PzKpfw IV sinks destroyer?

note also that this was written in a newspaper in 1942 so cannot be assumed to be totally impartial, although it seems reasonable. Note also that John Nixon was on the Zulu and not the Sikh so may not have had all the facts.

The engagement carried on over dawn so there is no reason why the guns couldn't be identified after daybreak, even if they hadn't been identified from the sound before.

what's your point?

nobody is currently disputing that shore batteries were firing on the Sikh.

Searchlights were mentioned. Usual practice was to have searchlights away from gun positions for obvious reasons. They could possibly have been from the same unit but this was often not the case as they were often brigade or divisional units.

 

And yes i saw that article - if you read the thread you would know that I posted that main excerpt from it earlier.

 

My point?
The usual practice is to have searchlights linked to guns. I.E if the searchlights see you then be sure a gun is going to target you.
It is also accepted the raid was compromised and the ships were expected.
The simple fact is the ships sailed into a heavily defended area and were engaged by multiple guns. To claim the critical damage was inflicted by a small gun like an 88 is just too much of a stretch. For certain heavy artillery will have been emplaced to counter just such an attack.

 

If you read the whole thread you might see that;

The point we are exploring is that the critical damage to the steering gear may have been caused by an 88.

so far we have no evidence to prove it either way, but there are claims that it was, and accounts which don't mention it.

The men who examined the damage in the Sikh would most likely have been able to tell easily if the shell causing it had been a flat trajectory projectile or a plunging projectile. If they saw the entry hole of the round in question, they might well have been able to link it approximately to a point on shore where 88s were believed to be if they were there. That is conjecture at the moment, but it allows us the luxury of not assuming anything is 'too much of a stretch'

we don't know either way yet, which is what we would like to find out. you have not contributed anything useful to that quest.

 

Recent research show no evidence the raid was "compromised". The usual "proof" of the compromise was the questioning based on the plan capured on the grounded MTB after the raid that showed an earlier attack date. So the prisoners were asked "why were you late" and this gave rise to the compromise myth.
Had the attack been known the reaction force would not have been made up of cooks and hastily empressed sailors as it historically was. The capture of the plan did have an effect on the other "big party" operations, especially Gialo.
The unsavory episode involving an Italian scrouging party and force B would never have happened if the attack was expected, as you don't send a practically unarmed party to recover materials when you know an enemy force is comming that way. Also force B, by wearing German uniforms, was able to get through the first roadblock, had an attack been expected it would not have.

Most WW1 German torpedo boats (they didn't call them destroyers) had an 88mm main armament and it proved pretty effective, so did the 88mm on the Type VII U-Boats. A 10Kg round can do significant damage to an unarmoured ship, IMO destroyers are especially vulnerable as they mostly rely on their small size to survive, the unarmoured magazines, depth charges and torpedoes pose a significant risk of secondary explosions. A well camouflaged Flak 36 at 2000m can put a lot of shells into a destroyer size target and if one hits something critical ... some histories cite a ready ammo locker being hit.
The 88 claim is difficult to confirm as lots of other guns were firing, and the claim they got Zulu as well is obviously wrong, as she was still around to scuttle Coventry later in the day, but unless we get more info it still stands as a possibility, axis reports (unfortunately not original unit histories) I've seen all mention an 88 battery as amongst the first to fire and imply the searchlights that made accurate fire possible during the night phase were attached to it so they would have an advantage over the other batteries.

 

Only for fun to see this little cannon.

[YOUTUBE]1C7Hl28MHio[/YOUTUBE]

I asked for the KTB of the Flak Regiment 46, lets see if i can get it.

 

super maybe if we get all the right info together and find out the actual story we can all write a joint book about the incident and become overnight millionaires and celebrities

 

Nigel, there is the next step to be a millionair. A italian report of the british attacks.

[YOUTUBE]po9G9YGtGoU[/YOUTUBE]

 

you keep going Ulrich - we have three chapters already at least.

 

No need. It is extensively documented by the Italians.



If you google the Italian for 14 september 1944 Tobruk there is a huge range of sites holding information as well as its own Wiki page more detailed than the English version.
It seems there were 17 AA Batteries of 78 guns (30 German,48 Italian)and 13 coastal defense batteries with 47 medium-caliber guns.
Total 95 Italian and 30 German guns plus 3 Italian batteries of 20mm guns
I read that the medium emplacements engaged the Destroyers-including the one attacked by the ground forces.
This battle figures large in Italian minds because very few Germans were involved. It appears to be something they managed by themselves and thus they are very proud of their victory.

