Book Research

[TorpX]

I have been reading UNITED STATES SUBMARING OPERATIONS OF WORLD WAR II, by Theodore Roscoe.

I am enjoying it quite a bit, starting with this on page xv:

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 1942 OR

"Old Fuds, Young Studs and Lieutenant Commanders"

Battleships are title B, That's Lesson One in strategy.
They are the backbone of the Fleet,
Their fighting power can't be beat.
They dominate the raging Main, While swinging round the anchor chain,
And bravely guard your home and mine,
While anchored out there all in line.
They fill the Japs with fear and hate,
From well inside the Golden Gate.

Now Lesson Two in strategy-
Our subs and planes are title C.
Just send them out on any mission,
And win your battles by attrition.
Where'er you send the subs or planes,
You're bound to chalk up lots of gains-
And losses, too, but what the hell,
Who cares about their personnel?
For planes are chauffeured by young studs,
Lieutenant Commanders run the subs.

Richard G. Voge
Lieutenant Commander, USN



I like it.

Very appropriate, too.

I'll post some more when I have time.

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by TorpX

And bravely guard your home and mine,
While anchored out there all in line.
They fill the Japs with fear and hate,
From well inside the Golden Gate.

Interesting. The Japanese carrier pilots and cruiser and destroyers crews had a parallel disdain for their own battleship fleet as well. It was often disparagingly referred to as the "Hashirajima fleet" as they spent most of their time idle at anchor at Hashirajima anchorage near Hiroshima. As in the USN, finding productive work for the older, slower BBs in the shadow of airpower was a problem early on in the war.

[TorpX]

The matter of sonar, or sound attacks comes up periodically, so I thought I'd type up some interesting quotes from the book, on this matter.



from p67:

By pre-war definition, a sound attack was one delivered from deep submergence, the approach officer depending solely on "sound information." On submerged approach, the JK and QB listening devices were manned in the torpedo room or conning tower, and the JP listening device was manned in the torpedo room. It was up to Sound to maintain a continuous and accurate flow of data to the approach officer. One listener kept continuously trained on the nearest escort if the target was screened, while the JP was frequently used for all-around sweeps. ... Changes in target bearing, speed and range were relayed by Sound to the fire control party, and the attack was made with the submarine maneuvering far below the surface.

Here are excerpts from the "Report of Gunnery Exercises, 1940-1941" (quoted in the book):

A submarine attacking a target protected by supersonic screen has a 50-50 chance of penetrating screen without detection. It has a 1 in 4 chance of escaping detection and making successful sound attack on target.

If detected while penetrating sound screen it has 1 chance in 7 of evading depth charge attack and completing successful attack on target.

If detected by sound screen it has a 1 in 7 chance of successfully attacking target but receiving depth charge damage in return.

On 1 out of 8 attempted attacks submarines will receive fatal damage and if detected by sound screen there is 1 chance in 4 of submarines's receiving fatal damage by depth charge attacks.

Results indicate that submarines making sound attacks on an unscreened target in an area where good sound conditions exist, regardless of whether target is periodically making small or large changes if course, can expect about one-half of attacks to be successful...

It is bad practice and is contrary to submarine doctrine to conduct an attack at periscope depth when aircraft are known to be in the vicinity...

Obviously, the sound-attack doctrine crumbled away quickly, once war broke out.

Concerning these pre-war concepts, one sub captain wrote: "They should forever stand as monuments to the dangers inherent in reaching sweeping conclusions, as regards tactics, from target practices conducted under artificial conditions."

[in_vino_vomitus]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

Interesting. The Japanese carrier pilots and cruiser and destroyers crews had a parallel disdain for their own battleship fleet as well. It was often disparagingly referred to as the "Hashirajima fleet" as they spent most of their time idle at anchor at Hashirajima anchorage near Hiroshima. As in the USN, finding productive work for the older, slower BBs in the shadow of airpower was a problem early on in the war.

This brought back a memory - My father served on HMS Black Swan during WWII and he once told me that the joke amongst sailors back then was that the Grand Fleet needed three days notice to move, because they needed dredgers to clear away all the ration tins that had been thrown over the side whilst at anchor in Scapa Flow.

As an aside, one of the reasons I enjoy watching Run Silent, Run Deep, is that the older he got, the more he resembled Burt Lancaster, not that he actually got that old - Have met him once in-game too, playing with a type IX off Gibraltar That would have been an ironic way to end a career

Anyway, sorry to stray from the topic at hand. It seems like the Royal navy had similar feelings - some of them at least.

I'd be interested to know whether this was just human nature manifesting itself - after all Battleships were pretty prestigious and I can imagine their crews bragging would rub the crew of a destroyer up the wrong way, especially one that had just brought a convoy into port.....

[jerm138]

This type of thing still exists today between submariners and carrier pukes (or, at least it did 10 years ago when I was in).

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by in_vino_vomitus

I'd be interested to know whether this was just human nature manifesting itself - after all Battleships were pretty prestigious and I can imagine their crews bragging would rub the crew of a destroyer up the wrong way, especially one that had just brought a convoy into port.....

On a sort of sociological note, I find it fascinating how much passion for battleships still exists. We had a thread not too along about resurrecting the Iowas from their current museum ship status. As a naval weapon system they have been off the stage for more than 70 years. It's sort of like longing for the return of the ironclad ships of the line in 1930. Maybe it's the still lingering prestige that surrounded them when they were the core of any major navy. For all the press that was written about battleships, they really saw very little ship to ship action over the entire time they were part of the world's navies. The times battleships engaged each other is even rarer. But then maybe that's what makes the battleship engagements more famous and well-known.

A battleship looks big and brutal, but in the end they were pretty much expensive showboats. They turned out to be useful for shore bombardment, but if someone purpose built a ship for that mission, they could have built a much cheaper ship. By WW2 a carrier or a squadron of destroyers was a much better bang for the buck, even if they don't look as sexy.

[in_vino_vomitus]

Originally Posted by Dread Knot

On a sort of sociological note, I find it fascinating how much passion for battleships still exists. We had a thread not too along about resurrecting the Iowas from their current museum ship status. As a naval weapon system they have been off the stage for more than 70 years. It's sort of like longing for the return of the ironclad ships of the line in 1930. Maybe it's the still lingering prestige that surrounded them when they were the core of any major navy. For all the press that was written about battleships, they really saw very little ship to ship action over the entire time they were part of the world's navies. The times battleships engaged each other is even rarer. But then maybe that's what makes the battleship engagements more famous and well-known.

A battleship looks big and brutal, but in the end they were pretty much expensive showboats. They turned out to be useful for shore bombardment, but if someone purpose built a ship for that mission, they could have built a much cheaper ship. By WW2 a carrier or a squadron of destroyers was a much better bang for the buck, even if they don't look as sexy.

Yeah - I'm no Naval historian, but it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to see how putting air power to sea changed everything.