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.

Dunkirk Evacuation – and Mers-el-Kébir Attack

History may be written by the victors, but it seems that even the victors can differ in their accounts!  Dunkirk is one such “theatre of war”:

This video suggests, that if it wasn’t for the French, that the majority of the “British Expeditionary Force” (and other allied troops) would never have made it back to England.  This may very well be so, but instead of concentrating on “who did what”, I believe it is more important to draw parallels between such individuals.  I believe that the men who “stayed behind” (no matter their nationality) must have been some of the most bravest individuals alive (at the time).  It does not matter whether these men were “ordered to”, or whether they were “expected to”.  My reasoning for this is that it takes a “hell of a man” to stand up against tanks and artillery, when you have “little more” than a machine gun yourself!  Let alone the men of the “little ships“, who knowing fore-well, drove their boats into enemy fire (on the beaches), when they didn’t have any guns themselves!  I wonder how many of us, would willingly do that today?  I believe that Dunkirk, is one of those few times in history, when the “class divide” has been breached 🙂

For me, the most important outcome of Dunkirk, was the fact that so many troops survived; as no army can fight without men!  The irony was, the fact that this army no longer had any equipment left to “fight with”.  As it had been left on mainland Europe, either damaged in battle, destroyed by the allies “as they retreated” or captured by the Germans.  This simple “fact” would take a while to “put right”.

Yet here do I find, one of the ironies of war!  As Britain and France, were Allies at Dunkirk, whilst one month later, were Enemies at Mers-el-Kébir; when the British Royal Navy, attacked and sunk, the entire French Navy Fleet!  It makes no sense to me, that when Britain was struggling with supplies, and suffering “equipment shortages”, that they would attack, their French ally; especially when I believe, that there would still have been, “Dunkirk rescued” French troops in Britain.  Yet attack, the British did!

French Battleships – Ablaze at Mers-el-Kébir

The Royal Navy’s Flagship, HMS Hood, was commanded to attack, the French Navy Port, at Mers-el-Kébir.  As it was feared, that the French Battleships stationed there, could fall into “German Hands”.  Despite giving the French Battleships Fleet Commander “every opportunity”, to “hand over his battleships to British Command”; did the British eventually “open fire” 😦  One of the French Battleships, the Bretagne was hit, and suffered a magazine explosion, which ultimately killed “most of her crew”.  Another French Battleship, the Dunkerque was also “severely damaged” by 15 inch naval gun fire, that came from HMS Hood.  I remember reading somewhere, that the crew of HMS Hood “never really did quite believe, what they were doing”; but here do I find, one of the “truths of war”, and of the importance of the “chain of command”:  you do what your told, and if you don’t, then they’ll get someone who will!

Dunkirk – World War Two – D-Day Mark I

Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man is the second book on World War Two that I shall consider:

Little Known “Evacuation Facts” of World War Two

Several years before D-Day, a large British force was sent to mainland Europe:  it was known as the “British Expeditionary Force” (the BEF).  It was intended that this force would aid in the defence of France.  Unfortunately, this defence “did not go according to plan”, and it became apparent that over three hundred and thirty-eight thousand men needed to be evacuated from mainland Europe.  I like the fact, that this book highlights one “little known fact”, about the evacuation of the BEF (and it’s allies).  The fact that the evacuation was only “made possible”, because numerous brave British soldiers were ordered to “stay behind” and “buy the necessary time” for the rest of the army to escape back to England!  Of course, this is one of the most famous evacuations ever made (in the history of man); which was made possible, through both the Royal Navy, and it’s requested “little ships” 🙂  I like the idea, that a flotilla of “smaller ships”, both aided in, and “made possible”, the evacuation of such high troop numbers!  Though I find this book, something of a contradiction, as for example:  it includes great descriptive text (such as the variety of “smaller boats” that were used:  “Tugs towing dinghies, lifeboats and all manner of pulling boats, small motor yachts, motor launches, drifters, Dutch schoots, Thames barges, fishing boats and pleasure steamers”); whilst at the same time, do I feel that this book, could have done with far more photos, of the actual evacuation from the beaches (I could only find three to five).  In any case, it is important to realise, that these “smaller boats” offloaded their “evacuated troops” to larger vessels, that were located offshore, such as fishing trawlers, and Royal Navy Destroyers (such as HMS Grafton [H89] and HMS Codrington [D65]).  As it sounds to me, that the Destroyers were having a “hard time of it“, I’ve often wondered, why no Battleships were present?  As to me, their primary armament naval guns, could have been of use on the beaches (just like in D-Day), and there anti-aircraft armament, could have been of use, to evacuating Destroyers, and “smaller boats”.

And of the men that were ordered to stay behind?  These men paid for this “evacuation time” through the execution of a simple order:  “You are not to give way until you have fired your last bullet.  You are to fight to the last man”.  I can only be impressed by the character and resolve of men, that could follow such an order, especially knowing that many of the German units, would be “taking no prisoners”.

This book is their story, which also includes several surprises about French culture that I’d never considered before.  In-fact, these “surprises” about French culture, actually managed to deter me, from reading the remainder of the book!  Perhaps you will be more successful?

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?

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.