 

Yes let us not forget the 88's claimed both ships.
Just he usual confusion where everyone is firing and everyone claims the kill?
In this case despite it being 95% an Italian victory the Germans try and take the credit!
The area had been subjected to heavy bombing for several hours before the landings and the commander suspected something was up and kept his troops on alert so they were hardly taken completely by suprise.
You would have to know the position of the AA guns because for certain some would have been inland and unable to directly engage the ships. This would not be the case with the coastal guns.

 

Well, I seem to have missed a lot of posts, but not much has been added to the topic.

So, let's begin

I guess "m kenny" did not read his own article

Not only is the article disjointed in its telling of the story, but times and order are often confused. Given

In "Tobruk Commando" by Gordon Landsborough the sequence is described

Uh huh, and the British still claim to have sunk the Bismarck even though the Germans scuttled her. There is little to be gained by arguing semantics. Both ships were crippled and in sinking condition, claiming one or the other(sinking or scuttling) is just a salve for one's nationalistic fervor. Another instance is the USS Longshaw(DD-559), she ran aground off Okinawa, while so stranded, Japanese shore batteries opened fire on her and detonated her forward magazine. With the ship apparently beyond salvage, she was scuttled later in the day by American gunfire and torpedoes.

Source, please...
If the raid was compromised, then why and how did the destroyers get off the first wave of troops at 0348 hrs. undisturbed. Then approach to within a mile of the shoreline at about 0445 hours, unmolested, to rescue Colonel Unwin's train of boats, of which the lead towboat had encountered engine problems. Also, the diversionary air raid that was taking place, served to distract the Germans and keep them occupied. All went well until one searchlight crew got an inkling of the British destroyers presence and turned its light from the sky out to sea.

This hardly sounds like the raid was, as you say, "compromised."


But now on to the "meat and potatoes." Having come across an old copy of "Tobruk Commando" that I had forgotten about, the only two big shells that are mentioned to have hit HMS Sikh in the book are
1.

2.Late in the action

Concerning the 88s and coast defense batteries, the author writes;

PS also does anyone know if their local library would have a copy of "Lower Deck" written by Lt. John Davies. He was a survivor of the Sikh and wrote the book while the war was still going on.

It's a long shot, but might yield something.

 

So we´re on the beginning again.
After reading a couple of different reports and stories i think that the 88 was involved in the sinking of the HMS Sikh in an way, but it would have been not the only Batterie that engaged the HMS Sikh. For the HMS Zulu i think that the would have hit it but definately not sunk it for thereason where it got lost.
The problem is, that i can´t find any informations of the coastal artillery it stands somewhere that an german Artillerie Abteilung 147 should have been there outfitted with captured french 15,5cm guns but in the report of the unit isn´t Tobruk as the place at this time.
Maybe that i can find some better news and sources.

 

Pretty much, the AA guns were probably hitting more and often, but it was the larger artillery shells, when they hit, that would cause more damage. Well, barring any "lucky" hits by the AA guns.

 

Uh huh......that might run if I was British. I am not.

 

Which is what I am saying. The AA fire might have been a problem but it was the fire of the big guns that was significant
Sikh was under fire for 3 hours and still was afloat. How can anyone claim it was the 88's that 'sank' the ship when larger guns were present and firing?

I think searching for answers in German documents is part of the problem. It was an Italian victory.

 

Here is the section about the tow cable being hit.
Please point out the mention of an 88.



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.


This was written by a man on Zulu. It would seem the '88' reference is a latter addition.

 

AMEN to both you (Ulrich) and Nigel. If i had time? I could dig up more stuff on this. I remember a LW Feld I met at a gun show in San Antonio years ago, said that he and his crew took on and fired at allied ships of various sizes. I remember what he said and will post it later if i can? Anyway, Michael is relying on old text to fortify his position and it aint cutting the cake.

 

Old text?
Oh you mean the one written by a man who was actualy on the ship when it was hit?
Yes, really old text...........
I mean it was an '88' and we all know they could do anything. One shot one kill wonder weapons?

 

I believe he was on the other ship, if you mean Nixon