Naval War Day-by-Day

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Zorch


It's hard to see what Friedman can add...so many writers have covered this ground, including himself in other books.

The blurb says "Norman Friedman brings a new perspective to an ever-popular subject in The British Battleship: 1906-1946. With a unique ability to frame technologies within the context of politics, economics, and strategy, he offers unique insight into the development of the Royal Navy capital ships. With plans of the important classes commissioned from John Roberts and A D Baker III and a color section featuring the original Admiralty draughts, this book offers something to even the most knowledgeable enthusiast."
warspite1

Doesn't sound like there will be anything on the Lion-class then. I will probably wait for the reviews before taking the plunge.



The Japanese navy book I really want - Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War (LaCroix and Wells) - is sadly about £250 outside of my price range.....[:(]
The Japanese navy book I really want - Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War (LaCroix and Wells) - is sadly about £250 outside of my price range.....

Amazon has a copy of Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War for $175 USD - still pretty steep.
warspite1

Yeah [:(] even that price would severely dent (or possibly extinguish) my book budget for 2016. Oh well - maybe I'll win the lottery tonight [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Aurelian »

$175 is the *used* price at that.....
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

14th – 17th December 1939 (South Atlantic – the surface raiders)

In Post 183 we left the damaged Graf Spee heading toward the Uruguayan capital Montevideo, doggedly shadowed by the light cruisers Ajax and Achilles. Although damaged also, the two small cruisers were still in varying degrees of fighting condition, which was more than could be said for HMS Exeter which, with no main guns serviceable, had been ordered to Port Stanley for emergency repair.

HMS Exeter at Port Stanley evidencing her impromptu re-design courtesy of the Graf Spee’s 11-inch guns. In a well-rehearsed plan, Harwood had split his force into two. As the greater threat to Graf Spee Exeter had been the focus of the German ship’s attention.
Image

Kapitan Langsdorff, himself wounded in the head and arm during the battle, had decided that damage to his ship had been too great to continue the fight and that the best course of action would be to seek refuge in a neutral country where he could effect emergency repairs before confronting whatever would be waiting for him later. Langsdorff’s decision to head for UK-friendly Uruguay rather than the more pro-German Argentina seems strange, and even more so was the fact that none of his fellow officers questioned the decision. The only likely explanation was that a) Langsdorff was unaware of the political situation in the two countries and b) the journey to the Argentine ports was longer – thus putting Graf Spee at risk of night time torpedo strikes from the British cruisers.

As Graf Spee made her way toward Montevideo, from time to time her shadowers strayed into range of the her guns and had to withdraw under smokescreen, but they ensured that they remained sufficiently close to Graf Spee so as not to lose her. At one point that afternoon, the British thought they saw a Hipper-class ship approaching from seaward, but this proved to be a case of mistaken identity and they were able to keep the Graf Spee in visual contact for the rest of the day.

So as the German raider headed into the River Plate estuary, what was the state of the ship?
Graf Spee had received around twenty-three hits; three 8-inch shells from Exeter and the remainder 6-inch shells from Achilles and Ajax. On the face of it, as far as the British could see, she was seaworthy and still able to fight, but things were not quite as they seemed.

- The forward 11-inch gun was behaving erratically (as it had for most of the battle)
- To compound this problem, the main rangefinder was broken
- 11-inch shell supply was enough for a further 40 minutes of action
- The port ammunition hoists for the 5.9-inch guns were out of action
- The forward Anti-Aircraft director was no longer working
- Starboard 4.1-inch gun out of action
- One barrel of the port 4.1-inch gun out of action
- Starboard chain hoist for the 4.1-inch shells no longer operable
- She no longer had the ability to fire torpedoes
- A large hole in the bows made sea-keeping in rough waters hazardous if not impossible
- Her engines were limited to a top speed of 17 knots
- Key auxiliary boiler that supplied steam to the distilling plant for fresh water was broken
- Fuel and lubricating oil purifier was broken
- The level of useable fuel was limited to 16 hours [this I have not been able to confirm]
- Main galley and baking facilities out of action
- Flour store contaminated with sea water

So what about the British ships? Both Achilles and Ajax had been on the receiving end of hits and near misses during the battle. The biggest problem was a shortage of ammunition for the Achilles (30% remaining). Ajax was better off for shells (50%) but that was because she had lost half her main armament. Fuel was a concern too, but Harwood would be able arrange refuelling at sea for his two ships while they watched and waited.

With the news that Exeter was no longer in the fight, Commodore Harwood had ordered the Cumberland to break-off her self-refit in the Falklands and sail for the River Plate as quickly as possible – she arrived late on the 14th. Reinforcement by the big guns: the carrier Ark Royal, the battlecruiser Renown plus the cruisers Dorsetshire, Shropshire and Neptune would not arrive until the 20th at the earliest….

At just before midnight on the 13th December, the Graf Spee entered Montevideo harbour. The shooting war had ended – politics and deception would now take over. Uruguay, whilst essentially friendly toward the UK (there were strong economic ties between the two countries) was keen to ensure that she did nothing to jeopardise her neutrality and so sought to be as even handed as possible in handling this rather unwanted situation she found herself in. Nonetheless, the fact that the British Minister to Uruguay, Sir Eugen Millington-Drake, was on warm personal terms with the Uruguayan Foreign Minister Dr Alberto Guani and the Defence Minister General Alfredo Campos, did not hurt the British cause.

The coldness of the reception the Germans would receive in Uruguay soon became apparent. The German request for assistance from the largest Uruguayan repair yard was met with a resounding no and help had to be sought from Argentinian sources and Germans in the country.

A kind of weird situation thus developed in which the Germans wanted to extend their stay in port for as long as possible in order to effect maximum repairs, but the longer the stay, the more chance the British had of concentrating force (at this time the heavy units of the Royal Navy were 1,000 miles away off Brazil). The British meantime wanted the German ship to sail as quickly as possible as an initial external inspection suggested that the ship was not too badly damaged and that she only fled to port due to ammunition shortage and damage to her fire control system.

The Uruguayans carried out their own assessment and decided that the Graf Spee would be given three days to complete the necessary works to make the ship sea-worthy and to carry out essential repairs and that she would have to leave Uruguayan waters by 2000hrs on 17th December.

It was only on the morning of the 15th that Harwood told Millington-Drake that he should make every attempt to keep the Graf Spee in port as long as possible to allow time for reinforcements to arrive. The only way of doing this would be to ensure that a British merchant vessel leave Montevideo at certain times. Under the terms of the Hague convention it would then be impossible for Graf Spee to leave less than 24 hours after the merchant. The Uruguayans were unmoved by this tactic however – Graf Spee would have to leave by the allotted hour.

Three things convinced Langsdorff that heavy units were waiting for him and his men outside the harbour. The first of these was Langsdorff’s own reading of the situation. In conversation with his ex-prisoners, Langsdorff appears to have believed that the British cruisers would not have behaved the way they did unless there were heavy units close by that they were trying to lure the Graf Spee toward. This mind set appears at odds with what he must have known about the Royal Navy.

The second piece of ‘evidence’ came from his own look-outs who appeared to be convinced that a Renown-class battlecruiser and the Ark Royal were on the horizon. But it was the deception operation employed on the 16th that would have removed any remaining doubt in Langsdorff’s mind. The British, aware that communications between Montevideo and Buenos Aires were tapped, sent out signals requesting fuel and a berth for the Renown and Ark Royal. News that the two large warships would be entering port shortly then appeared in Argentine newspapers.

Langsdorff appears to have ruled out sailing for Argentina as she could not reach a port there without having to sail into open water – and thus engaging with the overwhelming British forces he believed to be waiting for him. Although some repairs were effected – the majority were simply not repairable in the timeframe provided. It was now the Germans turn to press the Uruguayans for a longer stay for the ship – but once again the answer was a firm no.

