Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Wrong types that came into their own
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
Strange title, but what I mean is aircraft or any other thing that was designed for one reason but came into its own doing something else. The one that springs to mind was the Westland Lysander. It started out as an Army cooperation aircraft, but came in to its own flying with the moon squadrons dropping off and picking up agents. Any others?
-
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
GF
Martin Maryland?
Designed as a bomber, but not taken up by the USAAC. Bought by the French as a bomber, but not many delivered before the Fall of France. Deliveries diverted to the RAF, but used by them not as a bomber but as a strategic recce aircraft - the only thing available with the legs to cover the Med from Malta and Egypt.
Among other exploits, took the aerial photos of Taranto needed for the Fleet Air Arm's famous raid (although there is a silly naval myth that the RAF initially refused to let them have the photos). -
Message 3
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
How about HM Ships "Courageous" and "Glorious"? They saw service in WW1 as 'large light cruisers' armed with two twin 15" turrets, and were completely rebuilt after the war as successful aircraft carriers (both were sunk in the first year of WWII).
Or the 1916 experimental steam-powered submarine HMS "Swordfish". She wasn't a great success as a submarine, so they stuck a wheelhouse on top, added a pair of 12 pdr guns and used her as a non-submerging patrol vessel instead. -
Message 4
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
How about HM Ships "Courageous" and "Glorious"? They saw service in WW1 as 'large light cruisers' armed with two twin 15" turrets, and were completely rebuilt after the war as successful aircraft carriers (both were sunk in the first year of WWII).Β
A good call.I would add their sister to them as well.HMS Furious initially carried a gun so big and powerful (18 inches,the largest RN gun ever and the largest on any ship till the Yamato )that on the (few) occassions she fired it she shed rivets like "snow in a storm".She went on to have a long carrier being present on "Operation Tungsten"(the FAA attack on Tirpitz) before retirement in 1944 and eventual scrapping in 1948.
Id say that pretty much all the carrier conversion had a more successful and productive role than they would have had pre-conversion.
What about the Westland Lysander? Hopeless in its envisaged role,but did well in "Special ops" in France. -
Message 5
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
sorry GF comletely missed your point about the
Westland Lysander.Myopia ! -
Message 6
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
VF, the Westland Lysander was a high wing monoplane that was designed as an Army Cooperation aircraft. Spotting for the guns, and it even carried two small bomb racks on its fixed undercarriage. But with the German fighters controlling the daytime skies, it was a sitting duck. It came into its own though when a aircraft was needed that could do short take off and landing to do the Moon Squadron work into the occupied countries, carrying agents either way.
-
Message 7
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
Both those carriers (If Iremember rightly) were double decked and in theory, you could fly off straight from the hanger.
-
Message 8
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
Yes GF they did have the ability to fly off aircraft straight from hanger. The Japanese followed suit I believe. I think it fell out of use as the aircraft carried got heavier and required a longer run up was needed ( I think, maybe Lostweekend could shed some light!).
Vf -
Message 9
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
I spoke to a survivor from Glorious.The crew remember the Commodore refusing to fly off his strike planes (Swordfish) out from the lower deck when they were attacked. The upper flight deck was full of RAF fighters being brought back from Norway. He had the choice, and that would have given him time to dump the fighters overboard, or fly them off either to try for Scotland, or to shoot up the attacking German cruisers. He did neither, and the rest as theysay was history.
-
Message 10
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
I've read various accounts about HMS Glorious that suggest that all was not well with her captain and the relationship with the crew. I believe that the official papers that revolve around her sinking are still under lock and key. I know that the contraversey around her sinking remains as in Hansard there is mention of her and release of information from an mp in the house of commons. Whatever happened it was an unmitigated disaster and one which I still think there is a lot that needs to be disclosed.
Vf -
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
GF
The tragedy began before that. As he was unaccompanied by anything other than two destroyers, the Captain should have been flying Swordfish patrols, and had he done so, he wouldn't have been taken by surprise by Scharnhorst. But he was in a hurry to get back to squadron to convene a Court Martial and was at odds with his air group, so he didn't want to be bothered with Flying Stations.
Among all the tragedies involved, the one that has always struck me was the loss of the RAF Hurricane pilots, who were not even supposed to be there. Ken Cross, squadron commander of 46 Sqn, whose idea it was to save the precious fighters by flying them onto Glorious makes it clear in his memoirs that he was haunted by the fact that if they had destroyed their aircraft (as originally ordered) and come out on the transports with the ground crew, they would have survived.
Several of his pilots actually made it into the life rafts, but he lost touch with most of them and only he and the one pilot with him survived - the other died of exposure along with their naval colleagues. He was certain that if he could have kept them together, more would have lived.
Cross, an exceptional officer, went on to become an Air Chief Marshal, ending up as AOC-in-C of Bomber Command, in part because the V Force was reckoned to need "fighter" mentality (or so he claims).
His book, co-written with the excellent Vincent Orange, is "Straight and Level", well worth a read.
LW -
Message 12
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
The cOmmodore was also a big gun man who thought being put in charge of a carrier group was beneath him.
-
Message 13
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
VF
Sorry, only just spotted your remark about the lower hangar deck. Yes, by 1940 it was out of use as modern aircraft, even the Swordfish, could no longer get airborne from it. There was, or had been, a catapult for flying boats but I'm not sure if it was on the foredeck or amidships. Flying boats were not popular with carrier crews, because they took up space and were a nuisance to get back aboard.
There were Swordfish ranged on the flight deck when she was attacked, but not prepared for launch.
Captain D'Oyly-Hughes (not a Commodore - he came under Rear Admiral, Aircraft Carriers who was flying his flag in Ark Royal) was not a flyer, but his behaviour seems to have been more driven by strain than prejudice, at least according to Winton's account.
Some of the documents relating to the tragedy are under the 100 year rule, but it is not clear what these relate to (they may relate to HMS Devonshire's decision to maintain radio silence, for instance).
Courageous and Glorious were two of our best carriers on the outbreak of war, sharing with Eagle the ability to operate Hurricanes (their lifts were big enough to get them below decks, while Ark Royal, although more modern, had had her lift size restricted). They were both thrown away unecessarily, Glorious apparently by her captain, and Courageous by Churchill, who insisted on the RN being seen to be doing something in the early days of the war, and Pound, who failed to restrain him, with the result she was needlessly exposed on unecessary anti-submarine duties.
Pound's guilty conscience and fear of the consequences might be deduced from the fact that he did not wait for Churchill to return to the Admiralty from a visit to Scotland, but rushed to Kings Cross to warn him. Churchill's account of the sinking is particularly heartless, which is a sign in his writings that he knows he made a mistake but isn't going to admit it to posterity.
But if he had owned up to his responsibility and resigned, where would we have been nine months later?
LW -
Message 14
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Monday, 22nd February 2010
The 88mm anti-aircraft gun turned into an anti-tank gun.
-
Message 15
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010
LW, I was taking my info secondhand from a survivor, so I could be wrong. Warsaw. good one with the 88. So what about the Hawker Typhoon. Built as a fighter and had limited success chasing FW 190s hit and run attacks, had a habit of losing its tail inn theearly models, but came into its own over Normandy in 1944 as a tank buster.
-
Message 16
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
The Typhoon's handicaps as a fighter derived mainly from a too thick wing section, selected by Hawker on the basis of wind tunnel information that later turned out to be faulty, and which seriously restricted performance at higher altitude. The tail failure problem was, if I remember correctly, due to a failure of the balancing weights of the control surfaces, which then resulted in aerodynamic flutter violent enough to break the tail. In addition to those problems, the Sabre engine was unreliable and gave its best power at low altitude.
The Typhoon was never much of a "tank buster", it did not have a weapon that was accurate enough to reliably destroy tanks. However, it was an excellent fighter-bomber.
I can't think of many examples that really failed in their intended role, but were successful in another niche. Perhaps the American A-5 Vigilante deserves mention; it was designed as a carrier-based nuclear bomber but the bomb release mechanism turned out to be completely impractical. It served successfully as a reconnaissance aircraft. -
Message 17
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
Perhaps the Dougless Skyraider that entered service to late for WW2 only to find it role as a ground attack A/C. Maybe they should restore a few for use in Afghanistan?
-
Message 18
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
Viz the Glorious and the double flight deck. There is a photograph extant that shows her doing one of her party-pieces. Flying two Flycatchers off simultaneously, one upper, one lower. Those were the days!
