Tank Museum Visit – Battleship Guns

I’d been ‘racking my brains’ for somewhere to visit on Remembrance Sunday, as I felt like doing something ‘war related’ – and I eventually decided to visit my local Tank Museum! Outside, there’s a large Challenger Two ‘battle tank’ (though this isn’t it):

Challenger Two Battle Tank (Photo by IHS Markit/Patrick Allen)

Which fair enough, may be the ‘ultimate evolution’ of the tanks of World War Two (which were both smaller and less well protected); but I can still remember what one of my Granddads told me:

When you see a tank coming towards you …

You get out of the way – as quickly as possible!

Whilst that saying is ‘still true’ for conflict today; when your at your local tank museum, there’s no need, and there’s ‘plenty of time’ to admire 🙂  Whilst standing there (on my way out from the museum) I found myself ‘in awe’ at the size of the Challenger Two’s gun barrel!  Which ‘got me thinking’: How does the armament on a tank, compare with the armament fitted on a battleship?  I decided to approach this question, by considering several areas:

• Size of armament.  Tank 120mm (4.72 inches).  At this size, we’d ‘only be matching’ a battleships secondary armament.  In the case of HMS Hood, she had twelve 139.7mm (5.5 inch) guns – akin to having six ‘fixed placed tanks’ on either beam!
• Range of armament.  Tank typically 3 to 4 kilometres – but possibly up to around 10 kilometres (as that’s how far gunner’s ‘laser sights’ can see].  For one of HMS Hood’s 5.5 inch naval guns, were looking at just under 17 kilometres.
• Length of armament.  Tank barrel length 55 calibres (55 x 120 = 6600 mm = 6.6 metres).  For one of HMS Hood’s 5.5 inch naval guns, barrel length is 50 calibres (50 x 139.7 = 6985 mm = 6.985 metres).  As barrel length is related to range, it seems unlikely that a difference of 385 mm (0.385 metres) is responsible for the ‘dramatically shorter range’ of the tank barrel.  Therefore, I suspect that ‘designed role’ is the most likely reason – as tanks are designed to engage ‘closer ground based targets’ where as a battleship’s secondary armament (here 5.5 inch naval guns) were designed to engage enemy destroyers (at far greater ranges!).
• Magazine capacity.  Tank 50 rounds.  HMS Hood over 2000 rounds (of 5.5 inch ‘different types’ with approximately 2000 / 12 = 166 rounds per secondary naval gun).  That’s quite a difference!  Although as the Challenger Two has to ‘contain everything within itself’ (including four crew members), it’s also quite an achievement!  Though I feel that another saying is ‘highly appropriate’ here:  remember to count your rounds 🙂  Which for ‘some reason’, makes me think of Brad Pitt’s Fury.

Battleships – US Army Jeep – Birthday Meal

It was my birthday a few weeks back, and I ended up sitting in an old World War Two “aircraft mess hall”, chatting about Battleships, and my uncle’s US Army Jeep!

Battleships

Our conversations revolved around HMS Hood, and the Iowa class battleships 🙂 My Uncle’s point, was that HMS Hood was lost, because she didn’t have enough deck armour.

HMS Hood – The Pride of the Royal Navy

I agreed with him!  Yet our conversation, turned into a comparison of HMS Hood, to the Iowa class battleships:

