Freak bomb hit sinks battleship, 1918--what happens afterwards?

Late 1917: a heavy armor piercing bomb is developed for the Handley-Page bomber, with the goal of penetrating some of the German concrete fortifications. It’s made out of a 13.5” shell with fins added. They sit around, mainly waiting for a target, although some do get used with uncertain results.

In 1918, the high seas fleet puts to sea briefly, and the Royal Navy sets forth to intercept. Naturally, the High Seas Fleet turns around and heads back to port. The Royal Air Force attempts to use its bombers to intercept the battleships—and does. Through a million to one shot, one armor piercing bomb actually hits. Seconds later, SMS Von der Tann blows up and sinks.

There’s plenty of witnesses; it’s clear that it was an aircraft bomb that sunk a battlecruiser—one of the High Seas Fleet’s capital ships.

(I know this is a million to one shot, but history sometimes turns on the long odds event.)

The sinking has no real effect on the war, but there’s one less hulk to salvage at Scapa Flow. It does begin to have serious repercussions after the war…but exactly what? Some will see the hit for what it was—a one in a million hit from high altitude that can’t be repeated—but others will see it as proof that airpower is the way to go. How far can air power go after this event?

Certainly, General Mitchell has far more ammunition!

(Any similar situation is fine if this one doesn’t sit right. A freak BOMB, not torpedo, hit from an airplane sinks a battleship or battlecruiser during World War One.)
 
I would presume that RAF planes are forever forbidden from flying over water. Yamamoto takes out his notepad.
 
How does the Royal Air Force know where the High Seas Fleet is?

Well, the British are already experimenting with aircraft and they will be receiving the delivery of the first aircraft that can carry a torpedo aloft. I don't see anything majorly different for them.
 
Late 1917: a heavy armor piercing bomb is developed for the Handley-Page bomber, with the goal of penetrating some of the German concrete fortifications. It’s made out of a 13.5” shell with fins added. They sit around, mainly waiting for a target, although some do get used with uncertain results.

In 1918, the high seas fleet puts to sea briefly, and the Royal Navy sets forth to intercept. Naturally, the High Seas Fleet turns around and heads back to port. The Royal Air Force attempts to use its bombers to intercept the battleships—and does. Through a million to one shot, one armor piercing bomb actually hits. Seconds later, SMS Von der Tann blows up and sinks.

There’s plenty of witnesses; it’s clear that it was an aircraft bomb that sunk a battlecruiser—one of the High Seas Fleet’s capital ships.

(I know this is a million to one shot, but history sometimes turns on the long odds event.)

The sinking has no real effect on the war, but there’s one less hulk to salvage at Scapa Flow. It does begin to have serious repercussions after the war…but exactly what? Some will see the hit for what it was—a one in a million hit from high altitude that can’t be repeated—but others will see it as proof that airpower is the way to go. How far can air power go after this event?

Certainly, General Mitchell has far more ammunition!

(Any similar situation is fine if this one doesn’t sit right. A freak BOMB, not torpedo, hit from an airplane sinks a battleship or battlecruiser during World War One.)
There may be any ships to salvage in Scapa Flow. At one blow all capital ships had become useless, so why bother to send them in Scotland? Let the Germans scrap their own warships...
But more important, there may be no Bismarck, Tirpitz, Yamato, Iowa and so on. The attack in Pearl Harbour may be different, instead of battleships there may be some carriers and more cruisers. And in Atlantic in WW2 the British may have hard times with germans U-boat, especially when the type XXI enter service in late 1940.
 
NHBL,

I think the operative word here is freak and the planners, designers, naval officers, and politicians of the time will use the word freak repeatedly when discussing the sinking of SMS Von der Tann.

They'll come up with all sorts of excuses, dodges, quibbles, theories, and so forth to explain away the sinking. They'll point out that the Germans weren't expecting to be bombed, that the battlecruiser was steaming a straight course, that there was no ack-ack, that the plane was lucky, that the bomb was a Golden Shot, and dozens of other seemingly level headed, sober, rational "explanations".

New ships will be designed with thicker deck armor and more AA guns, older ships will be refitted with the same, maneuvers to prevent air attacks will be devised, promulgated, and practiced, and not much of anything will change until Japan put Force Z under off the Malay Peninsular.

It's just human nature.


Bill
 
Late 1917: a heavy armor piercing bomb is developed for the Handley-Page bomber, with the goal of penetrating some of the German concrete fortifications. It’s made out of a 13.5” shell with fins added. They sit around, mainly waiting for a target, although some do get used with uncertain results.

In 1918, the high seas fleet puts to sea briefly, and the Royal Navy sets forth to intercept. Naturally, the High Seas Fleet turns around and heads back to port. The Royal Air Force attempts to use its bombers to intercept the battleships—and does. Through a million to one shot, one armor piercing bomb actually hits. Seconds later, SMS Von der Tann blows up and sinks.
ah. You propose a 1918 style USS Arizona? She was sunk by an adapted Japanese Battleship shell.

I would suspect that while General Billy Mitchell would take notice, and maybe include something like that to sink the target ships in 1921/22, the Navy boys would say the same thing. Ship with no damage control, no crews, sunk by progressive flooding. Would never happen if the ship was crewed and underway yada yada yada.

All in all, nothing would probably change except for more deck armour and AA until Taranto and Pearl Harbour, but those attacks may change.

That's my thoughts.....
 
Could go either way. Certainly the Douheists will scream the event to the heavens as proof of aviation's natural supremacy while the Battleship admirals will scream "lucky strike". A lot depends on how this plays in the mainstream military between these poles.

It will certainly increase the propaganda for heavy bombers as a naval defense weapon, and will be a great advert for the *B-17 analog (sold OTL as a shore defense weapon for an isolationist USA). This could conceivably affect prewar planning and procurement in a lot of nations. Japan might put more faith in level bombing against ships than OTL, frex, and this could play into the IJA/IJN funding debate.

Might aircraft carriers and shipboard AAA get more attention than OTL?

How would this affect the naval conferences?
 

Markus

Banned
Hmm, German capital ships had very good protection from high angle fire, so could a 13,5 inch shell penetrate deep enough? Even if, wouldn´t the HSF be at battle stations, with all door closed, damage controll ready and so on.

I´m sceptical if even a freak hit could get you an Arizona-effect.

But say it happnes. The least we can expect is nations to conduct some tests and as soon as they make tests with warships that move and manouver they will find out: "§$%&#+! We drooped several hundered bombs and killed swarm after swarm of innocent fish but we did not hit the ?&%$§# target more than a dozen times and none of the hits would have been lethal. So screw bombs, we better use torpedos instead!"

Ok, the panacea mongers will likely claim all that´s needed is better bombers, bomb sights but the other side could always conduct test with whatever better bombsight will be developed and find out it too does not work.
 
I´m sceptical if even a freak hit could get you an Arizona-effect.
Let me explain.

Whatever hit Arizona hit her magazine. Freak hit or not, a hit to a magazine will blow a ship in two and sink her. HMS Hood (1941, Blatent fluke to the magazine). Other ships lost to magazine hits are HIJMS Mutsu (1944 I think), HIJMS Yamato (1945) was blown in two by a magazine detonation - not a direct bomb hit. Rather the 6" magazine torched off the 18.1" magazine. KM Scharnhorst (1943) was blown in two by a magazine explosion. Only 36 survivors too.

All of those ships (Except Mutsu which was in harbour) were sailing under lockdown with damage control. A magazine hit is a fatal hit. The ship WILL NOT survive the detonation of 200 odd tons of Coradite. Best case is that she gets blown in two and one half floats for a while. Worse case is both halves sink fast like HMS Hood.

I only chose USS Arizona as it is generally believed that an adapted Japanese Shell hit her magazines.
 
Let me explain.

Whatever hit Arizona hit her magazine. Freak hit or not, a hit to a magazine will blow a ship in two and sink her. HMS Hood (1941, Blatent fluke to the magazine). Other ships lost to magazine hits are HIJMS Mutsu (1944 I think), HIJMS Yamato (1945) was blown in two by a magazine detonation - not a direct bomb hit. Rather the 6" magazine torched off the 18.1" magazine. KM Scharnhorst (1943) was blown in two by a magazine explosion. Only 36 survivors too.

All of those ships (Except Mutsu which was in harbour) were sailing under lockdown with damage control. A magazine hit is a fatal hit. The ship WILL NOT survive the detonation of 200 odd tons of Coradite. Best case is that she gets blown in two and one half floats for a while. Worse case is both halves sink fast like HMS Hood.

I only chose USS Arizona as it is generally believed that an adapted Japanese Shell hit her magazines.



You are only parly correct, besides shifting some historical names for others. (Scharnhorst was not hit as mentioned, but her Gneisenau lost its bow in a dock, after being bombed. It was often thought she blew up as a result of a magazine ecxplosion, but that is only half the story. Only some 30 or so shells were present, at the time the RAF bombed Gneisenau and theis set of the shells, starting a major fuelfire, as her bunkers were still fully loaded for some strange reason, just as part of the ammunition still was on board, while in a dock. It was the fuelfire that severed the bow from the ship, as the metallic structure was too weak to sustain the high temperatures of the fire.) See in: Bredemeier, Heinrich: Schlachtschiff Scharnhorst, ISBN 3-7822-0592-8, as well as in: Nauroth, Holger: Schlachtkreuzer Scharnhorst und Gneisenau, ISBN 3-613-02200-1.

HMS Hood was destroyed by Bismarck, landing a 15 inch shell in her after magazine, but you missed the simmilar destruction of Bretagne, who was destroyed by HMS Hood in a simmilar fashion at Mers El Kiber.

Another miss is the destruction of the Roma, who was hit by two FX-1400 guided armor piecring bombs of a single Do-217 in 1943. One hit admidships went all the way though the ship near the funnels, exploding under the ship, after exiting the hull under the after boilerroom, while the second hit penetrated the decks of the ship, near teh foreward CT and exploded in the foreward magazine, breaking Roma in two, sinking her.

Another battleshiploss due to AP bombhits in a magazine was Marat of the USSR, aslo by the Luftwaffe. Here the foreward magazine blew up, after a 1000 kg AP bomb hit the foreward turret. The ship was never capable of sailing afterwards, but was used as a static gunneryplatform, while aground, defending Leningrad. Her loss was almost simmilar to USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, the same year.

IJN Mutsu was an accidental loss, so has to be excluded, as her destruction was due to poor savetycontroll of the ordonance, rather than a hostile action. (several ammunitionships also blew up due to a simmilar reason on both sides.)

Yamato was not hit by a penetrating hit in her magazines, as the weapons used were unable to do so in her final mission. She was sunk by the 10 or so torpedoes and suffered a secondary explosion, when listing, simmilar to HMS Barham, when torpedoed in late 1941 in the Mediteranean Sea. This also has to be excluded.
 
Hi Warspite,

Yes Gneisenau was burnt out due to magazine fire, but Scharnhorst did suffer a magazine explosion at the Battle of North Cape in 1943. Her wreck has been found and is blown in two. I believe under Bruno turret, but am not sure. I think she was found in 2003. Either way, she suffered a magazine explosion and sunk as a result.

Apart from that I agree with all you said.

HMS Hood was destroyed by Bismarck, landing a 15 inch shell in her after magazine, but you missed the simmilar destruction of Bretagne, who was destroyed by HMS Hood in a simmilar fashion at Mers El Kiber.
:confused: Wasn't aware any ships suffered magazine explosions at Mers El Kiber!
 
It won't stop people from still building battleships. 1 Italian torpedo boat sunk an Austrian battleship in the Adriatic in otl and that did not stop more battlewagons from being constructed. Why would this be any different
 
Hi Warspite,

Yes Gneisenau was burnt out due to magazine fire, but Scharnhorst did suffer a magazine explosion at the Battle of North Cape in 1943. Her wreck has been found and is blown in two. I believe under Bruno turret, but am not sure. I think she was found in 2003. Either way, she suffered a magazine explosion and sunk as a result.

Apart from that I agree with all you said.


:confused: Wasn't aware any ships suffered magazine explosions at Mers El Kiber!


I have noticed that too, but it is a fact, Scharnhorst also was out of heavy ammunition by the time she was sunk. A magazine explosion in an empty magazine is not possible. The secondary magazines too remained intact, as these were also in the same spot in the ship.

Secondly the Scharnhorst is more or less intact, with only the forreward part of the bow severed just foreward of the foreward bulkhead, which indicates it was broken of, when the bow touched the seafloor, rather than anything else. As the missing section is very close to the rest of the wreck, the breaking off must have occured in the last part of the sinking to the seafloor.

The wreck of Scharnhorst shows no signs of main magazine explosions, due to the fact, the ship was out of ammunition during her last firght, while still engaging destroyers with her secondaries only. Only A turret was out of action, while B turret's magazine was empty. By the time C turret was jammed, the few remaining rounds were transfered to B turret, untill these were shot away too, leaving no heavy ammunition left in the ship.

Scharnhorst was hit by at least 14 heavy torpedoes, which no battleship could survive and these sank her by severe flooding, dispite the fact the Torpedobulkheads remained intact, given the observation of the survivors, that Scharnhorst rolled over and sank bow first, with her three screws still running at some speed.
 
It won't stop people from still building battleships. 1 Italian torpedo boat sunk an Austrian battleship in the Adriatic in otl and that did not stop more battlewagons from being constructed. Why would this be any different

I agree. And as indicated by others it would probably result in design changes inteneded to lessen the risk of bomb hits crippling or destroying battleships. Also, navies would invest earlier in heavy AAA batteries and experiment with tactics to further minimize the risk from air attack. The end result might be ships and doctrines that might make a debacle like the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales less, not more, likely.

This might also give airpower enthusiasts such an overvaluation of aerial bombs as a weapon against ships at sea that the developments go off in a direction (level bombing by large land-based planes) that actually make air attack a less effective weapon against ships at sea than what happened in OTL. Perhaps the Japanese and US army air forces (and their supporters in the Diet/Congress) might use this as a reason to invest in more in strategic bombers and less in aircraft carriers, small dive bombers, and torpedo planes.

Taken together, perhaps the end result might be just the opposite of what one might expect.
 
Top