PzKpfw IV sinks destroyer?

If the '88' was so effective as a ship killer one wonders why the Germans did not arm their Destroyers with it as their main weapon!

 

Quit "raining on the parade" m kenny,

We're talking about a few isolated incidents, where ships were the targets of "small" caliber tank & land-based guns, what damage was done to whom, and which units were involved, with sources that are vague and sometimes conflicting. It just so happens that the British are on the receiving end. There are more than a few examples in the Pacific of shore guns engaging surface warships.

With your expertise in British combat, perhaps you could provide some helpful information, rather than adopting your usual "The British are the best and the Germans were nothing." POV.

Not one poster here has claimed that the 88mm was an effective ship killer, so one wonders why you made the statement

Since, at the moment we are not even certain it was an 88s that did in the HMS Sikh.

Respectfully yours,
Craig

 

This could be useful Uli;

LRDG Reference Materials

 

It was very effective but would you arm an destroyer only with an 88mm gun? I wouldn´t do this as a main armament. The battlecruisers had them aboard too and the submarines sunk a lot of ships with it.
I have no written evidence but the Flak Batterien that claimed the sinking were outfitted with them. And as you can see when the 88mm was abel to destroy the russian KV1 and KV2 with their heavy armor, wich was thicker than a destroyers one, you can easily imagine that they would have done their job on the HMS Sikh too.

 

Thank you Nigel for that great and informative Link on the LRDG!

 

you're welcome

IIRC the submarine mounted 88 was a very different gun using even completely different ammo. but probably somewhat comparable in terms of destructive power.

http://www.uboat.net/technical/guns.htm

 

Good seen Nigel! Yes it has some differences but the Wehrmacht 88 with its AP ammo was absolutely compareable. Its AP rounds were able to penetrate steel armor up to 200mm depending on the distance to the target.

 

Correct, Spartanroller,

The German Kriegsmarine never adapted the FlaK 36, etc. for use on warships or submarines, although guns of the same caliber were mounted, they were of different design than the FlaK.


Gebirgsjaeger,

The German battlecruisers never carried the 88mm gun, however, the Panzerschiffes did carry the 88mm/L78 SK C/31 until shortly before the start of World War II, when they were rearmed with the 105mm/L65 SK C/33.

For more info on the German Navy's 88mm guns see the navweaps site here: Germany Naval Guns
in the section entitled "Smaller Caliber and Anti-Aircraft Guns"

 

Sorry Takao,

my translation wasn´t as correct as it had to be. I meant the Panzerschiffe but i didn´t know how to translate it correct.

 

Gebirgsjaeger,

my humble apologies, your English is so good, I didn't realize you were translating.

 

Thank you for your kind words on my english skills and no need to apologize Takao.
Normally i don´t need to translate but there are some words which are so natural for a german to say like Panzerschiffe that i never thought how they would be in English "Tank ship, Armoured ship?" So i translated them for myself as Battlecruisers.

 

Battlecruiser seems better for the WW1 era vessels anyway - the ww2 ones are usually referred to as cruisers, pocket battleships or battleships.

please anyone correct me if that is wrong - there is a lot of conflicting info

 

To the Germans, the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were considered battleships, but, for the most part, the rest of the world usually viewed/views them as battlecruisers. They had a high speed and weaker main armament(this was before the concept of the "fast battleship" had taken hold), but they also had the excellent armor protection and sturdiness found in battleships.

Hence the conundrum concerning how to classify these ships. They don't really fit into any one category, much the same as the panzerschiff does not fit into any one category. They were not so much like the German WW1 battlecruisers, as they were an evolution and expansion of the Panzerschiff design.

 

A short update on the Flak Batterien that claimed the victory over the HMS Sikh.
In most of the sources is the Flak Regiment 46 named and all of them wrote that they destroyed both ships. I´m looking for the KTB.

 

I am mocking the fact that anyone believes a small artillery piece could 'sink' a large warship. Clearly the Destroyer was under fire from dozens of weapon systems and yet here we have (so far) 3 pages about an '88' being responsible..
I dont think any one nation had the best of anything but clearly the root of this thread is the belief that one gun was so special it could work miracles
example:

the 88mm was abel to destroy the russian KV1 and KV2 with their heavy armor, wich was thicker than a destroyers one, you can easily imagine that they would have done their job on the HMS Sikh too

That was crystal clear right at the start but it has nor stopped the speculation or attempts at wish fulfillment.
The tale about a Panzer sinking a Destroyer pops up every few years and there are a number of threads here and elsewhere that have debunked it over and over again.
I despair that any serious author could write a book claiming such when a simple check on the small number of ships there at the time would have shown it to be an error.

 

Actually the root of this thread was a short 75mm rather than an 88. The discussion is based around the actions that include these sort of claims, and it is valuable as a topic irrespective of whether or not there is validity to the original claim.

75 mm guns and 6-pounders were installed on aircraft as an anti-ship weapon and numerous ships and coastal batteries are equipped with guns of these calibre intended for surface fighting.

so why shouldn't we explore if one got lucky?

'Debunkings' are not often based on any more evidence than the original claims, usually just a lack of evidence. Re-exploring them often throws up new data.

 

Hmm lets see the heavy destroyer HMS Exceter had an armour of 4inch which is 101,6mm. The AP round (Panzergranate39/43)of the 88 penetrates this at an distance of more than 2.500m. So if a battery of 88 will shoot at an destroyer like the HMS Sikh was, it will look like a sieve.

 

and in fact the evidence we have examined here at the moment seems to indicate that the Sikh was scuttled as a result of being immobilised by the damage done by a single shell - supposedly an 88 but quite possibly another of similar calibre. That seems to suggest that in the right place a single similar shell could sink a destroyer albeit not instantly.

incidentally The Hokoku Maru was sunk by a relatively small number of shells from a 4" gun as an example.

 

A 75mm HE or APHE round will do significant damage to even a destroyer if it hits something other than just general structure. The thickest armor on a destroyer anywhere is on the order of .5" (12 - 15mm) for splinter protection. The hull and superstructure plating would be .25 for the most part with possibly .5" in some areas for strength and mild steel. Therefore even an HE round base fused will go throught that plating before detonating.
So, it is possible for a couple of Pz IV to pepper a destroyer and do some significant damage. Sinking it outright? Not likely.
The big difference is that even early war British destroyers have a 3 meter rangefinder and basic fire control system for their 4.7" (120mm) guns. The guns and ammunition are designed for use out to about 10,000 yards maximum in direct fire. An 88 crew or tank crew is not trained nor is it really equipped to direct fire accurately on a target at what would be typical naval gunnery ranges. In a fire fight the 88's or tanks likely would lose.

 

AFAIK the two incidents currently under discussion were engagements at typical tank or anti tank/aircraft gun ranges rather than anything where the naval units could gain any range advantage. The Boulogne incident was apparently inside the harbour and the Tobruk/Sikh engagement was certainly well within range of the shore batteries, although I don't think we have a specific number for that yet.