1. HMS Hood’s decks were thinly armoured, with even the “thickest armour” being only 3 inches thick.  Iowa on the other hand, had 6 inches of deck armour; which appears to have become the “standard” in the later stages of World War Two.  Very simply, 6 inches of deck armour, could resist “plunging shell-fire”; whereas 3 three inches could not.  Though in HMS Hood, did the thicker 3 inch armour only occur over the vitals; in the Iowa class, do I believe that the 6 inch thick deck armour occurred “everywhere”.
2. HMS Hood had up to 12 inch thick belt armour, whilst the Iowa class had 12.1 inch thick belt armour.  These seem comparable, yet I suspect that the Iowa class’s belt armour, was more uniformly distributed; based upon the American “all or nothing” armour principle.  In HMS Hood, her belt armour thinned as it approached the deck, to be only 5 inches thick, which was likely “too thin”.  I believe that the Iowa class did not, as their belt armour went “right to the deck”.
3. HMS Hood’s top speed was 32 knots, where as Iowa’s is 32.5 knots.  These seem directly comparable, as both warships were designed for speed [Hood “just to be fast”, Iowa “to keep up” with aircraft carriers in the battle-fleet].  Yet neither can wholly claim the title “fast battleship”, because Hood did not have enough armour, and Iowa’s armour, only sought to maximise “speed and hitting power”.  Although in iron-sight, the Iowa class is regarded as “one of the best battleship designs ever”.
4. Given the fact that both HMS Hood, and USS Iowa displaced around 46,000 tonnes [during World War Two], it seems to me, as though their “comparable in size”.  Therefore, I suspect that the differences between their “protection levels”, stems from the “new ideas” to battleship armour arrangement, that evolved between 1920 [when Hood was built], and 1940-1944 [when the four Iowas were built].

It was great fun comparing Hood to the Iowa class 🙂

USS Iowa – World War Two

US Army Jeep

For many years now, my uncle has restored his US Army Jeep.  It’s his “prised possession”, which he normally heads to Normandy in:

My uncles US Army Jeep – On Omaha Beach (2014)

We’d arranged to be going on a trip in her last year, but my uncle “had to cancel”, because one of the rear drive shafts had snapped [the long one].  He had to fix her, but had to wait a while, before he could get the driveshafts [he replaced both the rear ones].  Generally though, he has no problem getting spare parts, which surprised me!  Some highlights of our conversation:

1. How can you drive any great distance in this?  The suspension is like the “stone age”.  At least it was to me, last time I was in her!  Though this does not deter me from my future trip; but saying that, maybe I’ll just let my friend go for the ride?
2. Have you sorted out the welding yet?  At some point in the years after World War Two, somebody decided to weld the chassis together 😦  This may not seem like “too much of a problem”, but it is:  as the chassis was designed to be bolted together (so that parts from “damaged vehicles” could be easily inter-changed).  This has complicated some of the maintenance that has been done on her over the past few years.  My uncle knows it’s a “big job” to fully fix the chassis, so he doubt’s it shall get done now.
3. Reminiscing over a memory of 2013’s ride in her.  My uncle’s jeep includes a canvas cover; and when that canvas cover is pulled up, I tend to experience, what I believe many war combatants have also experienced:  were safe lads!
4. Realisation of a dream, as my uncle wanted to:  drive his jeep to the “same place” that appears in an old World War Two photograph [showing a US Army Jeep]; and take the same photo, only many years later.  He’s now achieved this!

It was great fun talking about my uncle’s World War Two Jeep 🙂  Although, before I get to ride on her again, he needs to sort her head gasket out, as it’s leaking!

D-Day – World War Two – Saving Private Ryan

I found myself watching Saving Private Ryan last night:

No film can ever hope to truly re-create the horrors of D-Day, but I feel that the start of Saving Private Ryan does at least give you a basic idea:  men would have been emotional, men would have been vomiting, the first men “out” of the landing crafts would have been almost guaranteed to be “shot down” straight away.  Its also true that the guy “next to you” could have been horribly blown away whilst you survived unscathed (and vice versa).  I remember reading an account of a soldier that just “walked up the beach” and every 3rd or 4th step “skipped” because “they always missed”:  although that same soldier later changed his approach after a “very near miss”.  The film does make clear one point about amphibious warfare:  its the only type of battleground where its safer to keep “moving forward” than to retreat (owing to the arcs of fire from fixed place gun installations).  There’s a part where the film lets itself down though!  As the film, does not highlight the fact that Battleships were also made use of during D-Day:  where battleships such as HMS Warspite and HMS Rodney used their large calibre 15 inch, and 16 inch naval guns to pound the invasion beaches (at close range – during “Operation Neptune“).  The craters formed from such large shells exploding were of great use to many soldiers:  as it provided them with cover (which the Allied Air Forces generally failed at – bombing too far in-land:  for fear of hitting their own men).  The film also has an attempt at suggesting the shear amount of men and equipment that was unloaded “during and after” D-Day.  My favourite character has to be that sniper guy (Private Jackson), which the film seems to go to great lengths to build up as being somewhat invincible:  right up until the point that he gets “blown away” in the tower (towards the end).  Overall:  one of my most favourite war films to sit down and watch.  Does anyone know if the story line (about saving the fourth brother) is true though?

D-Day – World War Two – America’s Industrial Might

When it comes to books on WW2, my “first and greatest” read of the “trails of warfare”, goes to no other than D-Day:

D-Day – A “battleship fueled read”

Although its been a while since I’ve read this book, one important point does stand out:  this book covers every aspect of D-Day, from “secret plans” and “lock down” to the actual invasion of the beaches, together with the numerous problems the allies faced; including “what went wrong”.  When first reading this book, I remember “being confused” for a while, over what exactly “Mulberry” was/is.  I eventually realised that “Mulberry” was/is a floating harbour that the allies took with them, because they’d realised that there was no hope of capturing an actual port/harbour in mainland Europe.  I also like the variety of plans that are included, such as the “Utah Beach Airborne Assault on D-Day”, together with the numerous images that help “add to the story”.  This is especially so, for the images that convey the bewildering amount of equipment, that the United States manufactured, and later un-loaded on/during/after D-Day 🙂  I am simply staggered, by the two images of the “end of the day” at Omaha Beach!  For me, such images help to convey the “Industrial Might” of the United States, which was not only limited to the smaller vehicles; such as landing craft, jeeps and tanks.  For the United States also manufactured the four South Dakota class battleships in “record time” (between 1939 to 1942).  Why?  Because Battleships were still a part of the Navy, and they were used on D-Day; albeit the “older ladies”.  Two images within this book, help to reinforce the usefullness of battleships in Amphibious Assault:  the USS Arkansas (BB-33) “opening fire” with a landing craft to her bow, and the USS Nevada (BB-36) “lets rip” with her ten 14 inch guns 🙂  To bombard the invasion beaches!  There’s always been a debate, over how successful this was; but I feel, that it was “very successful” indeed.  As if you (the enemy) had 12 inch, and 14 inch diameter shells “flying towards you”, wouldn’t you “keep your head down”?  I think you would!  Yet, that is not all, for “such firepower” also helped inspire the allied soldiers, who actually stormed the D-Day beachs.  Granted, each soldier has a “different tale to tell”, but there’s one such image that stands out for me:  the image of the cliff at Pointe-du-Hoc; it looks hard enough to climb on a “good day”, let alone when under enemy fire!

I feel that this is a great book, that I believe accurately describes one of the few times/places in history, that can claim the title “Hell on Earth”.  The book’s one down point:  my copy is “falling to bits”.

A Good Film about Pearl Harbor – Battleship Row

I like watching the modern war film Pearl Harbor:

I think this film does a reasonable job of portraying the events that occurred on the “Day of Infamy”.  Three important points are illustrated.  The first is the relaxed nature of the Americans (on the day).  As the attack occurred at 7:45 am on a Sunday morning, its easy to see that many personnel would not have been “with it” straight-away.  For the most part, they would have been asleep!  The second is the ability of small aircraft to cause damage to constructs many times bigger than themselves:  stationary battleships could easily be damaged/sunk by air-launched bombs and torpedoes.  Yet, at the same time, aircraft can also strafe the enemy with their machine-guns: targeting both personnel and aircraft (that happen to be on the ground).  The film helps illustrate the flexibility of aircraft (which would play an even bigger role in the later stages of World War Two).  The third is the fact that “the ability to fight” is only one side of the story.  You also need the other side of the story:  the skills of the hospital staff and nurses.  Yet I have heard that “both sides” complained of having “nothing to do” on the run-up to Pearl Harbor.  This soon changed – as both sides were overwhelmed by the Japanese attack.  There’s also an important lesson within the film:  don’t ever assume that any bomb is a dud!  My least favourite scene is the drowning of the men aboard the USS Oklahoma:  it would be truly horrible for any good swimmer to be caught in a situation like that (and unable to get out).  Overall:  I like the storyline and special effects of this film – particularly the computer generated models within “battleship row”.  Its also a pity there’s not more women around like Evelyn this day and age!

Japan – Victories at Pearl Harbor

American losses at Pearl Harbor were significant.  Over 2400 men dead, almost 300 aircraft destroyed/damaged and nine battleships (together with various cruisers and destroyers) either damaged or sunk:

The USS West Virginia was sunk at Pearl Harbor (shown here next to the USS Tennessee). Note the “Lattice masts”, which were common to earlier American battleships.

At this time, the American public (like others) still viewed the Battleship as the “arbiter of sea power”. Thus, it was that the repair of these battleships became a “top priority” for the American Navy. One battleship, the USS Arizona, was beyond any hope of repair: having absorbed eight bombs, she suffered a magazine explosion – which essentially tore the ship in two! The Arizona became the tomb of just under 1200 American sailors, and is today regarded as an important War Memorial. As for the other battleships, the following were sunk (to varying degrees): the USS Oklahoma, the USS Nevada, the USS California, the USS West Virginia and the USS Utah (which was regarded as obsolete by this time); and the following were damaged: the USS Pennsylvania, the USS Maryland and the USS Tennessee. Most of these battleships were raised and fully repaired before World War Two ended (except for the Arizona, Oklahoma and Utah). My favourite “rebuild story” concerns the USS West Virginia, which having absorbed at least six torpedoes was regarded as being “beyond repair”. She became a symbol of American industrial capacity, and being “fully rebuilt” within two years, she returned just in time to settle some “old scores” against the Japanese. Overall: the Japanese were “very impressed” by their victory at Pearl Harbor, but few realised that all they had really done was to “wake the sleeping giant”. Even so, it was only by luck that the American aircraft carriers were not at Pearl Harbor – if they had of been, then I believe that the Japanese would have had their Pacific Empire, at least for a while.

Japan Attacks Pearl Harbor – The Forge of an Empire

There are those who shall always be concerned with Empire building. One such “those” was the heads of the Imperial Japanese Military. When America imposed various sanctions upon Japan, “those” felt that Japan’s ambitions were being constrained. As Japan had the third largest Naval Fleet in the world (at the time), it was felt by “those” that Japan deserved its own Empire (akin to the British Empire). Japan chose the Pacific. Just one “bug” stood in the way, the American Naval Base at Pearl Harbor:

It was felt by “those” that a single hammer hit against the entire American Pacific fleet would be enough to send America back to the US mainland – and give dominion over the Pacific to Japan (at least for the foreseeable future). Three “tools” were chosen for this. First: there was the element of surprise (i.e. declare war against the US at the last possible moment). Second: there was the Nakajima B5N torpedo bomber (i.e. take advantage of powerful torpedo’s that could easily punch holes in/sink battleships, aircraft carriers and destroyers). Third: there was the Mitsubishi A6M Zero (i.e. target enemy fighters before they can take off, plus bomb various enemy installations).  For me, Pearl Harbor is the ultimate embodiment of “The Art of War”: fight the enemy where he least expects it. Even so, I have heard various theories that the American administration “knew” that the attack on Pearl Harbor was imminent, but even if that was so, the Americans were caught “completely by surprise” on the day! I believe the main reason for this was the fact that many Americans were “just waking up”. It also didn’t help that ammunition was locked away, that various warships were “more ready for inspection than being shot at” and that important personnel were not “where they were supposed to be”. When it comes to “shooting guns”, a simple rule applies: its easier to shoot at stationary targets than it is to shoot at moving targets. In short: the battleships moored in “battleship row” were easy pickings; and the American fighters packed closely together on the ground (for fear of sabotage) were also easy pickings.

A Good Film with B-17 Flying Fortresses – US Air Force

I like the way that B-17 Flying Fortresses are portrayed within the film Memphis Belle:

This film highlights an important fact about early American bombing missions in World War Two:  the fact that no long-range fighter existed to protect the B-17’s from attacks by German fighters (during the “early/middle stages” of World War Two).  As such, B-17’s flew in formations, which although providing a “defensive shell” also turned them into a bigger target for ground-based anti-aircraft guns (aka flak).  I like the way the film illustrates both sides of the “durability coin”:  on one side the B-17 could soak up a tremendous amount of battle damage* (such as loosing engines, holes in wings and holes in tail sections); but on the other side, mid-air collisions (or loosing your tail section!) would doom any B-17.  Within the film, there’s also an effective illustration of a war-related saying (that still holds true today):  “any actions you do (or fail to do) may contribute to the death of others”.  This occurs when the co-pilot temporally swaps with the tail gunner, so that the co-pilot may have have a go at shooting.  Although initially shooting down a German Messerschmitt, the co-pilot is eventually responsible for the loss of an entire B-17 and its crew (as the Messerschmitt crashes into the B-17).  I also thought that the “fall back” to manual fuel transfer (pump) and manual undercarriage lowering (gear) added some drama.  Overall:  I enjoyed watching this film, and feel that it does a “pretty good job” of capturing the emotions that our brave allied air crews would have experienced.  As an aside*, I also find it interesting to consider the amount of battle damage, that such military units were expected to “soak up”.  I can understand, the need for a bomber to take punishment, and still being able to bring it’s crew home; but in the minds of planners/designers, that requirement also has to be matched with conserving fuel (aka – not too much armoured plate!).  And yet, it is something of an irony then, that that same requirement, also existed to a certain extent, in the largest “soak up” units that were ever made:  the Navy and their Battleships 🙂  As on a battleship, was to be found the ideal construct, for as much armoured plate as possible; but in practice, did financial budgets, limit how much could (usually) be incorporated.  Unless of course, your Japan, and their Yamato class!

Lancaster or B-17 Flying Fortress? – Allied Air Power

I had the opportunity to ask my uncle an important question regarding World War Two over the weekend:  What was the better bomber – the Lancaster or the B-17 Flying Fortress?

Swooping Down on a B-17!

The answer surprised me!  My Uncle opted for the Lancaster 🙂  Now, I will admit that I have always liked the Lancaster, if only for three reasons:  i)  It was one of the first planes I saw at Duxford when I was a kid.  ii)  It was the plane “made famous for me as a kid” by the film Dam Busters.  iii)  It was one of the first plastic Airfix kits that I ever made!  My Uncle has added some “facts” to this attraction now:   the Lancaster is much more versatile (e.g.  able to carry heavier bombs and undertake different types of missions) and is much more powerful (e.g.  in terms of manoeuvrability and speed).  According to him, the Lancaster was superior in every way to the B-17 except for one area:  defence.  I believe the British also knew this fact, which is why the Lancaster did not undertake long range bombing missions during World War Two until fighter support was guaranteed.  Even then, Lancaster bombers were retained (at least initially) for their role in “Operation Overlord” (aka D-Day).  Although such bombers were meant to bombard the invasion beaches, it is generally accepted that they actually bombed “too far” inland:  which (as was proven later) was a far greater help to D-Day plus one, two, three, etc.  But on D-Day itself, it was the bombardment operations provided by allied Battleships, that actually helped the troops the most (together with various other ship/warship launched weapons – such as “early rockets”).  In any case, a 15 inch shell fired from a battleship naval gun, was ideal at “opening up” craters, that men could “cover in”, on the beaches of Normandy.  That said, the same would have been true (I believe) for any such craters, that had been opened up by the Lancasters (after D-Day); although such craters/cover, would have found themselves in the context of urban warfare, as opposed to amphibious assault.  Overall:  I’m still fascinated by the Lancaster bomber, and hope to see one again soon 🙂  A particular highlight, that I remember watching recently, is the Dam Busters Bouncing Bomb documentary.  I was amazed by the fact, that the “whizz kids”, were having a challenging time, recreating the bouncing bomb!  Just as they did, back in the day.