German tanks sent to africa

Redcoat

The high elevation of the Sherman turret was the reason for this rather incredible story. The 9th Lancers were dug in behind a ridgeline, and their officers were directing the fire from an OP on top of the ridge. The german battlegroup could not return fire and was chased off.

 

Well, US medium tanks and all of their tank destroyers were equipped for and could provide indirect fire, acting as artillery. This was a relatively common practice too, not some isolated occurance. It was not unheard of for an entire Sherman or tank destroyer battalion to line up and perform indirect artillery barrages. Imagine 50 or more Shermans firing HE on a target. That's alot of shells!
I suppose it would have been possible to fire AP rounds in the same manner. Ships did this in combat so why not tanks? Yes, a hit would have been unlikely but if you had the above 50 Shermans from a battalion firing on a target as many as 500+ rounds could land in a minute on it. I'd say the likelihood of a few direct hits is pretty high in those circumstances. Hitting the roof of almost any tank with either an HE common (heavy wall) or APHE round would certainly penetrate the armor. Few tanks had more than 20 or so millimeters of roof armor as it was.

 

T.A.

Indirect fire was common practice, but hitting a target at 4000 yards was spectacular.

 

yea pretty interesting stuff

 

Anyone have addittional data? Ship losses for either side?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-C-Algeria/index.html

General Patton impatiently awaited a launch to the beach. He had planned to be ashore by 0800 but was delayed when a major naval battle developed. About 0700 a French cruiser, seven destroyers, and two submarines had sortied out of the harbor at Casablanca, and French aircraft drove American spotting planes away from the landing beaches. A few minutes later the Jean Bart began firing on the Augusta and the Brooklyn. U.S. Navy planes soon drove off most enemy aircraft, but the naval battle raged. For over four hours American cruisers and destroyers swerved and darted in tight patterns to avoid torpedoes and bracketing salvos while returning fire. By 1130 the French ships were driven off, and Patton's landing craft could be lowered over the side.

4 hours seems a good long battle.

 

I don't know too much of the naval battle that developed but, I don't know what the French Navy thought they could have accomplished. The U.S. 3rd and 9th Infantry Divisions were already ashore and well established by 0800. Fort Blondin had been silenced by the 30th Infantry which had been firing on the invasion fleet but, it fell very quickly.

Regards,
MARNE

 

Indeed, but fighting men will fight. Just curious about this little known naval aspect of WW2.

The French navy apparrently put up much more of a fight than did the army.

http://www.daileyint.com/seawar/seawar5.htm

About this time we received word that the French Army did not wish to fight. The Navy however was a different story and at 11:00, the Brooklyn, Augusta, two other cans (if it has not come up before, destroyers were also "tin cans" usually shortened to "cans") and the Edison, lit into a French cruiser and two destroyers.

This evening about 8:00, three ships were torpedoed: Hewes, a transport, sunk; and the Winooski, a tanker, and the Hambleton, a 4-stack destroyer, damaged. They certainly caught us with our pants down and in a very cocky mood.

two of the transports were torpedoed not more than 300 or 400 yards from us. General Quarters sounded and we got underway immediately. (More on this later; we left Edison men aboard that tanker in our hurried departure.) Before we could get very far another transport was hit, right under my eyes. It quivered, shook, and nearly capsized. Within 10 or 15 seconds men were climbing down the sides into the water. One ship burned all night and sank about 3:00 this morning. (Would be the 13th.)


It would appear that the torpedo did the only significant damage from the French side.

 

The French Navy ships involved in the naval action off Casablanca on 8 Nov 42 were:

DD (leaders) 5 x 5.5" 4 TT
Milan Beached after gunfire damage
Albatros Disabled by aircraft from USS Ranger

DD 4x5.1" 6 TT
l'Alcyon Survived undamaged
Brestois Sunk in harbor by aircraft after retiring due to damage from gunfire.
Boulonnais Sunk by gunfire USS Brooklyn
Fougueux Sunk by gunfire USS Tuscaloosa
Frondeur Sunk in harbor by aircraft after retiring due to damage from gunfire.
Tempete Not engaged remained in harbor

CL 8x6" 12 TT
Primauguet Badly damaged by gunfire USS Brooklyn and Tuscaloosa beached.

Large patrol ship 3x5.5"
la Grandiere Damaged by gunfire

PC 3x3.9"
la Gracieuse Survived undamaged
Commandant Delage Survived undamaged

Submarines
Orecide Sunk in harbor
la Psyche Sunk in harbor
Amphitrite Sunk in harbor
le Tonnant Escaped interned Cadiz
Ophee Undamaged surrendered
Meduse Sunk 9 Nov42 off Casablanca by aircraft
Amazone Escaped to Dakar
Antiope Escaped to Dakar

The Meduse and Amazone were the only two to engage the US fleet off Casablanca. Both launched several torpedo attacks without success.

All of the DD and the Primauget except Tempete engaged the US fleet without any notable successes. The three patrol craft were briefly engaged outside Casablanca when they sortied later in the day in an attempt to rescue survivors from the various sunken surface units that had engaged earlier.
There was one additional unidentified submarine present that escaped the action.
In addition, the Jean Bart also engaged the US fleet but was unable to proceed from harbor under her own power and remained at her berth throughout the action.

 

"The Meduse and Amazone were the only two to engage the US fleet off Casablanca. Both launched several torpedo attacks without success."


Hmmm, where did the torpedoes come from that sunk the ships listed above?

 

On the three ships you list:

USS Joseph Hewes AP-50 sunk off Fedhala by U-173

SS Winooski and DD 455 HAmbelton were also torpedoed by U-173 in essentially the same attack but survived .

The two merchants were two of the most exposed to such attack in the Fedhala landing transport anchorage which is why they were the ones hit.
Of the 29 Allied ships sunk during the Torch landings virtually all were by either Luftwaffe bombing attack or U-boat attack. There were three sunk by gunfire from French shore batteries that were used to make forced landings in various harbors ahead of the main landings, the Allies attempting to make a Coup de Main.

 

Well then, The French navy sucked at operation Torch it would seem.

 

Yeah, they should have been ready for their Neutrality to be broken!!!

 

Which raises the question, did the germans tip em off? or was it complete surprise?

 

Basically, the French were ambivelant about whether to resist an invasion or just allow it to happen. The Vichy government in France wanted to make at least a show of resistance to appease the Germans. The local leaders were split between loyality to France and the obvious inability to do anything of value in resisting.
Negotiations between the US and French leaders in North Africa went on almost up to the landings. Complicating this were the various French personalities like Admiral Darlan, General Giraud, General De Gaulle, and Bethouart among others int he French hierarchary who all had their personal agendas of aggrandizement and self-interest. Some played both sides. Others simply negotiated for as much power as they could grab. None it seems had the best interests of either France or the Allies in mind.

 

Which is a sort of cousin to the subject of how the axis would attack it, & subsequently occupy it. Italians wanted a big piece of things, Vichy had to be sort of dealt with, & as to whom would control the ports was a prob betwen Italians & Germans. In short a mess.

 

The Germans, being well organised, started their plans to occupy the French part of Vichy in June 1942. I'm unsure if they had a plan to occupy NW Africa except for the Tunis area which the Italians coveted.

 

Hitler discussed using Spain as a launch off point to Morrocco with Franco.

 

Spain would actually make more sense but that would draw a neutral nation into the conflict instead of using one of the already Axis powers (Italy) to launch from.

 

Which again highlites the problem, Spain wanted a piece as well. Spain, Germany, Italy, & Vichy all wanting a piece, & wanting to partake in control of said area.

 

Did'nt the Royal Navy attack the French navy at some point early in the war because they did not want the French ships to fall into German hands ?

I read this caused alot of bad feelings towards the allies and the Royal Navy because many French sailors were killed.