Destroyer/DE ramming of subs - Fighting Ships Of The World - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Warships1 and NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Destroyer/DE ramming of subs

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
Ken the Coastie		#11	[-]
Posts: 33 ( 6-Nov-2007 06:15:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Campbell was not lost. She attacked a surfaced U-606 that had been damaged by the Polish destroyer Burza.. She rammed with a glancing blow and was stove by the subs hydroplanes. With her engine room flooding she dropped DC's set very shallow which damaged both vessels. The guncrews opened up as they were brought to bear (distance opened to sufficiently depress them?) They were so close that the Campbell's CO was hit be shrapnel from the U-Boat. There were only 5 survivors from U-606. The Campbell was left with Burza, dead in the water and was towed to Newfoundland by a tug that arrived 4 days later. Campbell was sunk as a target in 1982
Theodore		#12	[-]
Posts: 8400 ( 6-Nov-2007 08:35:47) Wheat Boss Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The primary reason for the change to 5-inch guns in DEs was the expectation that they would operate in areas where there was a significant air threat.
bennett0	Destroyer/DE ramming of subs	#13	[-]
Posts: 224 ( 6-Nov-2007 23:49:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks, Ken. MY BAD. That's what I get for depending on memory at age 69. The Secretary class cutter that was sunk was Alexander Hamilton. According to Morison and Scheina's US Coast Guard Cutters and Craft of World War II, she was torpedoed by U-132 off Iceland on 29 January 1942, while towing a disabled storeship, and sank the next day. Obviously, I had the two mixed up. Thanks again for your correction.
bennett0	Destroyer/DE ramming of subs	#14	[-]
Posts: 225 ( 7-Nov-2007 00:04:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	According to Friedman, the USN wanted 2-5"/38s, 2-1.1" quads and a MK 37 director in it's "escort destroyers" from the beginning in 1940. After considering a number of alternatives (including ones with 5"/51, 4"/50 and 3"/50 guns) it decided that the designs provided too little capability at too great a cost, and elected to go for full destroyers. It was the desperate British need for escorts in 1941 that revived the project. The British asked for 3-3"/50 DP as main armament, and that's what the first DEs had. The USN still wanted the 5"/38, and mounted it on the later ships.
Ship Sketcher	WW2 ramming	#15	[-]
Posts: 46 ( 7-Nov-2007 01:32:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A WW2 DD vet who eventually made USN flag rank said that the USN PacFlt doctrine prescribed ramming a surfaced submarine to guarantee that if the sub submerged, she was sunk, not a new underwater threat. The USN formation, possibly minus the ship that rammed the sub, could continue with their mission instead of taking evasive action. His ship was a Fletcher-class destroyer and this was late 1943. I question whether bows were strengthened for ramming. The damage to the destroyer would be little less and eventual repair of thicker plating and larger girders would be more difficult.
jlyons97		#16	[-]
Posts: 1075 ( 9-Nov-2007 16:46:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	bennett0 wrote: One of the problems was that the early US DEs, and the flush-deckers converted to "escort destroyers" were armed with 3 or 6-3"/50 DP as a main battery. While at least giving them an AA capability, the 3" sometimes had trouble penetrating the pressure hull of U-boats. There are also stories about the 4" on RN corvettes bouncing off. This could lead to ramming "as a last resort" and is the reason later US DEs were armed with 2-5"/38s. Borie, however, still had her original 4"/50 when she was sunk. Another US ship lost after ramming a U-boat was USCGC Campbell. I am not at all certain of this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that one (or both) of them had broadside on contactafter the ramming and suffered underwater damage from the rigged out diving planes. Hopefully, someone elso can give more details. Campbell was not sunk: decomm'd in 1982 after 46 years of service, sunk as target in 1984. 5" guns got to the DEs because of their AA capbaility (almost always the most common gun action for DEs), not for the reason you propose. Three director-controlled 3"50, while not perfect, were considered adequate when built, and were available. The alternative, 4"50 guns, were available too, but were not DP. All DEs were built with the structural provision to swap 5"38 guns when they became available. Stories about the 3" projectile not penetrating sub hulls are common and may be true - but that's not why 5" got on DEs.
bennett0	Destroyer/DE ramming of subs	#17	[-]
Posts: 229 (10-Nov-2007 02:40:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I was just paraphrasing from Friedman. He also includes a sketch of a 1940 design with 5". He is the one who said the DEs had 3" guns because the British wanted them.
briandpayne		#18	[-]
Posts: 106 (12-Nov-2007 19:32:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I read somewhere that the RMS Olympic Rammed a German Submarine During WWI . from what I can remember.. the sub fired torpedoes at the RMS Olympic and missed so the Olympic's captain ordered full speed and carved a careful course right at the surprised sub. hitting the sub in the conning tower and shearing it off the top of the sub. The RMS Olympic sustained little or no damage as far as I can remember. (maybe the retrofits after Titanic's loss helped the olympic's bottom become stronger. Take Care, Brian P.
Cross648	In the case of the Olympic	#19	[-]
Posts: 70 (10-May-2008 12:21:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I reckon the sheer mass of the ship would have something to do with it. Lets just say you have a humvee and you hit a cyclist. You will have a dink the bike will be buggered. Same kind of thing I guess when it comes to something that big hitting something that small. The Queen Mary didnt suffer much damage when she rammed the Curacao.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply