Sinking of a warship by two german Pz IVD

[killmore]

From CC board. Grogs please comment!

Pictures links attached at the end

: This is a wrap-up of the findings so far on the interesting issue concerning

: the sinking of a warship by two german Pz IVD in late May 1940 off

: Boulogne.

: I am in possession of a war diary of the german 3. Armor Regiment (part of 2.

: Armor Division). For the 25.5.1940 it makes mention of two of the

: regiment's Pz IV tanks engaging and after a longer fire exchange

: eventually sinking what the report calls a "british destroyer"

: just outside Boulogne. It also has two pictures, one shows the crew of one

: of the tanks with a kill painting of a ship on the tank's turret, the

: other picture shows a german jeep with soldiers on the beach taking a look

: at the the sunk ship in the outer harbor of Boulogne.

: Although the date of the battle report is 25.5.1940, the kill marking on the

: tank has the date 23.5.1940. Also, I am not a naval expert, but the ship

: looks pretty small for a destroyer to me.

: I have searched the british navy data and I am pretty confident that the ship

: in question was not british. The closest I could come up with would be the

: french Chacal, time and place would fit my source, but a french navy page

: lists it as destroyed by german aircraft. My source makes no mention of

: german aircraft. It might also be possible that it is one of the

: expatriate, fled Polish, Danish or Norwegian vessels.

: I would be inclined to label the incident a clever propaganda trick by the

: german army if it wasn't for the fact that the book was published by

: veterans several decades after the war, told by the veterans and enriched

: with the old official battle reports.

: I have typed up and translated the report in the book: ------------

: 1st Btln / 3rd Armor Regt Commander 4th Company

: Tanks versus Warship, 25.5.1940

: The sun that went into the water colored the smoke rising over Boulogne in

: bloody red. A succesful day was closing. The goal had been met, all

: coastal emplacements had been taken. The french navy units were marched

: back into the rear in huge columns. The tank crews had prepared a small

: evening meal and enjoyed the calmness that had settled in. Suddenly an

: alert. Oberleutnant v. Jarowski was waving his hands from afar and

: indicated "immediately two 7.5cm - tanks with me". While the

: drivers started the engines, the vehicles were prepared for battle. The

: company commander (=said OLt Jarowski) jumped onto the leading vehicle

: aand gave a short instruction: "english destroyer is attempting to

: land troops in the Boulogne harbor". The commander orders fastest

: pace, the two tanks race on the straight road through the bivouac are,

: turn off of it to use a shortcut, an proceeded to the most advanced

: stretch of ground, from where one could see 70m into the harbor bay. The

: voice of the tank commander - almost sounding like a cheer - announced

: "1 o'clock, distance 500, destroyer" immediately answered by the

: gunner "target identified". The first two rounds left the gun,

: the adjusting fire had been finished. The loader worked as fast as he was

: possible, the gunner kept readjusting without releasing the trigger, round

: after round left the gun. The destroyer slowly prepared to dock; troops

: were easily recognizable standing closely cramped on the deck, busy

: activity everywhere. The terror of the impacting rounds caused everybody

: who wasn't blasted from deck to run back and forth in confusion. They did

: not know where they were attacked from. The destroyer accelerated it's

: speed to evade the fire of the two tanks. The two tanks were forced to

: stop their fire for very short intervals to advance their position with

: short dashes. They still didn't ceae fire and round after round flew

: through the air. Immediately in front of the ship's command tower one

: could see an approximately 5m high, suddenly erupting bright yellow blast

: flame. From then on the forward part of the ship was blocked from the

: vision of the tanks because of the strong fumes and smoke. Only now did

: the ship's crew start to defend. From the rear/aft, one broadside after

: another left the ship The smoke grew more thick and at times covered the

: whole ship. Now strong enemy fire set in from everywhere. From the hill on

: the opposing side of the harbor enemy Air Defense artillery shot at the

: tanks; about ten muzzle flashes were identifiable. After, apparently

: through radio, the position of the tanks had been reported to enemy naval

: units cruising at high sea, those warships started to pour an intense

: barrage of High Explosive and fragmentation grenades onto the tanks. All

: hatches and shutters on the tanks had to be closed, however these

: disadvantageous circumstances did not keep the crew from keeping up their

: feverish activity. The smoke and propellant residue from the gun which

: dispersed glowing red throughout the crew compartment each time the breech

: was opened let all contours appear as schemes and as if smudged. The air

: became thick, acidous and burned the lungs. All crew members were eager to

: help the loader with his work, rounds were handed to him from everywhere,

: so that no pause would enter the nonstop rapid fire. The prolonged fire

: exchange forced the destroyer to retreat into the outer harbor. A few

: hours later the destryoer sunk, which was even conceded by the english

: "Nachrichtendienst" (could mean either civilian "news

: agency" or military "intelligence service").

