PzKpfw IV sinks destroyer?

It is certainly possible with early war British DD's. These lacked a back up electrical system other than batteries for a few critical systems. A hit that takes out electrical power pretty much leaves the ship helpless. Loss of a plant and partial loss of steam would have less effect.
There are several cases in point where the lack of diesel generators on most RN ships (read virtually all) in the early war period caused their loss. The Ark Royal is probably the best know case of this happening.

 

good point and good examples

 

And Tobruk, though protected by multiple artillery pieces is saved by the fire of a couple of 88mm AA guns.
No one else was firing at the Destroyers because they realise the 88 can do it with ease.

 

Can you imagine that there were only the Flakregiment and the italians at this spot? And why is it so hard to accept for you that this could happened?

 

Hi Ulrich, dont waste your time with Michael, he tries this on everyone-even me ;-)) Ive seen photos of what an 88 can do to a warship. Apparently Michael has not.

Take care my friend--C.

 

Thanks Mate, seems so!

 

Yes all the heavy guns placed there to protect Tobruk from a naval attack sat and did nothing whilst the 88's did all the work.
Because only the 88's fired and no other gun was involved we know an 88 did all the damage.
How could anyone believe otherwise.

 

Amen! No need to discuss it anylonger. Seems that Carl wasn´t wrong.

 

If your historical and scientific method is based on this kind of attitude;

then perhaps you should go and join in other threads.

 

Scientific methods?


No one knows where the 88's were.
No one knows how many large calibre guns were in the area.
No one knows how many guns were firing on the ships.
Sikh was under tow and was left because it was too dangerous to continue this in daylight.
Scuttling charges were set off to sink the ship.


But hey someone said an 88 fired at the ship so it must be an 88 that sank it.

Very scientific!

 

1. I think if you read the thread you would see that it is accepted that the Sikh was scuttled.
2. The positions of the batteries and number of guns is well enough documented apart from the 88s which hopefully will be if we can find the KTB. If you can find it and it contradicts the speculation, then please share.
3. we don't know if anyone knows exactly how many guns were firing on the ships, which is why we are exploring the facts instead of assuming that noone knows
4. the evidence seems to point to the tow not being 'left' but parting. that may or may not have been caused by a shell. read what is already there and present evidence to the contrary rather than dismissing it out of hand.

I think you need to look up what science is, and perhaps not in a book written by the medieval church

 

Make it better!

 

Could there have been artillery fire directed on to, but not seen by the Sikh? Goebbels was known to be economical with the truth when it suited his purpose.

 

belasar, that can be possible that not only the 88 shot at the HMS Sikh. But if it was the fact that a heavy artillery battery did the job, than the commander would had claimed it for his unit. And there was no other report. So it seems that only the 88 and the italians with their captured guns made it.
Goebbels was indeed a master who made his own truth. But i think he would have given it to an single gun crew. He loved the David vs Goliath thing.

 

I can read.
I have not seen/read anything that shows the damage was the result of 88 fire and nothing else.
Interesting that I am being asked for proof something did not happen. Surely it would be easier for you to prove it did?

 

there are many articles which claim the damage was 88 fire - several of them linked or quoted in this thread. READ it. we wish to establish if they are true. If the German KTB or the RN after action reports or the Italian reports can be found then we may have the chance to discover a consensus.

You are not being asked for proof. You are being asked not to dismiss possible evidence out of hand until you have something to disprove it other than your own opinion which is based on the faulty assumption that an 88 shell can't hurt a warship.

 

A newspaper report written by John Nixon. Reuter's special correspondent on Zulu, taken from the "Hampshire Telegraph and Post" dated September 25th. 1942. "Little Ships Big Part".



"Hit and disabled by shore batteries the gallant crew of the Sikh at still at their guns, blazing back at the land in a suicide attempt to knock out the enemy. A great fire is raging aboard her as the shells tear into her side at a range of only one mile, but her Captain refuses to abandon ship. Sikh is doing her best to cover our retreat.

It's been an hour and a half since she was first hit but she will not give in. Some of us mutter a prayer for those on board, Shattering news came through our small wireless receiver at 05:30 hrs that Sikh's steering had gone.
A night action precludes any posibility of a visual identification as to the type of guns engaging the ships until very late in the 'day'(dawn actualy)
Oh and as it was a night action can someone tell me how the type of guns firing could be seen from the ships?

The next hour was the most terrifying I have ever experienced. With searchlights on us (Zulu) we edged up to the stationary ship and began the operation of taken her in tow.

By now the shore batteries had the range of Sikh and scored hits with practically every shell. I was convinced my last moment had come.

A shell by a million to one chance severed the steel tow line and the operation of passing a new line had to begin. We were persevering with the plan to tow Sikh despite the deluge of shells.

At 07:50 hrs, it was decided that the situation was getting to hot, for now a couple of bombers had appeared and were joining in the attack.

The Senior Naval Officer in Sikh ordered us to withdraw and we replied "God Bless You" Back came a final message "Thanks Cheerio".

A little later our Captain suggested to Sikh that we have one last try to take them off, but was told to withdraw. We were bombed until nightfall.

Time after time the Junkers and Stukas planted bombs all around us, but we dodged them all. At least seven dive bombers attacked one after another and as the final one shot past there was load thump and the deck kicked beneath us.

The ship heeled over at once. All except essential personnel were transferred to another ship, which by then had joined us. We leapt from one heaving ship to another. Our wounded were carefully handed across. Then our ship was taken in tow by a third ship but sank later.



Note that fire is described as 'shore batterie' and there in no mention of an 88 being responsible for the hit on the tow cable. Searchlights are mentioned and I presume they were only attached to guns positions.

 

But this isnt an evidence that it couldn´t be a 88 Batterie. His "Shore Batterie" means only that he wasn´t able to now what guns fired at the Sikh. Its nice to read but no evidence for anything!

 

Perhaps you have seen the article I posted above

READ IT

Point out where it says '88'?

I said sink.
As the Sikh was eventualy scuttled I can say with absolute certainty that 88 fire did not sink the Sikh.
That is what, even in Medieval Church literature, is called 'fact'

 

Yes something written by a man on one of the ships and published within days of the event is not enough to overturn the unsourced claims about an '88' sinking a ship that was scuttled.