Meanwhile a conference between Grand Admiral Raeder and Adolf Hitler on the 16th presented Langsdorff with two options; sail to Argentina or scuttle the ship in the River Plate. Quite understandably internment by the Uruguayans was to be avoided at all costs. As stated above, the journey to Argentina was impossible due to the shallowness of the waters and was ruled out. Further attempts were made of the Uruguayans to get an extension agreed, but these came to nought. The decision was made – the ship would be scuttled.

In the early hours of the 17th the crew were ordered to destroy all sensitive equipment in order that it would be of no use to the enemy. Then, with this done and the decision to scuttle no longer possible to reverse, the Germans got word that the heavy British units were at Rio – nowhere near the River Plate.

At just after 1800hrs on the evening of the 17th, the Graf Spee, with demolition charges set, sailed from Montevideo harbour with a skeleton crew. When she was four miles out she stopped. Her skeleton crew disembarked and she soon became engulfed in fire. Graf Spee blew up just before 2000hrs.

With the decision made, the scuttling of the panzerschiff went according to plan.
Image

The crew of the Graf Spee travelled to Argentina but the reception there was not as may have been expected – and the officers and men of the panzershiff were interned for the remainder of the war. Not so Hans Langsdorff. He took full responsibility for the loss of the Graf Spee and, having been persuaded by his fellow officers not to go down with the ship, he shot himself on the 19th December.

Hans Langsdorff seen here at the funeral for Graf Spee's dead held in Uruguay. The German captain engaged the British cruisers against orders and he was to pay for this with the loss of his ship and his life. What should not be forgotten is the humane way in which this officer went about conducting warfare and his treatment of the officers and men whose ships he sank and whom he took prisoner.
Image

Sources:
The Price of Disobedience (Grove)
Attachments
Hans_Langsdorff.jpg
Hans_Langsdorff.jpg (45.41 KiB) Viewed 168 times
admiralgr..sinking.jpg
admiralgr..sinking.jpg (41.48 KiB) Viewed 168 times
images.jpg
images.jpg (32.87 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Zorch »

Excellent!
tripwireCCS
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:11 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by tripwireCCS »

The most factual and clear relating of the first surface battle of WWII. Yes... EXCELLENT !

Thank you, Warspite1.
User avatar
AbwehrX
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by AbwehrX »

- The forward 11-inch gun was behaving erratically (as it had for most of the battle)
- To compound this problem, the main rangefinder was broken
- 11-inch shell supply was enough for a further 40 minutes of action
- The port ammunition hoists for the 5.9-inch guns were out of action
- The forward Anti-Aircraft director was no longer working
- Starboard 4.1-inch gun out of action
- One barrel of the port 4.1-inch gun out of action
- Starboard chain hoist for the 4.1-inch shells no longer operable
- She no longer had the ability to fire torpedoes
- A large hole in the bows made sea-keeping in rough waters hazardous if not impossible
- Her engines were limited to a top speed of 17 knots
- Key auxiliary boiler that supplied steam to the distilling plant for fresh water was broken
- Fuel and lubricating oil purifier was broken
- The level of useable fuel was limited to 16 hours [this I have not been able to confirm]
- Main galley and baking facilities out of action
- Flour store contaminated with sea water
[X(] Wow I had no idea she was that severely damaged and impaired! Curious if any U-Boots were within range to support an escape?
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX
- The forward 11-inch gun was behaving erratically (as it had for most of the battle)
- To compound this problem, the main rangefinder was broken
- 11-inch shell supply was enough for a further 40 minutes of action
- The port ammunition hoists for the 5.9-inch guns were out of action
- The forward Anti-Aircraft director was no longer working
- Starboard 4.1-inch gun out of action
- One barrel of the port 4.1-inch gun out of action
- Starboard chain hoist for the 4.1-inch shells no longer operable
- She no longer had the ability to fire torpedoes
- A large hole in the bows made sea-keeping in rough waters hazardous if not impossible
- Her engines were limited to a top speed of 17 knots
- Key auxiliary boiler that supplied steam to the distilling plant for fresh water was broken
- Fuel and lubricating oil purifier was broken
- The level of useable fuel was limited to 16 hours [this I have not been able to confirm]
- Main galley and baking facilities out of action
- Flour store contaminated with sea water
[X(] Wow I had no idea she was that severely damaged and impaired! Curious if any U-Boots were within range to support an escape?
warspite1

