PzKpfw IV sinks destroyer?

You can tone down the sarcasm as I never made those claims. Why don't you get in contact with the author, Janusz Piekalikewicz, of the book you took the quote from, and vent your spleen to him.

At least I see you have recanted your previous error of claiming the HMS Zulu was sunk by aerial torpedo.

 

You can tone down the sarcasm as I never made those claims. I was merely recounting the information I had gathered. However I am a big man and always willing to accept and correct my mistakes. I will take the blame. - Now if only you could borrow a sense of humour (UK spelling)..............

 

Let's not start spoiling this thread again please guys - we were just beginning to get the story straighter.

 

This page (78 & 79) in the following link have photos taken on board Zulu during the raid.

Flickr: cjmellows' Photostream

 

good find

 

The National Archive; Weekly Resume (No. 159) of the Naval, Military and Air Situation from 0700 September 10th, to 0700 September 17th, 1942.; Catalogue reference: CAB 66/28/48)

Mediterranean.
13. On the night of the 13th/14th a raid on Tobruk was carried out
by destroyers, corvettes and M.T.B.S. of the Mediterranean Fleet and a small
military force, supported by a considerable air attack. Some of our troops
were 'successfully put ashore, penetrating the Tobruk perimeter and capturing
some gun positions. Heavy opposition was encountered by further landing
parties. The subsequent withdrawal was not effected without losses. H.M.
Destroyer Sikh, carrying troops, was h i t by shore batteries and disabled before the
troops could be landed. HM . Destroyer Zulu attempted to take Sikh in tow but
was also hit and forced to withdraw. Sikh is believed sunk. In the course of
the withdrawal to Alexandria on the 14th our forces were subjected to incessant
air attack. H.M. Cruiser Coventry (A/A ship) was bombed and set on fire,
subsequently abandoned and sunk by Zulu. Later Zulu was bombed and holed
and eventually sank after being in tow. Nine officers, 180 ratings and 60 Royal
Marines were taken on board H.M. Destroyer Croome. Throughout the 14th
lour M.T.B.S. and two M.L.S. were lost



A sustained night bombing effort was maintained against the harbour area
of Tobruk. Oh the. night of the 13th/14th, an exceptionally heavy
attack was made in support of a combined naval and military operation. Thirtyfive
heavy bombers (including 21 U.S.A.A.C.) and 68 Wellingtons participated,
and bombs landed on the jetties, on fuel tanks, on buildings in the town and
among tents of a camp to the west of the town. At the same time Benghazi was
attacked by 19 R.A.F. and U.S.A. Liberators, and the landing ground at Sidi
Haneish by 36 Bostons and U.S.A. Mitchells; four Wellingtons and four Mitchells
are missing. Patrols covering the Naval units engaged in the combined operation
were provided by long-range fighters; several formations of enemy aircraft were
intercepted and forced to jettison their bombs and three enemy bombers were
probably destroyed or damaged.

 

The ship burning in the bacground is reported to be HMS Coventry in the caption I've seen for the first picture. There is also a blurry image of her sinking but still none of the destroyer's forecastle that could confirm the white/red stripes. The No 159 report has at least one error where it mentions corvettes as no other account has them anywhere near, the Cairo and Coventry escorts were most likely all Hunt class as the reason the Coventry scuttling was by Zulu is that none of her escorts has torpedoes.

Looks like all the reports the claim an 88 gun kill can be traced to German sources as they are pretty detailed on the German units but sketchy at best on the Italian ones, if they mention them at all.
BTW the info so far make it likely HMS Zulu was sunk by an 88, but it was Junkers not Krupp built .

I'm going to have a look for that Italian book on the attack at my local military bookstore, though if the author is a Folgore division veteran as reported he would not have been there personally during the attack he is likely to have had contacts with a lot of people that were.

 

The escorts for HMS Coventry were: HMS Aldenham, HMS Belvoir, HMS Beaufort, HMS Croome, HMS Dulverton, , HMS Exmoor, HMS Hursley, and HMS Hurworth.

Of this group, only HMS Aldenham and HMS Belvoir had torpedoes. Unluckily, it was these two destroyers which were getting critically low on fuel, so HMS Coventry's commanding officer, Captain Dendy, sent them to Alexandria for fuel.

 

Michael, I dont have time to go read the posts since my last visit but should have time sun or monday--C.

 

One short quip, I dont no anything of this destrouyer but I do know that one single 88 was used on the SS Fort Leff-my GFs ship.

 

The thread is asking why an 88 battery should claim the sinking for itself when:

1) Very few German Units were involved.
2) Those German 88 Units were but a small part of a much bigger Italian defensive system
3) The Italian guns were larger and would be much effective than the 88's
4) The Italian coastal batteries were in specificaly placed and sited to engage any Naval vessels
5) The same 88 Unit claimed the sinking of 2 Destroyers not one . The Zulu was sunk 200 miles away so this is hardly a simple error over 'who' sank the Zulu but shows deeper problems exist with the German account.

It seems that a bit of 'glory grabbing' was going on and the Italian efforts are being downplayed.

 

I KNOW what this thread is about-im merely TRYING to get YOU to see the light and repent your wierd ways of thinking in that you basically said that it was not possible for an 88-to sink a ship. However, your wrong.

 

I think an 88 battery on its own (4 guns?)would have a hard time sinking a Tribal. I do know what an 88 can do because I have seen the damage to tanks hit by 88's. However knocking out a tank is not quite the same as sinking a large Tribal Class Destroyer.
Take note that even though the Sikh was a sitting duck for up to 125 guns (some up to 150mm and 95 guns that were not 88's)) for 3 hours she still had to be scuttled before she finaly slipped beneath the waves.
In this case it seems the 88's, even with help from bigger brothers, were struggling.

I really have no interest in what they theoreticaly might achieve against merchant shipping. I confine myself to what happened on a night in September at Tobruk.

 

Not likely that all of the 125 reported guns could fire at the the ships, probably less than half did. So far we have identified two 88mm batteries (and both claimed the victory for themselves!) two 6" one 4" and two 3" Italian coastal batteries. As the ship suffered multiple hits and was finally scuttled a shared kill is the most likely outcome.
As for the effectiveness of land batteries against shps a somewhat similar, but also very confused episode, resulted in the loss of the Italian destroyers Vivaldi and Da Noli, not much smaller than a Tribal at 2100t, when they tried to interfere with the retreat of the German 90th division from Sardinia to Corsica after the September 1943 armistice and got into a melee that involved field batteries, coastal batteries, motor boats, mines and finally even HS 293 armed aircraft.

 

Hi M, an 88 Battery could consists as few as 2 guns to 8. Ive pictures showing the proff. However, MM ships may not be as heavily armored as warships with the exception of tankers like the one my Grandfather was ships master of. His was a doublehulled ship-which is like having extra armor. I know nothing from nothing on the toughness of destroyers but, the fact still remaines the same that my grandfathers ship had been given the death blows from U 181s deck gun-which was an 88.

 

If the 88's were firing at a disabled warship I have no doubt eventualy they could sink it. Put enough holes in every watertight compartment and it is a given. In this case bigger and better guns were available and thus the best they can claim is a shared victory.
I just do not like the claim that only the 88's mattered and only the 88's had any effect.

 

It might not take that. Consider that the US shore batteries at Wake sunk at least one Japanese DD by detonating it's magazine. If the 88 can reach the magazines it could also sink a DD with a single lucky hit. The torpedos could also be a serious weakness to even lighter guns.

 

Anything is possible but Sikh did not blow up. The magazines did not explode. The 'sinking' was so slow they had to detonate their own scuttling charges to finish the job.

 

Hi M/ the torpedo only damaged the ship amidship which knocked out its poower generator. The Germans were nice enough to allow all the men to abandon ship but also gave my Grandfather and his men, medican aid, food stuffs and a Luger pistol.

I dont have my Grandfathers book handy or i could cite exactly what he saw. Anyway, the torpedo only damaged huis ship and as U 181 was already sufaced, Captin zue See Kurt Friewald decided to save his torpedos and used the deck gun to sink the SS Fort Lee.

I never met my Grandfather and he passed away in 1969 at an Old Sailors home in Walla Walla Washington. I wouldnt have been old enough to ask him anything but, i do know what I learned from my grandmother, mom and the 11 Vets of U 181 who attended the reunion in Bad Camberg, Germany in 2000. Otto giese had explained to me in a letter shortly before he passed away, that the torpedo stopped the ship but the deck gun gave it its death blows-for lack of his exact words.

 

LWD,

Remember that the guns firing on the IJN Hayate were 5-inch/51s. For comparison:

navweaps.com page for the 5-inch/51 USA 5"/51 (12.7 cm) Marks 7, 8, 9, 14 and 15
lonesentry.com page for the 88mm AA gun:
TM E9-369A: German 88-mm Antiaircraft Gun Materiel - Technical Manual, U.S. War Department, June 29, 1943 (Lone Sentry)

The only ammunition that exploded on the HMS Sikh was ready service ammunition for "A" turret. IMHO, the HMS Sikh was done in by the "big shell" that destroyed the forced lubrication system for the main engine gearing. While, without the steering damage, she might have been able to escape the shore batteries before the engines quit, without propulsion, she could not escape whatever German/Italian aircraft would come at dawn's light. Even if the HMS Zulu had been able to establish a tow, the trip would have been long and slow, and again they would have been nice fat targets for enemy aircraft.