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

Good thread , this ! I think that every airforce had trouble using conventional bombers to hit Naval vessels until the advent of dive bombers in the 1930's . Even the Skua was a better bet than most normal bombers & the Dauntless was in a class of its own during the Pacific campaign . I don't think you can really count the Kamikases as they were really just piloted cruise missiles & probably would n't have been a particularly popular mode of combat with allied fliers !
 
With you on the psych of the Kamikazi thing - but East meets West never was viable on many levels??!!
The Russians used women in their tanks in the hope that the Germans, knowing this, would only aim to disable the tank etc.
Anyway, I digress!!
If this was dive bombers/atack aircraft, I think the shots would be on the mark & I still think it is too many for one attack aircraft (a group would be impractical & unsafe surely?)

I think this is a stick of heavy bombs from a bomber?
I also think given the other comments regarding naval ship on ship barrage/broadside that I would expect the target vessel would have two or three misses & the rest would be hits?

I`ll have to show this thread to my Father when I see him next as he was with Mountbatten in Burma & saw the odd shot fired!!
 
I took another look at the close up pic and this may add a little more weight to bombs rather than shells.
Looking at the pattern of 'splashes' , they appear to form in 'pairs'.........take a look at the photo below to see what I mean.

Would this then indicate 'medium/high altitude' bombing??

002 - Copy.jpg

regards Kev

love the photo posted of the ship firing a salvo with shells visible........I hadnt realised that the guns fired at different times to spread the shells , very , very interesting!!!
 
Kev. If it was a practice run it would have been at very low level . Anything higher & they'd be lucky to hit the same ocean !
 
Hi Kev,I agree with you about bombs rather than a salvo of shells but,,,the bombs in each pair are quite a distance apart from each other,if dropped in a stick the splashes would be more or less in a straight line as released from the bomb bay close to the centreline of the aircraft and not two rows of splashes,one explanation could be two planes flying line abreast releasing a stick of bombs at the same time,but,,,in a battle situation two bombers flying close together on a bomb run would be a flak gunners dream target,
It will be interesting to know the true facts of the events in the picture,I am fairly sure it is a target ship and the bow is to the left of the picture,an interesting picture and some very interesting facts (re delay to stagger shells and pics of shells in flight),great,
Regards,
Don,
 
beihan62 said:
Hi Kev,I agree with you about bombs rather than a salvo of shells but,,,the bombs in each pair are quite a distance apart from each other,if dropped in a stick the splashes would be more or less in a straight line as released from the bomb bay close to the centreline of the aircraft and not two rows of splashes,one explanation could be two planes flying line abreast releasing a stick of bombs at the same time,but,,,in a battle situation two bombers flying close together on a bomb run would be a flak gunners dream target,
It will be interesting to know the true facts of the events in the picture,I am fairly sure it is a target ship and the bow is to the left of the picture,an interesting picture and some very interesting facts (re delay to stagger shells and pics of shells in flight),great,
Regards,
Don,
Click to expand...

Hi Don,
I can see your point about two aircraft, however with two aircraft flying side by side, releasing bombs at the same time it would be near impossible I would have thought to produce the symetrical pattern seen in the picture. Too many variables I would have thought, bombs would need to release from each rack at exactly the same split second - given an aircraft speed of 200mph???

Good thinking on the distance between the pair of splashes though....

hmmmm.......yet more questions than answers - very intriguing!!

regards Kev
 
I was a Gunners Mate, USN. That was a long time ago and I do not recall the exact delay built into the guns in a big turret. I do remember that the guns were not fired in sequence (1,2,3) but rather something like 2, 1, 3, or 1, 3, 2, or something like that. The dealy was a small fraction of a second, just enough to give the dispersion. I don't know if the ships of other countries used a similar method for dispersion. Do we have any former Brit Gunners here?

Update - I just found this in an Ordnance Pamphlet for the 16" Iowa Class guns:


GUN FIRING ORDER L, R, C, BARRELS.

FIRING DELAY 0.06 SECOND. THERE IS NO DELAY FOR THE LEFT BARREL.


Ray
 
Last edited:
Hi Kev,Just another theory,a staggered salvo of rockets from the wing racks of say a Beaufighter,the absence of smoke trails could be because they were fired at some height,if it was a rocket attack it was not very good shooting,there is a very good example of a rocket attack by Typhoons in Falaise on youtube,(Hawker Typhoon in action,) and it will find it,on some of the film it shows the RPs smoke trail which follows the RP down to the target only when fired at low level,others released at higher level the smoke trail peters out after a certain time and there is no trail right up to impact,this could explain the spacing between the pairs of splashes and if it was a rocket attack the lack of smoke trails,
Regards,
Don,
 
@ Don
Interesting point, but the tragectory of rockets is a lot flatter & as the water spouts are fairly vertical I would have thought not rockets as I would expect the spouts to be going forwards?
The pattern though would be similar but in pairs or singles I would have thought and staggered?

As rockets would be line of sight fired I would expect a pair or single to be fired , then when the pilot saw they would fall short then set off another shot/pair?
 
Hi Kev,I see your point about rockets and trajectories,I have tried the theory about planes such as the Stirling with wing bomb cells/racks but each pair of splashes are too far apart,the rocket theory would fit if it were not for the vertical splashes,besides from what I have seen re shipping strikes they go in fast in a diving attack,they dont "walk" the rockets toward the target,Hmmm,interesting,I will do some more searching,
Many thanks,
Regards,
Don,
 
Hi Don,...... Hicky1300 made a good point about the vertical splashes .....I myself did give rockets a thought, however dismissed it also on the number of splashes seen in the photo. I believe the underwing 60lb rockets were usually mounted four on each wing.......that would limit the splashes to eight - there are more in the photo.

appreciate the comments from you both - I think we can eliminate rockets.



regards Kev
 
Although rockets discounted they were often set so when the cannon shells hit the target the pair of rockets were fired, to ensure accuracy.
 
Hi Kev,thanks for the film clip,interesting to see how close the escorting/spotting ships were,but,,,,,,there may be something to the rocket theory,in the photo the splashes are in sequence,the slashes furthest away from the ship have peaked and are subsiding,the next the splashes are just reaching their peak,then the rest of the splashes are still rising,those nearest the ship are just after impact and are quite small compared with the previous splashes,in the film the salvo of shells all arrive at more or less the same time,the Beaufighter could carry 16 RPs,but to do this the wing guns had to be removed,I think this might reopen the rocket theory,
Regards,
Don,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top