No - I do not believe they could operate that far south until the fall of France. Certainly there were no U-boat patrols iirc in the South Atlantic area until late 1940.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Aurelian »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: AbwehrX
- The forward 11-inch gun was behaving erratically (as it had for most of the battle)
- To compound this problem, the main rangefinder was broken
- 11-inch shell supply was enough for a further 40 minutes of action
- The port ammunition hoists for the 5.9-inch guns were out of action
- The forward Anti-Aircraft director was no longer working
- Starboard 4.1-inch gun out of action
- One barrel of the port 4.1-inch gun out of action
- Starboard chain hoist for the 4.1-inch shells no longer operable
- She no longer had the ability to fire torpedoes
- A large hole in the bows made sea-keeping in rough waters hazardous if not impossible
- Her engines were limited to a top speed of 17 knots
- Key auxiliary boiler that supplied steam to the distilling plant for fresh water was broken
- Fuel and lubricating oil purifier was broken
- The level of useable fuel was limited to 16 hours [this I have not been able to confirm]
- Main galley and baking facilities out of action
- Flour store contaminated with sea water
[X(] Wow I had no idea she was that severely damaged and impaired! Curious if any U-Boots were within range to support an escape?
warspite1

No - I do not believe they could operate that far south until the fall of France. Certainly there were no U-boat patrols iirc in the South Atlantic area until late 1940.

http://uboat.net/ is a good source. I looked at a few of the long range boats, I didn't find any that operated that far south.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

December 1939 (The U-boat War)

We last looked at the U-boats in the November summary (post 146). We shall now turn our attention to the state of play in the final month of 1939. Note: from now I will try and keep to calendar months for these updates so this report is for the period 4th -31st December.

At the beginning of the month Donitz had just two boats available for service in the North Atlantic; U-47 (Prien) and U-48 (Schultze). Three other vessels could not be prepared in time, for reasons that Donitz attributed to dockyard sabotage, while U-46 (Sohler) was late in sailing. To further add to Donitz’s woes the two boats only had fuel for a few days patrolling. However, both Prien and Schultze added to their ever growing reputations (at that time nos. 2 and 1 respectively on the tonnage sunk list) by sinking three large merchant ships each (for 42,250 tons) including two tankers. Upon their return home that left the late sailing U-46 as the only ship in the North Atlantic at the end of the month. Sohler had a frustrating time, sinking one ship for just under 1,000 tons only and Donitz was unhappy with this performance. The crew were sent for further training upon their return to Germany.

Five Type II ducks were deployed on mine-laying duty off the East Coast during the month, and all five achieved at least one kill. Of these, U-22 (Jenisch) was the star performer with 4 kills for around 5,000 tons, while U-60 (Schewe) sank the largest single freighter (4,373 tons). Meanwhile, the large Type IX U-38 (Liebe) was ordered to operate off Norwegian waters and was rewarded with three kills for just over 13,000.

There was also success for ducks operating in the North Sea and off the East Coast during the month on non-mine-laying operations, including Otto Kretschmer’s U-23 that sank a freighter for 2,400 tons. U-59 sank four ships on her second December patrol for just over 5,000 – this was in addition to two victims she claimed on a mine-laying patrol at the start of the month.

The U-30 (Lemp) and U-32 (Buchel) were employed on mine-laying operations off the west coast – the former off Liverpool and the latter off the Firth of Clyde. Lemp’s up/down U-boat career received another ‘up’ when, on the 28th December, after sinking a small trawler, he came across the battleship Barham and the battlecruiser Repulse. He fired four torpedoes into the ageing battleship, but only one exploded. Barham limped home but would be out of action for three months. After this, Lemp sowed his mines off the important port – and these would achieve considerable success over the next month. For Buchel and U-31, things were not so rosy. U-31 also sunk a small ship on the way to its mine-laying mission, but when Buchel reached his destination, he found the operation too difficult to complete due to the intense ASW activity there. Instead of dropping his mines in mid-channel as ordered, he laid them deeper and they were to achieve no hits. Upon return to Germany Buchel was sacked by an unimpressed Donitz.

On the debit side, the U-boat arm suffered one loss in the month of December when the Type VIIA U-36 (KorvettanKapitan Wilhelm Frohlich) was lost at the hands of the British submarine HMS Salmon (see later post). The boat sank with all hands.

Summary for the period
U-boat, type, ships sunk

U-20 (IIB) - (2) Magnus (9th), Foina (10th)
U-21 (IIB) – (2) Mars* (21st), Carl Henckel (21st)
U-22 (IIB) – (4) Mars* (20th), HMS Dolphin (23rd), HMS Loch Doon (25th), Hanne (28th)
U-23 (IIB) – (1) Scotia (8th)
U-30 (VIIA) – (1) HMS Barbara Robertson (28th)
U-38 (IX) – (3) Thomas Walton (7th), Garoufalia (11th), Deptford (13th)
U-46 (VIIB) – (1) Rudolf (21st)
U-47 (VIIB) – (3) Navasota (5th), Britta (6th), Tajandoen (7th)
U-48 (VIIB) – (3) Brandon (8th), San Alberto (9th), Germaine (15th)
U-57 (IIC) – (1) Mina (13th)
U-59 (IIC) – (6) HMS Washington (6th), Marwick Head (12th), Lister (16th), Glitrefjell (16th), Bogo (17th), Jaegersborg (17th)
U-60 (IIC) – (1) City of Kobe (19th)

Total – 28 ships with a tonnage of 79,990.

*Cannot get clarity on this – either this is one ship only sunk between them or there are two victims with one mis-named.

Sources:
Hitler’s U-boat War Volume I (Clay Blair)
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45 (Jurgen Rohwer)
www.uboat.net
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

December 1939 (North Sea. Destroyer mine-laying operations and RN submarine warfare)

Posts 119,147 and 162 provided an overview of the audacious – and highly successful - mine-laying operations undertaken by the Kriegsmarine destroyer force that began in October.

Two months later and the Admiralty were still unaware that German destroyers has been operating with impunity right under their noses. Two such operations were planned for December and a number of clues should have led the British to conclude what was going on – although these clues were to be ignored.

We begin this story on the 2nd December with the sailing from Rosyth of the S-class submarine HMS Salmon (Lt-Cdr Edward Bickford). Salmon was ordered to deploy in the North Sea and was two days into her patrol when, around 90 miles south of Egersund (Norway), her crew sighted a U-boat. This was the U-36 starting out on her own patrol and blissfully unaware of the presence of the British boat. Bickford ordered the German boat be closed at full speed and, when the gap had been reduced to 5,000 yards, a full torpedo salvo was fired at seven second intervals. One torpedo hit the German boat, blowing her apart instantly. The Salmon searched for survivors but found only small pieces of wreckage. 40 German sailors were lost.


HMS Salmon was launched in 1933 and was an S-class (Type II) medium submarine. The S-class were designed specifically for patrolling in the North Sea and Mediterranean. More S-class were built for the RN than any other boat class; 62 were constructed between 1931-1945. See next post for further details.
Image

Meanwhile, on the 6th-7th December the Kriegsmarine launched another mine-laying operation – with the destination this time being the Norfolk coast off the town of Cromer. Three destroyers were earmarked for the operation: Erich Giese, Hans Lody and Bernd von Arnim, however the latter was forced to turn back to port shortly after starting out due to engine problems.

Giese and Lody continued on and, after laying their mines, set course for home in the early hours of the 7th. Two British destroyers on patrol – Juno and Jersey - were spotted in the distance and the German destroyers wasted no time in firing a spread of torpedoes from just under 6,000 yards. Just prior to a torpedo hitting Jersey, the lookouts on board Juno spotted dark shapes in the distance. However, once the torpedo hit both commanders made the assumption that this must have come from a submarine.

As the crew of Jersey fought successfully to save their ship, the Juno went off in search of a U-boat that was never there, and the two German destroyers made a hasty getaway. With hindsight it is not easy to understand why they did not press home the attack given that surprise and thus advantage was with them. But in any case, the German destroyers reached home and their minefield would account for two ships (and a third damaged) in the coming days. Jersey, with the aid of her sister, managed to reach port too. 10 officers and crew had died in the attack.

A week later another such operation was launched with the target being the northeast coast off Newcastle. For this attack the Germans gathered together five destroyers; Hermann Kunne, Friedrich Ihn, Erich Steinbrinck, Richard Beitzen and Bruno Heinemann. After laying their mines undetected, the destroyers headed back across the North Sea in the early hours of the 13th where they would be met by Konteradmiral Lutjens and his force of light cruisers off Heligoland. The destroyers parting gifts would in due course claim 11 merchant ships totalling almost 19,000 tons and damage others including the destroyer HMS Kelly which, on the 14th, struck one of the mines while attending a tanker that had been damaged having struck one of the mines herself.

While all this was unfolding off the English coast, further events were taking place in the North Sea. We now head back to the submarine Salmon. On the morning of the 13th while still on patrol she came across the 51,000 ton liner SS Bremen. At the outset of the war Bremen had been on her way to New York but managed to turn around and, successfully evading the RN, she put into the Soviet harbour of Murmansk. She had been holed up there for three months when she was ordered to make a dash for Germany. Unfortunately for the British, when Salmon came across her she was under air escort and Bickford decided not to risk an attack against the liner.

However, later that morning Salmon came across a large number of German warships. These were Lutjen’s cruisers – Koln, Leipzig and Nurnberg – and the five destroyers they were escorting back to Germany from their mine-laying operation. Although the range was over 11,000 yards, this was not a target to be let go. Bickford fired a salvo at eleven second intervals. Explosions were heard but Salmon quickly came under counterattack and Bickford ordered her to dive. Depth charges were fired at her for over an hour before all went quiet and she surfaced to check out the position. However there was nothing to find and, completely out of torpedoes, she returned for home.

What Bickford did not know was that two of his torpedoes had struck home and both the Leipzig and the Nurnberg had been damaged – Leipzig seriously so. Furthermore during the next day, the submarine HMS Ursula (Lt-Cdr Philips), which was patrolling off the German coast, came across the limping Leipzig and her escorts and made ready for an attack.

All torpedoes missed the cruiser, but one hit one of her escorts, the F9. Both Ursula and Leipzig were able to make their escape, unlike the F9 which quickly sank with heavy loss of life (cannot get exact detail).


The light cruiser Leipzig. Although she would survive the attentions of Salmon and Ursula and would be patched up, she was never fully operational again.
Image


The F9. Ten of the ‘F-class’ Flottenbegleiter were built between 1934 and 1938. They were designed as inner escorts for the Deutschland-class but they proved to be something of a disaster. Poor sea boats and with an engine that was simply too unreliable, these vessels were soon relegated to backwater, non-combat duties.
Image

Despite the growing evidence, quite incredibly, the British remained unaware of just what was taking place right under their very noses……

Sources:
The Gathering Storm (Geirr H Haarr)
Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-45 (Jurgen Rohwer)
British Submarines 1938-45 (Osprey)
Kriegsmarine Coastal Forces (Osprey)
Attachments
germanescortf2.jpg
germanescortf2.jpg (33.71 KiB) Viewed 168 times
04_leipzig_1943.jpg
04_leipzig_1943.jpg (26.76 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Hms_salmon_submarine.jpg
Hms_salmon_submarine.jpg (33.68 KiB) Viewed 168 times
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Aurelian
Posts: 4031
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:08 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Aurelian »

I love this thread. And I can appreciate the amount of work you have to do to make it work.
Watched a documentary on beavers. Best dam documentary I've ever seen.
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Capt. Harlock »