To return to the GrumpFred's first post, could I suggest the Hawker Hart? Originally a two seater fighter-bomber that metamorphosed into the Osprey, the Nimrod, the Audax and the Demon. Serving in all its guises at sea and throughout the Empire. It also served as an airborne engine test-bed late in its career, even to test the mighty Rolls-Royce Merlin. -
Message 19
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
Strange title, but what I mean is aircraft or any other thing that was designed for one reason but came into its own doing something else.Β
This is nothing to do with war, but the London sewage system was originally built to take away the smell of the sewage, which was beieved to cause cholera. It wasn't until later that cholera was dicovered to be a water-borne disease, and that the stench was nothing to do with it.
So, apparently, London's sewers work by mistake. -
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
Spruggles, the Hawker Hart series of aircraft were wonderful to look at and were loved by their pilots.
-
Message 21
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
GF
Following the Glorious train of thought, perhaps the Fairey Swordfish might qualify. It was a pefectly serviceable torpedo bomber in the early days of the war, but after it was replaced on the Fleet carriers, it went on to exploit its slow speed, range and ability to operate from small decks in a variety of niche roles, principally recce/ASW from the MACs but also agent-dropper (from Malta to North Africa), flare aircraft (co-operating with the RAF in the Western Desert, replaced by Albacores) and, my favourite, finishing up in RAF service as a platform for precision rocket attacks on coastal fortifications in 1945 - its stability and slow speed gave it an accuracy the Tiffies could not manage.
On which subject, I wonder how we might define "effective". The Typhoon's famed rockets were inaccurate and in terms of kills had something like a 5% hit rate. 2TAF had trials at the end of the Normandy campaign (at which Air Marshals Conningham and Broadhurst were nearly on the receiving end of a mistargeted rocket) and were appalled by the results. But debriefs of German officers repeatedly identified the rocket-firing Typhoon as the most effective (translate as terrifying?) Jabo on the Allied side. It would seem Napoleon's maxim "Morale is to the physical as four is to one" was what made the Typhoon effective.
LW -
Message 22
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
The famous Katyusha rockets come to mind. I understand this weapon had been initially designed as air-to-air and air-to-ground rockets, and were actually tried in 1939 at Khalkin Gol on I-16s and I-153s fighter planes. But of course, it made much bigger splash as the ground mobile rocket launcher for carpet-type bombardment.
-
Message 23
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
LW. I would agree. The Swordfish outlived its 2 replacements, and when you think about its low landing/takeoff speed. With the wind over the deck of a carrier, it was almost the first VTOL aircraft. Wonderful plane, and we have one flys over Southport during the airshow.
-
Message 24
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
The Typhoon's famed rockets were inaccurate and in terms of kills had something like a 5% hit rate.Β
True, and that mattered a lot when attacking tanks, as they would survive anything except a direct hit. But armies don't consist only of tanks. The German army actually depended heavily on horse-drawn transport and was extremely vulnerable to air attack. -
Message 25
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
GF
Mind you, I always think the Albacore gets a raw deal, because it didn't get the chance to do too many headline grabbing exploits.
But it was the mainstay of Formidable's (depleted) air group at Matapan, the RN's only proper fleet action of WWII, and achieved some success.
Part of the trouble is either the stringbag or the Albacore was redundant in torpedo bomber devlopment. Either the FAA should have hung onto the Shark until the albacore was ready (earlier than in reality), or the Swordfish should have been retained until the Barracuda (or whatever) was ready for service. Having two types so close together with so little difference in performance, even in the context of late 1930s aircraft development, seems unnecessary. -
Message 26
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010
MM
Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. My point was that the rocket-firing Typhoon was effective,despite its low kill-rate, simply because it scared the daylights out of the people on the receiving end.
But I agree that the German reliance on horse transport was its Achilles heel in NW Europe, as was horrifically demonstrated in the Falaise pocket.
Mind you, Typhoons could hit static tanks, and trains moving at constant speed in straight lines!
LW -
Message 27
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
what about during the Falklands conflict - the use of the milan anti tank missile to smash argie bunkers in the mountain battles
loved the quote in the very humotous book "Dont cry for me sergeant major" as another milan was fired at a sangar
"Whoops - there goes another bungalow" lol
this of course referred to the Β£30000 cost of the missile - about the cost of a bungalow at that time (my first house bought that year was Β£21000
very effective though
st -
Message 28
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
AND of course LW
when the british army mechanised in the 30s - apparently most of the horses were flogged (no pun intended lol) to the newly forming german army
now these noble beasts - neddy, flower, hercules etc - definitely werent meant to be used against their former friends !!
we should have strewn the ground with british army oats and the panzer divisions would have been left on their own whilst the infantry divisions had to halt till the horses had their fill
st -
Message 29
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
stalti I remember reading that when this idea was suggested by the Royal Marines to a senior Guards Officer, he replied that that was not the way to deal with bunkers. Another one seeing the sense, sent a message back asking for the A T missiles to be sent up, only to be told by another senior officer that as there was no tanks on the Falklands there was no need for A T weapons. No doubt somebody will think I am knocking the Guards again, but I'm not.
. -
Message 30
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Thursday, 25th February 2010
GF
Was that a story you read by the light of a swinging lamp, by any chance?
Can't say I've heard that particular dit about the Guards in the Falklands.
All the battalions used it on occasion. The main drawback with it was that it is an anti-tank weapon and therfore designed to zoom along at high speed several feet off the ground to hit a tank where it hurts. Managing to hit a camoflaged trench or weapons pit at the same (ground) level as yourself wasn't easy, and as has been pointed out above, it is a very expensive weapon to miss with.
The 66mm LAW was also effective against trenches and "bunkers", but as the US had used the weapon in that role in Vietnam, it was already a recognised use for it.
One problem all battalions faced, which affected the availability of anti-tank assets, was that they had all had to deploy with their existing peacetime strength. The anti-tank platoons were therefore a potential source of manpower for the rifle companies, and/or needed to switch to what in the early '80s was their alternate role of macghine-gun platoon. So the question of how many Milan posts you actually keep in the field was a tricky one (and that sort of discussion, I suspect, is where your story originally started life).
I wouldn't know - I wasn't there. I was at university, drinking Abbot Ale at 56p a pint.
LW -
Message 31
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 26th February 2010
LW, I can't remember the titles, but it was by a Royal Marine. I picked up something in another book though, whether it's true or not?? If seen in time, it was possible to kill a wire guided A/T missile by killing the opperator, as a shell from a tanks main gun travelled faster than a wire guided missile. It came from a work of fiction. Arc Light, by Eric L Harry.
GF -
Message 32
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 26th February 2010
GF
Killing the operator would disrupt a command-to-line-of-sight missile. But the idea of an MBT killing the operator by a main gun round while the missile is far enough away for disruption of its flight path strikes me as a technical idea dreamt up by computer geeks - which is the sort of novel Arc Light was. (Apart from Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" and Harry Coyle's early stuff, I never got into this type of novel).
The Israelis, and then everyone else, had to consider how to disrupt the operators of AT-3 Sagger after its debut in the Yom Kippur War. As the Egyptians deployed them in the open, the operators were vulnerable to artillery fire and machine gun fire. But the tactics, as I understand it, were designed to disrupt the operators in a given area in general, not as a 1-v-1 engagement.
Bit ironic that the Soviets, the main exponent of the MBT as an offensive weapon should have been the ones to lead the field with a manpacked-ATGM. Bit like the RN pioneering the submarine, the battleship's worst enemy!
LW -
Message 33
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 26th February 2010
LW I enjoyed Red Storm rising. Harry's not bad, although I prefer Historical fiction.
-
Message 34
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Friday, 26th February 2010
GF
Clancy had done his research, and I suspect had been briefed by chums in the military. Larry Bond gamed it for him, but Bond wasn't nearly so good a novelist, as was shown when he wrote his own (the sold well, though)).
Did you ever read John Wingate's trilogy "Frigate" "Carrier" and "Submarine"? The RN helped him with the details, because they thought the Central Europe land battle was getting too much fictional attention. They are good reads, especially "Carrier" (not to be confused with John Winton's "Aircraft Carrier", about the Pacific Fleet in 1945), and I'm told reasonably accurate technically. All ancient alternative history now, of course.
LW -
Message 35
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 26th February 2010
LW, Yes I read those many years ago.
-
Message 36
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 26th February 2010
just a tale of the falklands re armour
the falklands were deemed to be tooooo boggy to use armour - but they still took a few scorpion light tanks just in case
the scorpion performed well and an officer jumped off the tank in the hinterland - and promptly disappeared up to his knees in a bog lol
(same book i believe)
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.