PzKpfw IV sinks destroyer?

Nixon was on Zulu. There was another war correspondent on Sikh that day but his name escapes me.

 

I don't think we've seen any of the articles written by the man on Sikh yet in that case. (in this thread)

 

Larry Allen, an Associated Press correspondent captured from HMS Sikh in Sept 1942

From:

BBC - WW2 People's War - Eric Crosswaite, 2nd Bn York and Lancaster Regt

He could not write much if he was a POW!

 

anyone near Syracuse?

Larry Allen Papers An inventory of his papers at Syracuse University

 

From an internet search I found this 1940 OOB for the Tobruk batteries.
10° Armata, 10.06.40

These are 1942
Army
http://www.orbat.com/site/ww2/drleo/019_italy/42-10-23/comando_tobruch.gif
Navy
Comando Marina di Tobruch, Regia Marina, 23.10.42

Not terribly accurate as AFAIK there was no such a thing as an Italian 102/35 AA gun.

 

yes there was;

Google Vertaling
Axis History Forum • View topic - Cannone da 102/35 OTO looking for specifications

and good find TOS

 

Here are more infos to find:

Weekly report Nr. 159 of th NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR SITUATION from 0700 September 10th, to 0700 September 17th, 1942 of ministery of war.

It stated that the HMS Sikh was sunk by coastal batteries and in this book
the caostal batteries were named as Italian and German AA-Batteries.

" Die fremden Flotten im II.WK und ihr Schicksal"


Nigel we´re coming closer to be millionairs!

 

I've spent my share already

 

I am not arguing the fact if it was an 88mm or not. I am arguing that your "source" could not tell the difference between which guns were firing, which he freely admits with

. If you wish to prove your point, your going to need a better or more knowledgeable source.


With regards to comparing the scuttling of the Sikh to the scuttling of the Bismarck

It does not matter what your nationality is. One side claims they sank an enemy ship, and the enemy counterclaims that they scuttled it. The fact remains that the ship DID sink due to enemy action. You will also note that I included another example that was Japanese vs. Americans, which I guess you either ignored or never read. But since your probably not Japanese or American, I suppose that won't run either...

Yes, that is true and if you missed it, I provided a quote from "Tobruk Commando" supporting your theory that larger guns were firing at HMS Sikh

However, "Tobruk Commando" only mentions two large caliber hits on HMS Sikh, again which I have quoted previously. So, overall, it would seem that the AA guns did the majority of the damage to HMS Sikh. Also, if the larger guns were hitting often, would that not preclude the HMS Sikh's survival for such a long period of time? So, apparently the "heavy guns" were not hitting near as often as the AA guns were. Also, if you are familiar with submarine gun actions, both the U-boats' 88mm and the American 3-inch could take quite a long time to sink a ship. The Americans later would switch to the 4-inch/50 for improved explosive power, but that gun had it's drawbacks as well, as the higher velocity shell tended to go all the way through an unarmored target before exploding. The Americans finally settled on the 5-inch/25 for their primary deck gun. It had just the right mix of penetration and explosive power.

 

as an aside;

the fact that there were large and medium guns firing on the Sikh, even if it had been the guns that actually sunk her, would not automatically indicate that it must have been the larger guns that did the fatal damage. All calibres that could realistically fire at the 1 mile range claimed could have easily penetrated the destroyer, and all could have equally easily hit something important. There is no proof either way to be gleaned from the fact that mixed calibres were hitting the Sikh as to what calibre round actually damaged her steering. That fact may possibly be clearer in after action reports if it was known at all, but it is not proven or disproven in any way by the fact of there being mixed incoming fire.

 

You're right, My reference had the Schneider-Armstrong 102/35 as WW1 torpedo boat and WW2 submarine armament but a number were converted for AA defence of naval bases.

 

IMO that's what makes threads like this worthwhile - constantly turning up little details. I'd never heard of that gun either but it seems they were relatively widespread - i guess the ww1 fleet had quite a lot of them to give up

also means that those OOBs probably aren't in question which is good news

 

US 5" guns at Wake sunk a Japanese destroyer. The cause apparently was shells reaching the magazine of said ship. I see nothing to indicate that 3" guns or 88mm guns couldn't do the same thing. Destroyers after all were hardly armored. Indeed I've read of one Japanese DD that was left dead in the water with heavy casualties from 12.7mm mg fire alone.

 

I'd love to find that reference Lwd if you have it to hand, I think it would clear this debate up in one simple stroke. I believe I have heard of it too, but no recollection of what and when.

 

Yeah.

And you also forgot that the Kriegsmarine and Coastal Artillery sank ships using 88s. So yeah-your info is old, inaccurate and outdated.

 

Last time I looked for it I couldn't find it. The basic circumstances were that US CV planes conducted a fairly massive raid on a Japanese base. One Japanese DD managed to get underway and wasn't hit by bombs. When the Bombers got through and headed home the escort fighters were released to attack targets of opertunity. The DD was considered such. They apparently strafed it until it's AA was out of commission then made successive passes firing at a point (or perhaps more accurately an area) on the hull where the boilers were. Eventually the 50 cal rounds penetrated the hull and boilers leaving her dead in the water.

Matasukaze may have been the DD as she was listed as sustaining moderate damage from near misses and strafing during Hailstone.

 

Also, my grandfathers Ship was sunk partly thanks to an 88 being fired from the deck of a Uboat. Now lest see you try to debunk that fact Michael. This happened in Nov 44.

 

Thanks for looking - I didn't look hard enough yet to find a specific story but just typing 'destroyer damaged by strafing' into google brings up numerous references which seem to indicate it happened a lot and sometimes quite seriously.

 

That was a little over three years ago LWD, over on the AHF board. I was recently going back over that thread, looking for the pictures I had posted on Page 8, here is the link: Axis History Forum • View topic - The tragedy of the Japanese fleet
The debate goes over to the middle of page 3.

R Leonard thought it was the Japanese DD Yuzuki and Wargames came back with several sources that all gave conflicting reports on the actual damage, but none of the sources gave the damage as severe as you had said.

IMHO, it was probably one of their smaller escort ships and not a destroyer.

I didn't come in until sometime around page 4.


C. Evans,
It is not that an 88mm could not sink a ship. It could, and did, but it would take a while to do so. IIRC, some of the U-Boat deck gun sinkings took upwards of two hours, and some as little as 40 minutes.

 

I think the word that is important is 'partly'.

Can I have an example where a large Destroyer was sunk by the efforts of 88's ALONE ?
I.E. it was not being fired on by shore batteries at the same time the 88's were firing?



A lot of confusion and obfuscation going on here.
The claim is a German '88's AA Unit 'sank' 2 Destroyers.
The first problem is that 1 of the Destroyers was sunk by aircraft more than 200 miles away from Tobruk( 32.00N 28.56E) just after she sank Coventry (32º48'N / 28º17'E)
The second Destroyer was close inshore under fire from of several larger calibre guns specificaly intended to deal with any such incursion.
No one is claiming the AA guns did not hit the ships.
What is being contested is that the '88's sank the ship

78 AA Guns (17 batteries.)of which 30 were 88's.

47 Italian Guns in 13 Coastal defence batteries.

That is 125 guns in total and unlike the coastal guns some of those AA guns will have been sited inland.
I find it quite ludicrous to claim the 95 Italian guns only hit the Sikh 'twice' and that all the damage was done by 88mm guns when larger guns were present and firing.

This map below was posted earlier and it clearly shows the ships under fire from 5 shore batteries.

1. Batt. Bellotti
2. Batt. Tordo
3. Batt. Dandolo
4. Batt. 76 (at Punta Tobruk)
5. Batt. Grasso
Batt. 105 and Forte Perrone are also located but there is no linking to the Destroyer action.
It obviously came from an Italian source so there should have been more information with it originaly.



The wording on Sikh and Zulu says they opened fire on Tobruk but were immobilised by the fire of the batteries
To avoid any confusion they helpfully draw lines from the batteries to the ships.


The best that can be said is that 88's contributed to the sinking.
That ignores the fact that the 88's actualy claimed 2 Destroyers were sunk. They claimed credit for a ship that went down over 200 miles from Tobruk!
Clearly they had grossly overestimated their contribution to what was an Italian victory
I doubt anyone bothered to look through/translate the Italian web pages devoted to this battle but I did. You will find many references to the shore batteries and this battle.
It is not to difficult to see that attempts were being made to downplay the Italian contribution.