80 years ago today - Britain Declares War on Germany
Discussion
nicanary said:
FunkyNige said:
Norwich joined the war 80 years ago today - 26 people were killed when a Dornier 17 and a Junkers 88 dropped 11 bombs on the city.
One of the Baedeker Raids IIRC. Was this the incident when workers at Carow were streaming out from the factory just as the bombs fell? When I was a kid there was always what I assumed was a bomb crater on the corner of Bracondale and Riverside Road in a little copse of trees behind a fence.BTW the entire defence of my grammar school's football team was Polish - the offspring of WW2 servicemen. Goalie and full backs in an age when formations were 2-3-5.
Edited by nicanary on Thursday 9th July 16:14
nicanary said:
One of the Baedeker Raids IIRC. Was this the incident when workers at Carow were streaming out from the factory just as the bombs fell? When I was a kid there was always what I assumed was a bomb crater on the corner of Bracondale and Riverside Road in a little copse of trees behind a fence.
BTW the entire defence of my grammar school's football team was Polish - the offspring of WW2 servicemen. Goalie and full backs in an age when formations were 2-3-5.
Got all my info from BTW the entire defence of my grammar school's football team was Polish - the offspring of WW2 servicemen. Goalie and full backs in an age when formations were 2-3-5.
Edited by nicanary on Thursday 9th July 16:14
http://www.georgeplunkett.co.uk/Website/raids.htm
Yes, it was when the workers were leaving the Colmans factory. As someone else has said, the Baedeker Raids were a bit later when it was several raids close together in 1942.
This popped up in a timeline somewhere. Running through the anniversary.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/all-stations...
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/all-stations...
Well to get us started before Eric gives us more detail
Fighter command at 10 July 1940 mainly consisted of Hurricanes.
I believe the ratio was two Hurricanes mark 1 to every Spitfire.
The Hurricanes were somewhat outmatched by the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E variant
Many of the Spitfires used had been purchased privately. Money having been raised to "purchase" the Spitfires at a cost of £5,000 each (or £282K in today's money)
Fighter command at 10 July 1940 mainly consisted of Hurricanes.
I believe the ratio was two Hurricanes mark 1 to every Spitfire.
The Hurricanes were somewhat outmatched by the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E variant
Many of the Spitfires used had been purchased privately. Money having been raised to "purchase" the Spitfires at a cost of £5,000 each (or £282K in today's money)
JagLover said:
Well to get us started before Eric gives us more detail
Fighter command at 10 July 1940 mainly consisted of Hurricanes.
I believe the ratio was two Hurricanes mark 1 to every Spitfire.
The Hurricanes were somewhat outmatched by the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E variant
Many of the Spitfires used had been purchased privately. Money having been raised to "purchase" the Spitfires at a cost of £5,000 each (or £282K in today's money)
IIRC the Hurricanes were tasked to go after the bombers a d the Spitfires against the 109's as they were better matched. Not always possible I imagine! Hence the Spitfires becoming the heroesFighter command at 10 July 1940 mainly consisted of Hurricanes.
I believe the ratio was two Hurricanes mark 1 to every Spitfire.
The Hurricanes were somewhat outmatched by the Messerschmitt Bf 109 E variant
Many of the Spitfires used had been purchased privately. Money having been raised to "purchase" the Spitfires at a cost of £5,000 each (or £282K in today's money)
100% agree.
That is one of the perpetual myths that you keep hearing. The RAF through whatever resources were available against each attack. They did not have the luxury of time or available aircraft to be so choosy.
If a number of squadrons were scrambled to intercept an incoming enemy force, they didn't know what the fighter/bomber mix they were facing would be until they made visual contact.
That is one of the perpetual myths that you keep hearing. The RAF through whatever resources were available against each attack. They did not have the luxury of time or available aircraft to be so choosy.
If a number of squadrons were scrambled to intercept an incoming enemy force, they didn't know what the fighter/bomber mix they were facing would be until they made visual contact.
Zirconia said:
Live and learn. This happened today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Calabria
An interesting side note to that particular engagement was that it saw the WW1-era (but substantially updated) battleship Warspite make one of the longest ranged gunnery hits in history on Giulio Cesare when they landed a 15" shell on the Italian warship at over 26,000 yards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Calabria
Incredible given the fire control systems of the day, and confirmed what an outstanding (and accurate) piece of naval artillery the 15" mk1 gun was- essentially unchanged from its 1915 construction, just with a modified mounting to allow greater elevation and range. The Queen Elizabeth class dreadnoughts (of which Warspite was one) had been designed specifically to accommodate this new 15" gun and the ships were actually ordered before a single example of the new gun had even been tested- something of a gamble at the time, but one that paid off spectacularly well.
