| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
therritn |
Destroyer/DE ramming of subs |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 33 ( 1-Mar-2007 05:31:21) |
After watching "The Enemy Below" and reading about the ramming attack by USS Borie during WW II, what I'm wondering is were WW II DDs/DEs designed to actually ram submarines, or was this done basically out of desperation?
|
||
Michael ODonnell |
Re: Destroyer/DE ramming of subs | ||
|
Posts: 1935 ( 1-Mar-2007 07:31:17) |
Mostly it was done as a last resort, not because they were designed to do it. Surfaced submarines were a fairly small target, often the pursuing DD/DE would be faster and close in on the sub, but if they missed with their guns, they could get so close that they could not depress the guns far enough to hit the sub. The sub would stay on the surface, realising that to dive would merely invite a pattern of depth charges. As a result, ramming would possibly be the only option remaining to the DD/DE. Most captains would do it, judging that a destroyed submarine was worth the risk. Possibly the DD/DE could sustain serious damage though, including bending/holing the hull (especially in the bow), damaging/destroying the sonar dome and possibly doing damage to the propellors and rudders. Often, after a ramming attack, the DD/DE would have to leave for repairs, being unfit for further combat.
|
||
Theodore |
Re: Destroyer/DE ramming of subs | ||
|
Posts: 8460 ( 1-Mar-2007 08:39:04) Wheat Boss |
Some escorts had reinforced bows specifically for ramming - not that ramming was encouraged (it was often actively discouraged) but because it was recognized that escort commanders were going to do it anyway.
|
||
bager1968 |
Re: Destroyer/DE ramming of subs | ||
|
Posts: 3032 ( 2-Mar-2007 02:32:00) |
The first bow sonar dome was fitted on a USN escort in the ~1960 time frame.
WW2 DD/DEs had sonar transducers mounted on the hull, which were small items fitted on the sides of the ship. |
||
Sea Skimmer |
Re: Destroyer/DE ramming of subs | ||
|
Posts: 3631 ( 4-Mar-2007 01:54:44) |
They did that because one destroyer, and old four piper I think, sank after ramming a U-boat. No men died fighting the boat, yet over 20 died in bad weather abandoning the destroyer the next day.
IIRC the USN found that the primary cause of a U-boat sinking had been gunfire on only three occasions. It was very hard for a 4-5in shell to hit solidly enough to crack a pressure hull. |
||
Dolphinstriker |
Re: Destroyer/DE ramming of subs | ||
|
Posts: 1866 ( 4-Mar-2007 04:28:35) |
Quote: The action you are referring to was between the USS Borie DD-215, and the U-405 on the night of 1 Novermber, 1943. Planes from the escort carrier Card detected two surfaced U-boats and guided destroyers in to attack. One of them, the Borie chased and caught the U-405 on the surface in a heavy storm. The skipper of the U-405 elected to stay on the surface and shoot it out with the old "four-piper". The gun battle was ferocious and lasted almost an hour; the U-405 managed to hit the Borie twice, once amidships and once on the bridge. The Borie hit the sub's conning tower several times and badly damaged it. Finally, the Borie's skipper decided to ram and drove in on the sub at 25 knots, hitting aft of the conning tower, and breaching the pressure hull, but not sinking it. The two vessels were locked together for at least ten minutes while the two crews battled it out with rifles, pistols, even flare guns and sheath knives. The U-405's conning tower was set afire and the fire could not be extinguished. Eventually, the destroyer was wrenched apart from the sub by the mountainous seas, but in sliding off the sub, sustained damage to it's port side, which caused the forward engine room to flood. The sub, though mortally hurt, managed to get underway and attempted to escape into the stormy darkness. Borie, also heavily damaged, kept tracking by radar and launched torpedoes at the sub, but they missed. Again, the Borie attempted to ram, but was unable to hit the wildly evading sub. In desperation, the U-405's skipper turned to ram the Borie, but the Borie turned away and fired a depth charge pattern that badly shook the sub and stopped it's charge. Turning once again to the attack, Borie's gunners got their main battery on target and obliterated the subs mangled conning tower. This proved to be the end of the sub and the Germans began abandoning their vessel. The Borie, however, was mortally damaged. Progressive flooding in the bow and forward engine room, aggravated by the stress of the storm, overcame all damage control efforts. The next evening, with two other destroyers standing by, the Borie's crew abandoned the battered destroyer. During the transfer of her crew to the other destroyers, three of Borie's officers, and 27 crewmen were lost. |
||
Dave Bender |
Were WW II DEs designed to actually ram submarines | ||
|
Posts: 6721 ( 6-Mar-2007 17:57:18) |
Blood lust. In combat some military personnel perform heroric acts without thinking of the personal consequences.
|
||
bager1968 |
Re: Were WW II DEs designed to actually ram submarines | ||
|
Posts: 3032 ( 7-Mar-2007 06:57:55) |
Written like a typical uninformed dabbler.
While the second part of your statement is true, such actions have nothing to do with "Blood-lust"! Any soldier/sailor/airman who acts due to "Blood-lust" is out of control and needs to be locked up... but the average anti-military ignoramus thinks that it is somehow the norm for persons in combat. Adrenaline dulling the self-preservation instinct, fear converted into action to destroy the object of fear, a desire to survive, a desire to keep the enemy from killing your fellows, or a desire to save the lives of non-combatants, are DISTINCTLY different from... and FAR more common motivations for acts of bravery or foolhardy courage than "Blood-lust"! |
||
Duncan MacKinnon |
asdic/sonar domes | ||
|
Posts: 225 (20-Mar-2007 15:33:10) |
American practice may have been different but in the RN during world war 2 the asdic was contained in a dome on the bottom of the hull, some of which were fixed and some retractable. A retractable dome was over four feet below the keel when extended and about a foot when retracted. I don't know how far a fixed dome extended below the keel.
There's a good picture of the opening in the underside of HMCS Haida while in drydock and of the dome itself at this website jproc.ca/sari/asd_et2.html |
||
USS Clarence E Walsh |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 77 ( 4-Nov-2007 14:53:05) |
1. I don't know about WWII but in WWI submarines had very thin hulls and most ships could ram them just about in two, even sturdily built merchant ships.
2. While this was not the ideal situation it was actually not that crazy of a move as WWI subs were both extremely fragile and extremely slow. |
||
bennett0 |
Destroyer/DE ramming of subs | ||
|
Posts: 223 ( 5-Nov-2007 03:39:25) |
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.
|
||