Robert Kennedy | 30 Dec 2013 2:25 p.m. PST |
After posting some photos of 88s with ship kills shown in the AT thread I was wondering how may shore based guns engaged any type of naval craft and succeeded in getting a kill? I remember off hand this happening off of Wake Island in 1941 with their sinking of the IJN destroyer Hayate but they were weapons that were purposely placed to do so. Robert
|
Doc Ord | 30 Dec 2013 3:02 p.m. PST |
Didn't a Norwegian fort sink the Blucher? I think shore batteries on Malta sank an Italian vessel of some sort. |
Robert Kennedy | 30 Dec 2013 3:35 p.m. PST |
I think so too. But they were emplaced to do so. The 88s pictured appear to not have been so.So I am kinda wondering when they were able to do so and what they claim credit for for. The ones in the Western Desert are certainly confusing to me LOL. Robert |
Dark Knights And Bloody Dawns | 30 Dec 2013 4:10 p.m. PST |
From wiki
88mm flak guns. On 14 September 1942, Flak-Abt. I./43 (Major Wegener) employed these guns against a commando landing raid called Operation Agreement by the British Royal Navy near Tobruk, damaging the destroyer HMS Sikh so severely that she sank while being towed by HMS Zulu. |
marcus arilius | 30 Dec 2013 4:11 p.m. PST |
the Blucher was hit by the torpedoes fired from Oscarsborg Fortress link |
Robert Kennedy | 30 Dec 2013 4:13 p.m. PST |
Thanks for that. That might be the one pictured with one ship kill.One of the ones shown have more then one kill though. Robert |
Charlie 12 | 30 Dec 2013 4:58 p.m. PST |
"the Blucher was hit by the torpedoes fired from Oscarsborg Fortress" After the Fortress' 11" guns had engaged her. They managed to hit the bridge and cause a large number of fires. The torpedoes were the gut punch, though. All in all, not a bad showing for a fortress with with guns and torpedoes from the 1890s. |
Robert Kennedy | 30 Dec 2013 7:08 p.m. PST |
The caption with the kill says "A soldier inspects a dug-in German 88mm anti-tank gun abandoned during the enemy retreat in the Western Desert, 24 July 1942." Robert |
ScottWashburn | 30 Dec 2013 8:12 p.m. PST |
Well, if you are talking about coast defense guns that were specifically intended to engage enemy ships then there are a great many examples over the centuries. Shore guns have always had a big advantage over ships and in general ships give such guns a wide berth because the sailors know the shore guns have the edge. But if you are talking about regular field artillery that's been pressed into service for shore defense on an ad hoc basis, that's a different matter. |
Robert Kennedy | 30 Dec 2013 8:22 p.m. PST |
I am meaning the latter Scott. I meant to add AT,AA and regular artillery to the subject line. But they all didn't fit LOL. I should have been more clear in the OP. Robert |
Charlie 12 | 30 Dec 2013 8:59 p.m. PST |
Well, just about any landing where there was some AA batteries set-up (ie, a port), you'd have them taking on landing craft and any larger ships that get inshore. Several cases in the Med come to mind. And then there's the case of a German tank taking on a US DD at Anzio (IIRC). In that case, the DD pulled out of range of the annoying nit (besides, if he was that close to shore, he probably was too close! Not enough water under that keel
). |
Jemima Fawr | 30 Dec 2013 11:02 p.m. PST |
German shore batteries hammered the fire-support landing craft during Operation 'Infatuate' at Walcheren in Nov 1944.
|
Robert Kennedy | 30 Dec 2013 11:46 p.m. PST |
A German tank whose crew claimed a ship too.Robert
"On May 23, 1940 the crew of this Panzer IV engaged a British destroyer in a harbor at Boulogne, France. A firefight between tank and ship ensued and the Panzer came out on top by sinking the vessel." |
Jemima Fawr | 31 Dec 2013 1:01 a.m. PST |
That reminds me
Do PIATs count as 'shore guns'
? :) |
Martin Rapier | 31 Dec 2013 4:27 a.m. PST |
George MacDonald Fraser sank a Japanese launch with a PIAT. Frankly, I'd be amazed if a Panzer IV could actually sink a destroyer, unless it couldn't move and the damage control parties were asleep. |
Jemima Fawr | 31 Dec 2013 4:39 a.m. PST |
'D' Coy, 2nd Ox & Bucks 'sank' (or drove it aground) a 'Vorpostenboot' (i.e. a large armed trawler) at Pegasus Bridge. I've got a photo of the beached vessel at home, but can't find it on line. |
Ascent | 31 Dec 2013 5:25 a.m. PST |
The destroyer claimed by the panzer was at Boulogne and was the Venetia which actually returned to Britain safely. Her diary recorded one hit aft which set her on fire but not enough to sink her. Just because it was claimed doesn't mean it sank. |
ScottWashburn | 31 Dec 2013 6:32 a.m. PST |
Of course a lot of US landing craft were sunk at Omaha Beach by guns which were technically AT or field artillery, despite their being in concrete emplacements. But somehow I doubt any of the crews were painting ships on their barrels afterwards :) |
11th ACR | 31 Dec 2013 10:57 a.m. PST |
My dad's ship, the USS BOYD DD-544 was hit on 8 December 1943 off of Nauru Island. There were 43 killed from one direct hit to the boiler. "As a unit of the Pacific Fleet, Boyd departed for Pearl Harbor 14 July 1943. After additional training she took part in the occupation of Baker Island (1 September 1943) and then joined the fast carriers as a screening vessel for the Wake Island raid (5-6 October) and the Gilbert Islands landings (19 November-8 December). During the bombardment of Nauru Island (8 December) Boyd was damaged by a Japanese shore battery while on a rescue mission. As a result she had to return to Espiritu Santo, New Hebrides, for repairs." |
