Jim Gordon Posted 9 January , 2005 Share Posted 9 January , 2005 Was Air-to-Ship offensive action ever considered by the enemy in WW1 to supplement their U-Boat campaign or, ineed, did it ever occur? It is more than likely that aeronautical technology of that time was not sophisticated enough to allow this to happen. Just think though how vulnerable shipping would have been. No Anti-Aircraft weaponry fitted. No Gun crews trained even if it had been and the only feasible defence the Lewis Gun. Was the posibility of air attack considered as a possibility by their Lords High Commissioners of the Admiralty ? Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 9 January , 2005 Share Posted 9 January , 2005 Lots of bombs were dropped on allied shipping by Zeppelins, especially ships close to the East Coast of England. There were a few hits, too. I am also sure, but I'd need to check, that some of the German seaplanes also dropped a few bombs on allied shipping. Then there was the saga of the airship which captured a ship; the crew chose to take to their lifeboats, rather than risk being bombed. Some of the German aircrew boarded the ship, which was claimed as booty, and sailed to German territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 9 January , 2005 Share Posted 9 January , 2005 I should add the Zeppelin attacks on shippping were opportunist; the main target were always places, on land, of military significance (where possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 9 January , 2005 Share Posted 9 January , 2005 Jim The German Navy did carry out torpedo attacks in shipping during the War, with the Gotha WD 14 (see below) being the main aeroplane used. One torpedo was carried in a bay in the fuselage. A gunner in the aircraft's nose was supposed to keep the crew of the ship occupied during the torpedo run. Unfortunately (for the Germans, at least) the WD 14 wasn't a great success in any of the locations where it was tried: the English Channel, the North Sea and the Gulf of Riga. The fairly low power of the aircraft meant that it needed a long, straight and slow run to launch the torpedo, followed by a slow climb out after the drop. This made the aeroplane a reasonably easy target for the anti-submarine guns mounted on most ships of the day. WD 14s stayed in service up to the Armistice. I hope this helps you. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 10 January , 2005 Share Posted 10 January , 2005 Jim Given the technology in WWI, the larger warships were not very vulnerable to air bombing attacks as the size of bombs was minute, especially in comparison with the shells that the ships were firing at each other (up to 15 inch) and for that they had armoured decks as a defence. Following on from what Gareth has said, the RNAS also developed torpedo launching during the war (with their first successful attack in August 1915). As for Anti-Aircraft weaponry, Jane’s Fighting Ships of WWI (studio edition, with forward by Capt J Moore RN) shows that some destroyers had dedicated aa gun (all the others only had machine guns or 2 pounder pom-poms), other than that all the larger classes (destroyer flotilla leaders up to battleships) of front-line (i.e. launched after 1905) ships listed have dedicated aa guns in addition to pom-poms and mgs. Even the pre-Dreadnought battleships mounted 2 maxims and various pom-poms. According to a report summarised in Capt SW Roskill, Documents Relating to the Naval Air Service (Navy Records Society, 1969): their Lords High Commissioners of the Admiralty had not only considered air attack by 1913, but had conducted tests to find aa suitable guns. Various calibres had been tried from 1pounder pom-poms to a 4 inch quick firing gun (it hard to find weights of naval shells, but if I remember correctly that is around a 75 pounder, larger than anything the BEF took over in 1914) and adopted and mounted a 3 inch (roughly 75mm) gun as the dedicated aa type. It was a standard naval gun and therefore training was easy to give, after all they were also training to hit fast moving patrol boats and destroyers. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphin Posted 10 January , 2005 Share Posted 10 January , 2005 Jim Just to round off this topic, and to add a little to Fred's post, the RAF and the Royal Navy were planning extensive use of torpedo-carrying aircraft for 1919. The Sopwith T.1 Cuckoo (a bird that lays its eggs in the nests of others) was being developed in a role similar to that undertaken by the Fairey Swordfish in the 1939-1945 War. Use of Cuckoo was delayed as its original Hispano-Suiza engine was needed for SE 5as, so it had to be modified to accommodate the 200hp Sunbeam Arab. For more information, see R D Layman's Naval Aviation in the First World War; ISBN 1 55750 617 5. Had the War gone on into the next year, there would have been a 'Taranto' style raid on the German Navy at Wilhelmshaven. A photograph of a Blackburn-built Sopwith Cuckoo dropping an 18 inch torpedo is below. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gordon Posted 10 January , 2005 Author Share Posted 10 January , 2005 Pete, Gareth, Fred Thank you all very much for your informative replies. I am really quite astonished that so much activity in this field did take place at that time and that their LHCs had the foresight to plan ahead. Mind you it is a pity that their initiative seems to have slowed up in the yaers between the wars. I was heavily involved with the RN in 1942 and the principal AA Gun then was the 4.7 inch using a cartridge which weighed about 80 pounds. The 3-inch 20 Hwt Gun was still in use as were the Pom-Poms. (28 Cartridges, HA, Fused, Linked etc.). The thought that Zeppelins might have been used did cross my mind but I thought that they would have presented a juicy target to even a ship when in their hovering mode. If the ship was unarmed - no problem. As for hitting moving targets this is a problem I have wrestled with all my working life and it has just been partially solved with the advent of Laser Controlled Weaponry. It was surprising to learn that ships did have guns (not specifically designed for AA work) dedicated for that purpose. I suppose that they did have a slight chance of hitting something due to the relatively slow speed that the aircraft of that time could achieve despite the difficulties imposed by operating from unstabilised platforms and getting the gun barrel elevated sufficiently. Anyway thanks again to you all. Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gordon Posted 10 January , 2005 Author Share Posted 10 January , 2005 Pete, Gareth, Fred Thank you all very much for your informative replies. I am really quite astonished that so much activity in this field did take place at that time and that their LHCs had the foresight to plan ahead. Mind you it is a pity that their initiative seems to have slowed up in the yaers between the wars. I was heavily involved with the RN in 1942 and the principal AA Gun then was the 4.7 inch using a cartridge which weighed about 80 pounds. The 3-inch 20 Hwt Gun was still in use as were the Pom-Poms. (28 Cartridges, HA, Fused, Linked etc.). The thought that Zeppelins might have been used did cross my mind but I thought that they would have presented a juicy target to even a ship when in their hovering mode. If the ship was unarmed - no problem. As for hitting moving targets this is a problem I have wrestled with all my working life and it has just been partially solved with the advent of Laser Controlled Weaponry. It was surprising to learn that ships did have guns (not specifically designed for AA work) dedicated for that purpose. I suppose that they did have a slight chance of hitting something due to the relatively slow speed that the aircraft of that time could achieve despite the difficulties imposed by operating from unstabilised platforms and getting the gun barrel elevated sufficiently. The Cuckoo certainly looks like the Swordfish but don't let us forget it was a Swordfish that got the Bismark. Anyway thanks again to you all. Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 10 January , 2005 Share Posted 10 January , 2005 (edited) Jim, If you’ve got £4.95 to spare then the Naval & Military Press will let you have one of their bargains (previously £22.50) “Naval Aviation in the First World War – Its impact and influence” By R. D. Layman He has a chapter ‘Tactical Offence’ which specifically addresses your question and his Appendix 2 gives a list of “Ships sunk, permanently disabled, captured, interned or otherwise incapacitated by direct or indirect aerial action.” Mine has just arrived and I have not finished reading it yet but it seems worth the price of a couple of drinks [no, I’m not on commission with N&M] Regards Michael D.R. PS: Sorry Gareth, I'd somehow overlooked the fact that you had already mentioned this book. OOOPs. Edited 10 January , 2005 by michaeldr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Roberts Posted 11 January , 2005 Share Posted 11 January , 2005 It was only just after the war, in 1920, that Billy Mitchell carried out his tests in Chesapeake Bay, using bombers (Handley Page 0/400s and Martin MB2s) to attack captured German ships, eventually sinking the Ostfriesland. The tests were ridiculed as unrealistic: the targets were unarmed and at anchor. Mitchell's posthumous rehabilitation after Pearl Harbor was only partly justified and largely a propaganda ploy, IMO, because even in WW2 ships were very rarely sunk by level bombing - most of them, including those at Pearl Harbour, were sunk by dive bombers (more accurate) or torpedo bombers. The Tirpitz was an exception, but it took three raids by Lancasters using Tallboy bombs to to sink it. Hitting a ship with a bomb only knocks chunks off it: a near miss is more effective as the water concussion magnifies the blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 11 January , 2005 Share Posted 11 January , 2005 To answer the original question, yes the Germans did use aircraft against shipping. The technology of the time limited the effectiveness of these operations. Lloyd's War Losses: The First World War has one ship sunk and two damaged by zeppelins. Aircraft and seaplanes sank six ships and damaged another 19. (Total tonnage of the seven ships sunk is 9512 grt — not impressive.) On at least one occassion, the Germans also used to aircraft to radio the position of convoys so submarines could attack them. The slow speed, lack of range, and small weapons load of aircraft of the day cut both ways: it also meant that aircraft posed only a minimal threat to submarines. Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 11 January , 2005 Share Posted 11 January , 2005 Michael I have details of some, but not all, of these incidents. Would it be too much trouble to list them, please. If it is, I would completely understand. TIA Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 11 January , 2005 Share Posted 11 January , 2005 Pete, I actually have it all in a spreadsheet. In order of name, flag, tonnage, date, location, agent Sunk: FRANZ FISHER, GBR, 957 grt, 1/2/1916, 2 miles S of the Kentish Knock LV by Zeppelin ROSIE (navy drifter), GBR, 84 grt, 26/8/1916, Adriatic by Seaplane GENA, GBR, 2784 grt, 1/5/1917, off Southwold by Seaplane KANKAKEE, GBR, 3718 grt, 14/6/1917, abt 1 mile N of Sunk Head Buoy by Seaplane PENELOPE, GBR, 1402 grt, 24/8/1917, E of Svalveroft LH, Gulf of Riga by aircraft STORM, GBR, 440 grt, 8/ 9/1917, 1 mile SE of Sunk LV by Seaplane MEEUW (aux), NLD, 127 grt, 21/4/1918, 12 miles ExS of North Hinder LV by aircraft Damaged: JOHN EVELYN (tr), GBR, 57 grt, 7/9/1915, Millwall Dock - damaged only by Zeppelin DOTTEREL, GBR, 1596 grt, 4/11/1915, 14 miles W1/2N of Noord Hinder LV - damaged only by aircraft BALGOWINE, GBR, 1061 grt, 27/11/1915, .25 miles N of Noord Hinder LV - damaged only by aircraft SOUTHGARTH, GBR, 2414 grt, 12/12/1915, 51°08'N, 02°33'E - damaged only by aircraft beached and refloated ARGO (s/v), NOR, 678 grt, 22/4/1916, at Leith - damaged only by Zeppelin SEATTLE, GBR, 5133 grt, 19/5/1916, Dunkirk Dock - damaged only by aircraft LORD STRATHCONA, GBR, 7335 grt, 20/5/1916, at Dunkirk - damaged only by aircraft VALENTIA, GBR, 3242 grt, 21/5/1916, Dunkirk harbor - damaged only by aircraft GROSSVENOR, GBR, 267 grt, 11/7/1917, Dunkirk harbor - damaged only by aircraft SUZANNE ET MARIE, FRA, 1644 grt, 11/9/1917, at Dunkirk - damaged only by aircraft ORANGEMOOR, GBR, 4134 grt, 12/9/1917, Dunkirk harbor - damaged only by aircraft STOCKWELL, GBR, 5643 grt, 25/9/1917, Royal Albert Dock by aircraft POLESCAR, GBR, 5832 grt, 25/9/1917, at Dunkirk - damaged only by aircraft MRTHYR, GBR, 143 grt, 28/1/1918, Fresh Wharf - damaged only by aircraft MAASSTROOM, NLD, 1034 grt, 28/1 /1918, Fresh Wharf - damaged only by aircraft HOLLAND IX (s/v), NLD, ? grt, 8/3/1918, North Sea, towed into Scheveningen - damaged only by aircraft ANNA (motor), NLD, 340 grt, 5/4/1918, 53°58'N, 03°54'E - damaged only by aircraft BERTHA (motor), NLD, 346 grt, 20/4/1918, damaged at unnamed location while on trip from Sarpsborg for Rotteerdam by aircraft ALBERDINA (s/v) NLD, ? grt, 1/5/1918, 35 miles NW of Scheveningen - damaged only by aircraft VORWAARTS (s/v), NLD, ? grt, 9/5/1918, N of Dogger Bank LV - damaged only by aircraft SCOTIA, GBR, ? grt, 22/7/1918, Calais harbor - damaged only by aircraft Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 11 January , 2005 Share Posted 11 January , 2005 Phwoarrrr. Thank you so much, Michael. I'll have a look later on, but I think I have one or two that are not on your list. Though, perhaps, I am getting confused by casualties, as a result of a near miss.... Are these of interest to you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 11 January , 2005 Share Posted 11 January , 2005 Pete, Sure, I'd be interested in cases of caualties that aren't on my list. My primary focus is the U-boat war but if you're worried about 7,500 ships sunk/damaged/taken as prize by German and Austrian submarine, adding in the few hundred cases involving surface ships or aircraft is no big deal... For my work, I do include all cases where someone was killed in the ship damaged category though, obviously, there are numerous ways a ship can be damaged without anyone being killed (torpedo or mine hit, failed stop and scuttle, etc.) Best wishes, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 13 January , 2005 Share Posted 13 January , 2005 On the 10th August 1915 at approximately 00.35hrs, L12 dropped 12 bombs in, or near, the harbour at Dover (on her way home). Three fell on land; the rest in the harbour. One bomb exploded under the bow of the trawler, Equinox. GHQ Home report shows one man severely injured and two slightly injured from the Equinox incident. Martin Easdown, Glint In The Sky, claims the severely injured man was a soldier who later died of his injuries. No names for the casualties, I am sorry to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Almost exactly a year later - 10th August 1916, at 00.58hrs - the L21 dropped three bombs, aimed at 'HM Yacht Miranda'. One man was injured from the blast, though the ship sustained no damage. The 'Miranda' was stationed 2 miles NE of Skinningrove. The L21 was flying at 6000 ft when the bombs were dropped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Lowrey Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 Pete, Thanks! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pete Wood Posted 14 January , 2005 Share Posted 14 January , 2005 On the 22nd July 1917, at approximately 08.10hrs, a Gotha bomber of KG 3 dropped 13 bombs in Harwich Harbour and the River Stour. One bomb damaged the minesweeper 'Touchstone' severely injuring two naval ratings (RNR) on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now