Despite the growing evidence, quite incredibly, the British remained unaware of just what was taking place right under their very noses……

That is indeed astonishing when you consider that the Germans had done the same thing during WWI. (One of their mines killed Lord Kitchener, possibly the highest ranking non-royal ever killed in action.) Perhaps the British wanted to forget the Great War...
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:21 pm

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Zorch »

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Despite the growing evidence, quite incredibly, the British remained unaware of just what was taking place right under their very noses……

That is indeed astonishing when you consider that the Germans had done the same thing during WWI. (One of their mines killed Lord Kitchener, possibly the highest ranking non-royal ever killed in action.) Perhaps the British wanted to forget the Great War...
These successes no doubt gave the Germans confidence that their codes remained unbroken.
JamesM
Posts: 1024
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: QLD, Australia

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by JamesM »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

A week later another such operation was launched with the target being the northeast coast off Newcastle. For this attack the Germans gathered together five destroyers; Hermann Kunne, Friedrich Ihn, Erich Steinbrinck, Richard Beitzen and Bruno Heinemann. After laying their mines undetected, the destroyers headed back across the North Sea in the early hours of the 13th where they would be met by Konteradmiral Lutjens and his force of light cruisers off Heligoland. The destroyers parting gifts would in due course claim 11 merchant ships totalling almost 19,000 tons and damage others including the destroyer HMS Kelly which, on the 14th, struck one of the mines while attending a tanker that had been damaged having struck one of the mines herself.

Was Mountbatten in charge of HMS Kelly at this time?
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
Despite the growing evidence, quite incredibly, the British remained unaware of just what was taking place right under their very noses……

That is indeed astonishing when you consider that the Germans had done the same thing during WWI. (One of their mines killed Lord Kitchener, possibly the highest ranking non-royal ever killed in action.) Perhaps the British wanted to forget the Great War...
warspite1

WWI is not my specialist subject but I thought Hampshire was sunk via a submarine laid mine.

In WWII the British knew that subs were laying mines - what they didn't know was that destroyers were doing so despite the clues:

- the sheer number of contact mines laid could not have been laid by submarines
- according to Haarr, when Salmon damaged the light cruisers, Forbes actually mused that those ships may have been escorting destroyers on a minelaying mission - but this thought was never followed up
- at a meeting of the plans division the possibility of destroyers laying these mines was discounted

The British continued to assume that aircraft, subs, and assorted MTB's, disguised merchantmen and trawlers were responsible.....

The missions continued until February - when Norway came into focus - so two months more to report on. I will give a summary of the operations at that time.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: jamesm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

A week later another such operation was launched with the target being the northeast coast off Newcastle. For this attack the Germans gathered together five destroyers; Hermann Kunne, Friedrich Ihn, Erich Steinbrinck, Richard Beitzen and Bruno Heinemann. After laying their mines undetected, the destroyers headed back across the North Sea in the early hours of the 13th where they would be met by Konteradmiral Lutjens and his force of light cruisers off Heligoland. The destroyers parting gifts would in due course claim 11 merchant ships totalling almost 19,000 tons and damage others including the destroyer HMS Kelly which, on the 14th, struck one of the mines while attending a tanker that had been damaged having struck one of the mines herself.

Was Mountbatten in charge of HMS Kelly at this time?
warspite1

Yes he was.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27766
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Orm »

Warspite1, any chance that one could read all your posts in one document when this project is complete?

----

I have, already, gone back a several times to reread this thread. So I suspect that it would be splendid to have it available as a continuous read.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by warspite1 »

Jamesm was compiling this in a word doc - complete with the pics. I don't know if he still is?

I am keeping the posts on a word doc myself (forgot about the pictures [8|]) so will gladly let you have a copy [:)]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27766
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Orm »

Thank you. [&o] [:)]
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Naval War Day-by-Day

Post by Chickenboy »

Interesting read, Warspite1. Thanks for putting this together and giving me the top 5 posts too.

[8D]
Image
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”