: ------------

: This is what I have concluded so far: The report only mentions "7.5cm

: tanks". The 3. Pz Regiment was equipped with Pz IV Ausf. D at that

: time which would be the only type to fit that bill.

: The reported enemy fire from the opposing side of the harbor would mean that

: the event took place at a time when the stretch of coast around Boulogne

: was not entirely occupied/secured. Boulogne's Chateau/citadel was

: surrenderedd 24.5., a fort west of Boulogne was taken 25.5.; the Fort de

: la Crèche according to the war diary was taken after this incident. Since

: the 2. Panzerdivison with it's 3. and 4. Panzerregiment closed onto and

: concquered Boulogne from the south, this would place the event just south

: of Boulogne. The french Chacal was lost on 23/24.5. 1940 at Cap

: d'Alprecht. Cap d'Alprecht is just immediately south-west outside of

: Boulogne.

: The dating of the batle report would not conflict with this as this is the

: date of the write-up of the action by the company commander (Olt v.

: Jarowski), besides, the tank kill marking on one of the pictures has the

: date 23.5.1940.

: The official cause of sinking of the Chacal by german aircraft bombs seems

: dubious in so far as I am also in possesion of a war diary of the 2. KG, a

: medium bomber wing equipped with Do-17 medium bombers which was used for

: tactical air support of the tank units in the french campaign, for attacks

: on enemy airfields, and participated on the atacks on shipping in the

: channel. For Wednesday, 22.5.1940 and Thursday, 23.5.1940 the entries

: report very bad weather that denied all operations up to 23.5.1940 and

: most operations on 23.5.1940. Mind you, this does not mean the supposed

: attack of german aircraft against the Chacal is impossible, it is just not

: likely.

: Also, the fact that the german commander initially misidentified the ship as

: a british destryoer doesn't really mean a lot, since IMO a tank commander

: doesn't really know ships too well, and any enemy vessel encountered might

: be labeled "Ein Engländer!" just like american GI's saw a Tiger

: in every german tank they encountered. besides, they also did not have

: time to correctly identify the ship afterwards due to the fast-paced

: nature of the warfare (Blitzkrieg) in which the 2.Panzerdivision was

: engaged, so they left the Boulogne area immediately after that to pursue

: the retreating enemy and advance towards the Dunkirk area.

: Another not match but good bet would be the french patrol boat Lorientaise.

: However, it is reported scuttled in Boulogne harbor on 21.5.1940.

: Here are again the three pictures published before. #1 shows Feldwebel

: Langhammer in his Pz IVD with the kill marking painted to the turret. #2

: shows a picture of german soldiers on the beach looking at the sunk

: british ship. #3 is a zoomed out part of picture #2 showing the profile of

: the british vessel.

:

:

:

: I have turned towards several people to inquire into this nevertheless I

: think the knowledge/expertise usually found on this board will be very

: valuable, too.

: yours sincerely,

: Markus Hofbauer

http://www.freenet.de/Hofbauer/dest1.jpg http://www.freenet.de/Hofbauer/dest2.jpg http://www.freenet.de/Hofbauer/dest3.jpg

[Colin]

Wow this is the first actual cool thread here for a long time...

I'm not sure if the ship is too big. Seems about right to me.

------------------

Visit my webpage!

http://cm4mac.tripod.com

[Guest Babra]

The ship is definitely the French Chacal, the name-ship of that destroyer class. I have her fate, according to Conway's All The World's Ships, as "bombed off Boulougne, 24.5.40".

It could be that the panzer crews found her in a stricken condition.

EDIT: Here's the answer:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But on the morning of the 25th Boulougne fell to the 2nd Panzer Division after two British Guards battalions had embarked and got away under a hail of fire from tanks right in the harbour area. Loaded with troops, the French Destroyer Chacal was sunk by Stukas just off the pier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From "The Luftwaffe War Diaries" by Cajus Bekker.

So it looks like the tankers were firing on troops who were embarking, not disembarking, and the Chacal was finished off by the Luftwaffe after clearing her moorings. Looking at the photo, it's apparent that her back is broken. The mizzen mast is tilted toward the camera, while the mainmast is tilted away. Also, the centre funnel is missing. Though it may have just collapsed when she rolled, my guess is a bomb struck her admidships.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[This message has been edited by Babra (edited 02-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Babra (edited 02-29-2000).]

[Durruti]

Great post! Actually there were some PzIVDs (and C's) still around in Normandy in 1944 - the hard-up 21st Panzer Division had a whole battalion. Some replaced captured French Somuas. If Bigtime get the chance I'd put in a request for this tank as an add-on. Quite apart from the actual numbers involved, this Division was at the heart of some of the major Normandy battles which gives the vehicle added significance...

[Bullethead]

Yup, definitely Chacal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it looks like the tankers were firing on troops who were embarking, not disembarking, and the Chacal was finished off by the Luftwaffe after clearing her moorings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it appears. And being buttoned up like the AAR says, I can see the tankers not noticing the Stukas.

OTOH, it's just possible the broken back was caused by the elements. Surf and tides can break a wreck in half like that sometimes. If the photo was taken some time after she'd sunk (and the Germans had 4 years), this might have happened in the meantime.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Babra]

I can't find any belt armour data for any WW2 destroyers. I guess it's so minimal, even the big books don't feel it worth mentioning. Pre-War Light Cruisers tend to have about 3 inches (75mm) though, so I can presume it's less than or at most equal to that.

It's not unreasonable for the German 75 L/24 to have penetrated. I know of one destroyer sunk by .50 cal fire, but that was massed .50 cals (1000 MG vs. a Tiger anyone?) from an aircraft, and through the much thinner deck, striking the boilers. It would be interesting to compare the after action reports of the Stukas that claimed the kill, if they survived.

EDIT: StG 2 (Stuka Geschwader) was operating over the Channel on the 24th. This is probably the home squadron of the aircraft in question.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[This message has been edited by Babra (edited 03-01-2000).]

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can't find any belt armour data for any WW2 destroyers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Typically, destroyers had no armor at all, which is why they were called "tincans" in comparison to cruisers and battleships. Those things that look like turrets were actually just thin steel covers to keep the wind and waves off the guncrews.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's not unreasonable for the German 75 L/24 to have penetrated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It definitely would have, even HE rounds. It would have taken quite a few, however, to sink a big modern (by WW2 standards) destroyer like Chacal, however, even without armor. Many destroyers of similar size survived numerous shell hits of much bigger caliber, as well as bombs and torpedoes with way more explosive power. Some of this was luck, because many others were sunk by the same stuff, but it's still not an easy thing to sink a warship, even a relatively small, unarmored one.

So if the tanks actually did sink the ship, they had to have been pretty lucky in where they hit it. Not saying they couldn't have done it, but it's not likely that the tanks were solely responsible.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 03-01-2000).]

[Lee]

Hmm, tanks battling it out with warships, you gotta love that.

I would also like to see the earlier panzer IV's be included in

the add-on to CM.

[Heibis]

Just have to mention another warship vs tank history that I recall. I am taking this from memory now, so the excact facts might be somewhat wrong:

As the german army retreated from the baltic countries, soviet tank units cut the germans off at some harbour. One german destroyer laying nearby then entered the harbour and shot up a dozen T34s with direct fire from its 5,9" forward turret (a double mount IIRC). This broke the Soviet advance, and the Germans were given a short relief...

The source is "Sea War", by Janus P (something), a wery detailed and accurate book featuring the naval war of WW2.

Cheers, Jens

[Guest Babra]

"Unarmoured" may be a relative term. An inch of steel may not qualify as armour in the world of 16" guns. I've slapped the hull of the HMCS Haida, a WW2 Tribal, a few times, and it feels as solid as any tank, but it's a subjective test. In any event, I highly doubt that 75s would be able to reach any critical interior spaces even if they did penetrate, unless they were firing downward from a significant elevation. There are no critical systems adjacent to the hull that are not protected.

I have no doubt the tanks contributed in some way to the demise of the Jackal (Chacal), but without hearing from the Stuka pilots it's all guesswork. Kind of an interesting little mystery. Sort of a "who shot the Red Baron" kind of thing.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Bullethead]

Babra said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Unarmoured" may be a relative term. An inch of steel may not qualify as armour in the world of 16" guns. I've slapped the hull of the HMCS Haida, a WW2 Tribal, a few times, and it feels as solid as any tank, but it's a subjective test.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US standard for destroyer hull plating in WW2 was 1/4", a bit thicker in areas where it carried more structural load. I'd expect Chacal was no thicker because the French built their ships light to attain the highest possible speed.

