WW1 ships' defence against air attack

[Justin Moretti]

I'm seriously wondering whether I wouldn't rather be in the Admiral class battleships than the Iron Dukes, if all of a sudden a hypothetical squadron of WW1 German torpedo bombers came down on me.

What did WW1 ships have for air defence - high angle mounts you could practically count on both thumbs, right? What did WW2 ships have? Light weapons all over the place. What did Victorian-era battleships have? Large calibre rapid fire guns (Gatling and Nordenfelt admittedly) firing heavy slugs of 0.50 up to 1 inch, on decks AND up in the fighting tops!

Of course, it's anyone's guess as to whether they could have dealt with a target doing 90-100 knots instead of thirty, but you don't need a high-angle mount to deal with a torpedo bomber, and there's all those 12 and 6 pdr (and lesser) guns they carried which could deal with the attack at longer range. Even a 3 pdr shell will smash down a stick-and-string machine, and a 1-inch machine gun isn't exactly chickenfeed either (especially if it's in the fighting tops and can fire downwards at a torpedo-armed attacker).

I would like to think they wouldn't have been completely defenceless.

[MikB]

I would like to think they wouldn't have been completely defenceless.

Hmmm... but with 4 12-inchers with a maximum range of 12000 or so, they'd've had rather a bad time against Scheer or Tirpitz or even von Spee, don't'y'think?

Couldn't get away from 'em if they came a-shootin', or catch 'em if they ran, either.

Regards,

MikB

[Justin Moretti]

This is true; however, my post was in the context of air attack, and air attack only.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

The Navy were years ahead of the army in their use of the machine gun, they'd used them operationally in the Bombardment of Alexandria 1882 (Jackie Fisher was one of the captains).

Using Jane's here's some facts for you:

Monmouth class 4x12pdr, 2x3pdr (anti-aircraft) 2 or 1 MG [oh wait isn't that proportionately more MGs than went per battalion of the BEF?]

Majestic class 16x12pdr + 2 as boat guns, 12x3pdr, 2 Maxims

Iron Duke class 2x3inch[roughly 75mm, that would make a dent in your aircraft, the WW2 standard for the UK was 3.7inch] (anti-aircraft) 4x3pdr 5 MG

WW2 era King George V class 64-88x 2pdr pompoms, 8x40mm Bofors, 25-38x 20mm Oerlikon guns fo AA defence.

Edited 21 March , 2007 by per ardua per mare per terram

[per ardua per mare per terram]

As you can see the Navy had already fitted anti aircraft guns pre war. In August 1914 the AA defence of Britain was organised by the Navy as the army couldn't handle it.

[DaveMurphy]

As you can see the Navy had already fitted anti aircraft guns pre war. In August 1914 the AA defence of Britain was organised by the Navy as the army couldn't handle it.

Ahh yes.., being a Naval Officer I love a good Navy vs Army debate!

Whilst studying the History of HMAS Sydney I (famous for sinking German Raider SMS Emden whilst convoying Australian troops to Gallipoli... well famous in Australia at least! ), I came across the interesting fact that she had an unsuccesful engagement against a Zeppelin.

Chatham Class Light Cruiser, her fit was: 8 x 6-inch guns, 1 x 13-pounder gun, 4 x 3-pounder guns, 2 torpedo tubes.

The story goes: "On 4 May 1917, while on patrol from the Humber estuary to the mouth of the Firth, SYDNEY fought a running engagement with the German Zeppelin L43 until SYDNEY had expended all the anti-aircraft ammunition and the L43 all her bombs - 'the combatants parted on good terms. (each cursing under their breath no doubt!)'"

Which got me thinking about the standard AA fit and how much ammunition was carried and fuse types used. I would be interested to know! Today the standard RAN/USN ammunition is High Explosive Variable Time (HEVT) which is fused by an electronic setter, pretty standard for Naval guns today. Maybe the fuse types (possibly Point Detonating (HEPD)?)used also didn't help against a quite slow moving target..., not sure how they would have gone against something doing a 'mere' 150-200kts!

Not sure how advanced AA Targetting/Ballistics were at the time either especially since it was all in its infancy during WWI.

Thoughts?

Dave

[SiegeGunner]

Not sure how advanced AA Targetting/Ballistics were at the time either especially since it was all in its infancy during WWI. Thoughts?

Point and shoot?

A variant of the 1" Nordenfelt was used in the aiming/targeting of big naval guns during WW1, so perhaps similar technology was employed in AA.

The story of Sydney's unsuccessful engagement with L43 is interesting. If it was so hard to hit a slow-moving of that size, what chance would she have had against a torpedo bomber? Better, perhaps, because at that altitude she would have been able to bring more guns to bear.

Mick

[DaveMurphy]

BTW, I have just read what I think is fast becoming my favourite quote for the week:

'the Army was a projectile to be fired by the Navy' - Sir Edward Grey 1911 (stolen from Corbett, maritime strategist extraordinare!)..., it is believed this heavily influenced Fisher when developing a Fleet Strategy prior to WWI.

I not also that todays Mk45 5inch gun, RAN/USN etc.. fires at a 'speedy' 17rpm much faster than those of even a generation ago, it enjoys hydraulic hoists and rams. Not sure of the firing rates of the early AA guns, but a torpedo bomber (and Zeppelins it appears!) would probably stand a reasonable chance against a manually loaded and aimed gun of that generation.., depends of course how many AA guns were fitted.

Dave

[MikB]

...(and Zeppelins it appears!) would probably stand a reasonable chance against a manually loaded and aimed gun of that generation.., depends of course how many AA guns were fitted.

Dave

Here's Kipling on the same subject, though with reference to submarines:-

The next thing we did, we rose under a Zeppelin,

With his shiny big belly half blocking the sky.

But what in the--Heavens can you do with six-pounders?

So we fired what we had and we bade him good-bye.

Seems to suggest a low opinion of their effectiveness, even against such a huge, slow target...

Regards,

MikB

[ionia]

Ahh yes.., being a Naval Officer I love a good Navy vs Army debate!

Which got me thinking about the standard AA fit and how much ammunition was carried and fuse types used. I would be interested to know! Today the standard RAN/USN ammunition is High Explosive Variable Time (HEVT) which is fused by an electronic setter, pretty standard for Naval guns today. Maybe the fuse types (possibly Point Detonating (HEPD)?)used also didn't help against a quite slow moving target..., not sure how they would have gone against something doing a 'mere' 150-200kts!

Dave

By 1914 the thinking was 200 rpg for the 3" AA.

Had the torpedo bomber become a menace by 1918, no doubt the navy would have responded by increasing light AA armament. The 3" or 12pdr were useless against anything smaller and faster than a Zeppelin because of poor training ability and absence of effective control.

[per ardua per mare per terram]

Notes on The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Anti-Aircraft Corps compiled by Captain LS Stansfeld RN in AIR 1/648 "On the 3rd September 1914, it was decided by the Cabinet that as the Army had neither guns or personnel for A.A. Defences, the Navy were to undertake the A.A. Defence of the country."

Printed in Capt SW Roskill, Documents Relating to the Naval Air Service (Navy Records Society, 1969).

The matelots version rather than the poets: Oh what a simple target a Zepp is so big and slow. Except its flying several thousand feet above me, argh what speed is it doing and is it flying straight? As I shoot my gun platform is pitching and rolling and moving through the water, but I don't know what speed we are doing either. Please Mr. Kipling, what is the deflection I should calculate, this is the first time I've shot at this target? What do you mean that you're only an armchair soldier and haven't a clue? (CENSORED)

Ships of the British Empire did not have a reliable direction control system for their main guns let alone the secondary armament! Effective A.A. targeting did not come in until they got radar controlled gunnery, that's why so many ships were lost in WW2 to aircraft attacks. In WWI the science was little understood and the experience was minimal. Proximity fuses did not come in until WW2. Then there was the type of projectile for use against Zepps. For aircraft machine guns they devised special ammunition. I haven't heard of any being developed for the Naval A.A. guns. Again the big gun ammo was not fit for purpose, so getting effective A.A. rounds was a very low priority.

[David Seymour]

G. Bennett, Coronel and the Falklands, 1962 gives the ranges of both Canopus' 12" and Scharnhorst's 8.2" as 13,500.

Best wishes,

David

[ionia]

Ships of the British Empire did not have a reliable direction control system for their main guns let alone the secondary armament!

The was nothing wrong with the director control installed in RN ships in WW1 and the Dreyer Fire Control Table was adequate for its time. This is a highly technical subject but John Brooks "Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland" puts it into perspective. Of course, AA fire control, being in three dimentions was a very different matter and the firing of 12" guns at Zeppelins was optimistic and unproductive.

[MikB]

Please Mr. Kipling, what is the deflection I should calculate, this is the first time I've shot at this target? What do you mean that you're only an armchair soldier and haven't a clue? (CENSORED)

Harsh words, sir!

RK was justly popular in his lifetime for documenting the thoughts and feelings of the servicepeople of his generation with a depth, passion and detail like nobody else, anywhere, ever.

You've already pointed out that there were professionals in the Admiralty drawing their pay on the basis of providing suitable equipment for directing such gunfire.

Besides, would you wanna go into battle with a sighting system designed by a poet?

Regards,

MikB

[David Seymour]

Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland sounds like an interesting book. If you have your copy to hand I'd be most interested to know what the fly-leaf biography has to say about John Brooks, an author with whom I am unfamiliar.

Many thanks,

David

[ionia]

Dreadnought Gunnery and the Battle of Jutland sounds like an interesting book. If you have your copy to hand I'd be most interested to know what the fly-leaf biography has to say about John Brooks, an author with whom I am unfamiliar.

Many thanks,

David

The publisher's note:

"John Brooks read Natural and Electrical Sciences at St. John's College, Cambridge before working in computing and telicommunications. Now retired from industry, he received his doctorate in 2001 from King's College, London; this book was developed from his thesis."

The book is a useful corrective to Sumida and Pollen. Published by Routledge, London; 2005; ISBN 0-714-65702-6.

[David Seymour]

Impressive credentials. Must seek out the book.

Many thanks,

David

[per ardua per mare per terram]

I would expect that the Lords of Admiralty frowned on firing 12" guns at Zepps, wasterful of expensive ammunition. Plus the big guns didn't have high angle mounts.

[ionia]

I would expect that thwe Lords of Admiralty frowned on firing 12" guns at Zepps, wasterful of expensive ammunition. Plus the big guns didn't have high angle mounts.

In the absence of Their Lordships, the Gunnery Officer of the MARLBOROUGH at Jutland took an alternative view:

"At about 4.00 am a lot of firing could be heard to the southward and shortly after a Zeppelin was sighted crossing astern and steering approximately east. Three inch H.A. gun opened fire and fired 12 rounds. X and Y turrests opened fire with AP shell, which was already in the guns, and two rounds of common which was in the GL cage. Four rounds were fired. The nose of the Zeppelin was observed to dip very suddenly at one period, but it could not be ascertained for certain whether she was hit. Range varied between 5000 and 10000 yds."

He would have liked to have turned the ship to bring all four turrets to bear but she was suffering from torpedo damage. These were 13.5" guns. Set for 16000 yards the apogee of the flight of a shell was over 6000 feet above the earth's surface (I'm speaking from memory, here!). Many other battleships opened fire on this Zeppelin with both main and secondary armaments (including the IRON DUKE) and REVENGE fired two 15" shells.

[joseph]

The Angle of elevation, projectile and speed of loading would be the major factors in using the larger caliber weapons, but yes they were used in an anti aircraft role.

Part of a letter from Admiral Bacon to the Captains of Monitors sent to defend London against Zeppelin attack, dated 20th December 1915;

“The general idea of the defence is to place five 12-inch monitors across the estuary from Clacton to Margate, five miles apart, and two miles outside that line. Intermediately between the 12-inch monitors, four M. class monitors will be anchored to give notice of approach, locate the Zeppelins with search- lights and signal the azimuth bearing of Zeppelins to the ships concerned. The elevation of search-lights has been increased to point vertically. The elevation of the 12-inch guns is 30 degrees, and at 30 degrees elevation the line of axis of the gun passes through a point 5,190 feet high at 3,000 yards, and the shot would drop very little in this distance. A Zeppelin making the land, especially on a dark night, would probably be at a low altitude, less than 5,000 feet, so that there is a good chance of obtaining a shot at between 3,000 and 5,000 yards range.”

Regards Charles

[SiegeGunner]

Is that letter quoted in 'Dover Patrol', Charles?

Re big guns vs Zeppelin at Jutland, I hope someone remembered to work out where the shells would land if/when they missed.

Mick

[joseph]

Mick,

Yes, Vol II page 592.

Regards Charles