PDA

View Full Version : Billy Mitchell and anti shipping bomb tests


The Sailor
12-02-2008, 06:42
Mitchell was concerned that the building of dreadnoughts was taking precious defense dollars away from military aviation. He was convinced that a force of anti-shipping airplanes could defend a coastline with more economy than a combination of coastal guns and naval vessels. A thousand bombers could be built at the same cost as one battleship, and could sink that battleship.[2] Mitchell infuriated the Navy by claiming he could sink ships "under war conditions," and boasted he could prove it if he were permitted to bomb captured German battleships.

For the first few days of tests he successfully sank the ex-German destroyer (G-102) on July 13, 1921 and the ex-German light cruiser Frankfurt.

On July 20, 1921 the Navy brought out the ex-German WWI battleship, Ostfriesland, considered unsinkable. One day of scheduled 230, 550 and 600 lb. bomb attacks by Marine, Navy and Army aircraft settled the Ostfriesland three feet by the stern with a five degree list to port; she was taking on water. On the morning of July 21, the day assigned to 1,100 and 2,000 lb bombs, five of Mitchell's bombers each dropped a single 1,100 lb bomb, scoring three direct hits. By noon, Ostfriesland had settled two more feet by the stern and one foot by the bow. At this point, 2,000 lb bombs were loaded and Mitchell's heavy bombers dropped six in quick succession, aiming for the water near the ship. There were no direct hits but three of the bombs landed close enough to rip hull plates. The ship sank in 21 minutes, with a seventh bomb dropped on the foam rising up from the sinking ship.

Below: Ex-German battleship Ostfriesland takes a gigantic blow from a 2,000 lb. aerial bomb burst far enough below the surface that fountains of water erupt high above both sides of the ship. Minutes later, the target ship sank by the stern. This was the finale of Billy Mitchell's anti-ship bombing demonstration in July 1921.

herakles
12-02-2008, 06:45
He did have a point of course. And his demonstrations were very successful.

But of course they had no real opposition. Unlike in WW2 when the planes went down in droves like they were flies hit by Mortein. Today it's even riskier.

The Sailor
12-02-2008, 06:52
That is exactly what the senior naval officers said in defence of their pretty capital ships. They said that in a shooting war, the attacking planes would be bought down before they got to the ships.

Then came Taranto Italy and Repulse and Prince of Wales not to mention Midway.

Harley
12-02-2008, 10:12
The problem with the Ostfriesland test was that Mitchell had already damaged the ship previously with bomb attacks from light bombers. The ship was stationary, had no anti-aircraft defence whatsoever (many warships in WWI were fitted with a number of 4" or other High Angle guns), had had all her water-tight doors left open and obviously had no damage-control parties.

By foolishly breaking the rules, what could have been a valuable study into the effects of anti-naval air power (along the lines of gunnery tests) instead became a stunt.

All Mitchell proved was if you bomb a stationary unprepared ship with very big bombs, it'll sink (somehow Mitchell got some unauthorised 2,000 lb bombs into the test, obscenely large for the time). Which in a manner of speaking is what happened at Taranto and Pearl Harbour. If you'd bombed a stationary aircraft carrier if you didn't sink it you'd probably write it off by detonating the air group.

Prince of Wales and Repulse were victims of an unfortunate British doctrine before the war which basically said "This is how our ship are going to be attacked by planes, we will plan accordingly", so they came up with the HACS computer designed to fend off high-altitude bombers. Unfortunately, as the loss of Force Z proved, it didn't work very well.

Harley

The Sailor
12-02-2008, 10:16
In reply Harley, please see The Digger's post

http://www.worldnavalships.com/forums/showthread.php?t=971

Harley
12-02-2008, 10:40
That doesn't really reply to what I wrote above. I'm not disputing the superiority of air power. Mitchell helped polarise the air/ big ship debate with dangerous results. I'm saying that had air power been studied properly between the wars, who knows - the USN's air offensive might have been more efficient, or due to Japanese study on air defence it could have been a lot worse.

I have a copy of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey where the Army thoroughly investigated every aspect of the air campaign against the Japanese Empire (and also I believe Germany). Will give it another browse.

Harley