Lion in the Stars | 31 Dec 2013 12:24 p.m. PST |
If a warship is close enough to shore to be engaged with AT or AA guns, it's far too close to shore. I don't think that 50mm guns have enough oomph to seriously damage an unarmored ship, so you would really need the big flak or AT guns (75mm+). Artillery is a different story, but I wouldn't try taking on any ship with less than a 10cm gun. |
Robert Kennedy | 31 Dec 2013 1:38 p.m. PST |
I am wondering if quite a few of those claimed by the markings on the 88 barrels were actually some types of small craft. I think the 88 in the snow was caption as being in the Stalingrad front. Robert |
Robert Kennedy | 31 Dec 2013 4:01 p.m. PST |
I guess it might have been more easier on the Eastern Front to achieve those kills. Robert |
Griefbringer | 01 Jan 2014 1:20 p.m. PST |
I guess it might have been more easier on the Eastern Front to achieve those kills. On most parts of the Eastern Front you would probably be limited to shooting at river craft – though with bigger rivers like Volga I guess those could be surprisingly large at times. In Stalingrad, Red Army ended up becoming reliant on a motley assortment of rivercraft to supply their forces over Volga. This was quite hazardous business due to the German front line being quite close to the river. IIRC Soviets preferred to do river crossings at night time – not sure where they withdrew the boats during the day. |
Robert Kennedy | 01 Jan 2014 4:58 p.m. PST |
Thats exactly what I had in mind Griefbringer. Robert |
mkenny | 01 Jan 2014 6:00 p.m. PST |
The Destroyer 'sunk' at Tobruk was engaged by several shore batteries most of which were Italian. These guns were larger than the 8.8cm but in the usual way the German's grabbed all the glory and added it to the 'uber 88' myth |
Robert Kennedy | 01 Jan 2014 6:54 p.m. PST |
I would believe in getting kills with the Soviet river craft. Robert |
Tirailleur corse | 07 Jan 2014 10:40 a.m. PST |
At least the danger was real if you consider all the efforts made to seize coastal batteries "only" fitted with field guns before any landing: Dieppe/Varengeville, Pointe du Hoc, Merville on D Day, Cap Nègre in Provence
There is also a story about a french cargo ship, the "Granville", presumably sunk by a german tank in Normandy during the last stage of the 1940 campaign, on the 13th of june. In that case, the gun cannot be bigger than 75mm but the story states that the shell set fire to the engine compartiment, then to the ammos which went "BAOUM!" I cannot copy the link (!) but you'll find it on Google with the following key words: "épave du Granville à St Valéry en Caux". A british ship, the train ferry n°2, sistership of the TF "Daffodil", was also sunk during the same operation, a sort of small Dunkirk for a lost french DLM. It was also disabled and set to fire by "coastal" (in fact field) batteries. Cheers to all. |
Charlie 12 | 07 Jan 2014 6:56 p.m. PST |
Against landing craft, anything from a 3" and below could be a problem. Anything larger than a landing craft is going to ignore them. And against a coastal merchant (such as your train ferry) a 3"overis going to definitely be a problem. But careful about a overstating their importance. During the Torch landings, the El Hank battery (with real coast artillery) was fairly ineffective. |
ScottWashburn | 10 Jan 2014 11:58 a.m. PST |
Destroyers have virtually no armor and could be seriously damaged even by heavy machine guns. I seem to recall a number of Japanese destroyers being sunk by strafing fighter planes. So pretty much any shore-based weapon would be a danger to destroyers and smaller vessels. |
John D Salt | 10 Jan 2014 12:53 p.m. PST |
ScottWashburn wrote:
I seem to recall a number of Japanese destroyers being sunk by strafing fighter planes.
Really? I'd be interested to hear of any case of that happening. All the best, John. |
Lion in the Stars | 10 Jan 2014 3:13 p.m. PST |
You'd need to get really close to a DD, probably 500 FEET, to put holes in the superstructure with a .50cal. Even 1/4" mild steel will stop a .50cal at more normal 'naval' ranges (~1000yds or more) The 88s are mentioned as having some success, between German 88s and the Italian 90/53 and 102mm guns, they damaged HMS Sikh enough for her to be lost under tow. Some of the problems you'd run into trying to get shots on a ship from a shore-based artillery or bit AA/AT gun is range errors and a serious lack of wind information, not to mention the fact that your target is moving several feet in all three dimensions. Aim too close to the edge and your shot will miss as the ship falls, or watch the shell drag across the deck, maybe even ricochet off a 1/4" thick steel deckplate! |
Robert Kennedy | 13 Jan 2014 5:19 p.m. PST |
Scott. I would like to read more. Robert |
zoneofcontrol | 13 Jan 2014 7:12 p.m. PST |
To add to R Mark Davies post above, I seem to recall one trawler being hit by fire from the captured AT gun and driven off. A second was hit by a PIAT bomb, beached and captured. That is my foggy recollection. Also, my uncle's landing craft was hit and sunk by mortar fire on its approach to WN 60 on D-Day. WN 60 had 4 – 50mm mortars, 1 – 75mm AT gun and 1 – 37mm tank turret tobruk. He earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart (posthumously) for actions related to the landing. The citation specifically lists mortar fire as the cause of the craft sinking. |