In WW2 even the older unmodified WW1 dreadnoughts carrying the 15" mk1 retained a degree of usefulness purely as a result of this weapon- they were too slow and too poorly armoured for front line combat with modern warships, but the range and firepower these guns offered were sufficient deterrent to Axis surface commerce raiders such that these old ships made ideal convoy escorts.
Squirrelofwoe said:
An interesting side note to that particular engagement was that it saw the WW1-era (but substantially updated) battleship Warspite make one of the longest ranged gunnery hits in history on Giulio Cesare when they landed a 15" shell on the Italian warship at over 26,000 yards
Incredible given the fire control systems of the day, and confirmed what an outstanding (and accurate) piece of naval artillery the 15" mk1 gun was- essentially unchanged from its 1915 construction, just with a modified mounting to allow greater elevation and range. The Queen Elizabeth class dreadnoughts (of which Warspite was one) had been designed specifically to accommodate this new 15" gun and the ships were actually ordered before a single example of the new gun had even been tested- something of a gamble at the time, but one that paid off spectacularly well.
In WW2 even the older unmodified WW1 dreadnoughts carrying the 15" mk1 retained a degree of usefulness purely as a result of this weapon- they were too slow and too poorly armoured for front line combat with modern warships, but the range and firepower these guns offered were sufficient deterrent to Axis surface commerce raiders such that these old ships made ideal convoy escorts.
Thanks for that. Interesting. Anyone know how many ships today could do that with a gun?Incredible given the fire control systems of the day, and confirmed what an outstanding (and accurate) piece of naval artillery the 15" mk1 gun was- essentially unchanged from its 1915 construction, just with a modified mounting to allow greater elevation and range. The Queen Elizabeth class dreadnoughts (of which Warspite was one) had been designed specifically to accommodate this new 15" gun and the ships were actually ordered before a single example of the new gun had even been tested- something of a gamble at the time, but one that paid off spectacularly well.
In WW2 even the older unmodified WW1 dreadnoughts carrying the 15" mk1 retained a degree of usefulness purely as a result of this weapon- they were too slow and too poorly armoured for front line combat with modern warships, but the range and firepower these guns offered were sufficient deterrent to Axis surface commerce raiders such that these old ships made ideal convoy escorts.
s2art said:
Thanks for that. Interesting. Anyone know how many ships today could do that with a gun?
Today it is more about the ammunition and fire control- technology has moved on a long way in this department. Radar guided fire control did see its first use in WW2- it gave the allies a significant advantage, particularly in night engagements. Today though missiles can offer significantly better accuracy at ranges way in excess of even the longest ranged naval artillery ever made, and can carry an even heavier warhead, which is why naval guns on modern warships tend to only be around 4-5"- but can still fire out to 30k yards, and probably with even greater accuracy! But obviously they do not hit as hard, but they don't need to as modern warships aren't packing 10-20 inches of armour...
Diversion. Sorry. Casual interest and may be wrong. Please correct.
15 miles, I did have to check yardage to miles.
Not sure how far you go today but its all missiles for the very long range? They did shell the Falklands. Warspite was 15", Rodney was 16". latter guns RN were desperate to get them in at Bismarck along with King George V (14"), resources available at the time but they wanted the bigger guns in action to crack the German battle ship. Much concern from Churchill that they had dropped the ball and started fitting smaller bores during peace time.
Rodney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_16-inch_Mk_I_nava...
KGV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_14-inch_Mk_VII_na...
Warspite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15-inch_Mk_I_nava...
Seems 17+ miles effective available but still have to land the shell.
Reports from cruisers watching the Rodney and Bismark that they saw the shells passing as they traded blows.
HMS Prince of Wales had a Bismark shell pulled out of unoccupied spaces near the keel when it got to dry dock, obviously not exploded but would likely have sunk it had it gone off where it was. (action where Hood was lost).
15 miles, I did have to check yardage to miles.
Not sure how far you go today but its all missiles for the very long range? They did shell the Falklands. Warspite was 15", Rodney was 16". latter guns RN were desperate to get them in at Bismarck along with King George V (14"), resources available at the time but they wanted the bigger guns in action to crack the German battle ship. Much concern from Churchill that they had dropped the ball and started fitting smaller bores during peace time.
Rodney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_16-inch_Mk_I_nava...
KGV
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_14-inch_Mk_VII_na...
Warspite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_15-inch_Mk_I_nava...
Seems 17+ miles effective available but still have to land the shell.
Reports from cruisers watching the Rodney and Bismark that they saw the shells passing as they traded blows.
HMS Prince of Wales had a Bismark shell pulled out of unoccupied spaces near the keel when it got to dry dock, obviously not exploded but would likely have sunk it had it gone off where it was. (action where Hood was lost).
Edited by Zirconia on Friday 10th July 12:13
The 14" naval gun was a result of the treaty implications limiting gun size- but (aside from early teething troubles) was actually a very successful weapon.
It's also worth pointing out that the 14" size is a bit misleading in terms of it's effectiveness though- as the shell it fired actually had a huge bursting charge (the bit that goes off once it's got through the armour) which I believe was actually greater than that of the early AP shells fired by the American 16" gun... So in theory, providing it penetrated the armour it could actually inflict greater internal damage than a larger gun firing a heavier shell but with a smaller charge.
Either way, a round from King George V managed to penetrate Bismarck (turret armour too), and the Duke of York was solely responsible for crippling Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape.
Essentially, the British traditionally preferred the combo of heavier shell and lower velocity (with the exception of the 16" gun on Nelson & Rodney).
It's also worth pointing out that the 14" size is a bit misleading in terms of it's effectiveness though- as the shell it fired actually had a huge bursting charge (the bit that goes off once it's got through the armour) which I believe was actually greater than that of the early AP shells fired by the American 16" gun... So in theory, providing it penetrated the armour it could actually inflict greater internal damage than a larger gun firing a heavier shell but with a smaller charge.
Either way, a round from King George V managed to penetrate Bismarck (turret armour too), and the Duke of York was solely responsible for crippling Scharnhorst at the Battle of North Cape.
Essentially, the British traditionally preferred the combo of heavier shell and lower velocity (with the exception of the 16" gun on Nelson & Rodney).
Eyersey1234 said:
A Spitfire at £282k in todays money seems a bargain considering a modern plane costs millions. I know they weren't as technologically advanced though.
Even more so when you consider a Spitfire was very time consuming to make in its day, taking some 13,000 man hours to build each one, which was 2.5 x times more than a Hurricane took to build, and 3 x times more than it took the Germans to build a Bf109.Conversely, today, it takes probably 3 times longer to restore a Hurricane than a Spitfire, because of the very same reasons the Hurricane was faster to build in 1940.
As a comparison from today's era, a current F-35B for the RAF/RN takes about 55,000 man hours to build at a cost of £92m each.
aeropilot said:
Eyersey1234 said:
A Spitfire at £282k in todays money seems a bargain considering a modern plane costs millions. I know they weren't as technologically advanced though.
Even more so when you consider a Spitfire was very time consuming to make in its day, taking some 13,000 man hours to build each one, which was 2.5 x times more than a Hurricane took to build, and 3 x times more than it took the Germans to build a Bf109.Conversely, today, it takes probably 3 times longer to restore a Hurricane than a Spitfire, because of the very same reasons the Hurricane was faster to build in 1940.
As a comparison from today's era, a current F-35B for the RAF/RN takes about 55,000 man hours to build at a cost of £92m each.
Eyersey1234 said:
A Spitfire at £282k in todays money seems a bargain considering a modern plane costs millions. I know they weren't as technologically advanced though.
Do remember too, though, that Spitfires were being procured in large quantities - initially orders of several hundred and later on rolling 'so many per month' contracts via the Air Ministry and Ministry of Aircraft Production. That will have decreased the cost per-aircraft significantly. When Estonia ordered a dozen Mk1 Spitfires the cost per aircraft was about double what the British government paid. The Estonians never got their Spitfires because the order was taken over on the outbreak of war. I'm sure that if BAE and LockMart had an order for 310 F-35s (which was the original Spitfire order), let alone 20,000-odd over six years, the individual cost per aircraft would come down quite a bit.
aeropilot said:
Even more so when you consider a Spitfire was very time consuming to make in its day, taking some 13,000 man hours to build each one, which was 2.5 x times more than a Hurricane took to build, and 3 x times more than it took the Germans to build a Bf109.
The Spitfire was a rare aircraft of the period where the fuselage cost more than the powerplant. The engine was usually the most expensive part of any aircraft, but the Spitfire's completed fuselage cost £2500, the engine about £2000. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff