & their size then could this have been attempted with a bomber aircraft (mitchell, wellington) etc?
 
Here's an interesting photo of a battleship firing a 6-gun salvo. The projectiles are visible on the left. Notice the dispersion of the projectiles due to the built-in delay. There was delay of only a fraction of a second between guns in each turret, and a longer delay between turrets, but enough to increase the hit probability.

dheu88.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top