But regardless of thickness, there's quite a difference between structural steel and armor. Armor is made with special alloying and chemical/heat processes to make it hard enough to resist shell impacts. But this makes the metal brittle and unsuitable for most structural uses. Structural steel, OTOH, is left much "softer" so the ship can flex with the pounding of the sea instead of cracking in half like some Liberty ships built with the wrong type steel did.

Being "soft" means that shells can go through structural steel like butter. I've seen figures showing that such steels had less than 1/2 the resistance to shells as Krupp Cemented armor of the same thickness. So probably the German tank guns in this case were facing the equivalent of only abut 1/8" of armor at fairly close range.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In any event, I highly doubt that 75s would be able to reach any critical interior spaces even if they did penetrate, unless they were firing downward from a significant elevation. There are no critical systems adjacent to the hull that are not protected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the engineering spaces go the full hull width of destroyers and come up to about the waterline. So they'd be vulnerable to hits near the waterline, although mostly to fragments instead of shells exploding directly in them. The same goes for the steering gear in the stern. Magazines are lower down and on the centerline so are harder to reach. OTOH, the bridge, guns, and torp tubes could all be easily wrecked and the latter 2 just maybe have secondary explosions. Plus the above-water hull contains berthing and stores spaces where fires could start.

So depending on where they hit, the tanks could have greatly reduced the ship's fighting power and maneuverability, and perhaps slowed her down somewhat. Sinking her is another matter. Chacal displaced over 2000 tons and had 5 engineering spaces. I figure at least 3 of these, maybe 4, would have to be flooded to sink the ship, even in shallow water. That's a tall order for 75mm, considering Chacal almost certainly had pumps capable of dealing with multiple 120-130mm hits from her expected adversaries.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead:

OTOH, the bridge, guns, and torp tubes could all be easily wrecked and the latter 2 just maybe have secondary explosions...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's an excellent point. Looking at the photo of the wreck, the obvious structural damage is in the area of the torpedo tubes, although (and it's not the clearest of pictures) they do seem to be intact. The missing funnel is just forward of the tubes, and the askew funnel is just aft. That bit of daylight visible is not a crack, but the space between the tubes and the poop deck (did I hear Matt just start laffin'?).

The Gr. 38 Hl hollow charge for the 7.5 cm KwK 37 went into service in June 1940 and could penetrate 45mm of armour, so if destroyers are only the equivalent of 4 or 5mm, then no sweat. Don't forget however, that hollow charge shells aren't going to affect anything more than a short distance from the point of penetration. So to actually sink her they must A) hole her so many times below the waterline that she can't pump out; or cause a major secondary which causes her to lose power and/or flood.

The way I see it, there are three ways she could have sunk. The tanks could have caused a secondary (one is recorded forward of the bridge, probably from one of the turrets), which was mistaken by the Stukas as a hit; or, conversely, the Stukas scored a hit which was mistaken as a secondary by the tankers; thirdly, she may have been hit by the Stukas later and finished off then. The after action report says she sank some hours later after hauling off.

The lapse of a few hours is significant. I suppose it's also possible that the ship fired on by the tanks was not the Chacal at all. Still very interesting.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Gr. 38 Hl hollow charge for the 7.5 cm KwK 37 went into service in June 1940 and could penetrate 45mm of armour, so if destroyers are only the equivalent of 4 or 5mm, then no sweat. Don't forget however, that hollow charge shells aren't going to affect anything more than a short distance from the point of penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just regular HE would do a better job. It would explode with the shell on or partially through the hull plate and blow a much bigger hole than the pinholes caused by shape charges. Plus some of the pieces of hull plate formerly covering the hole would be hurled inside with the shell fragments. Bigger holes mean more water can come in, and bigger fragments mean more damage further inboard, possible piercing watertight bulkheads and allowing the water to spread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The lapse of a few hours is significant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, depends on when the Stukas attacked relative to the tanks, I think. I'm not clear on that timing.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Babra]

Check out the following website for the most authoritative guns vs. naval armour info and calculations I've seen. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.skypoint.com/members/jbp/gunarmor.htm

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Check out the following website for the most authoritative guns vs. naval armour info and calculations I've seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the good ol' Nihon Kaigun page. That guy knows his stuff.

BTW, nice to meet somebody with an interest in boats. I'm testing a very cool naval game and we could always use some help. But this isn't the place to discuss it, so if you're interested, send me an email.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm