warship mistakes

[seafox]

Paul started a thread on inovative 20th century warship and it caused me to want to ask this question based on IIRC

in about 36-38 refitted their major carriors extending the flight decks and enlarging the hanger decks and was able to increase the number of planes from 60 to 80.
the down side was in the days before angled flight decks ( and btw I wonder who thought of that? the big japaneese carriors could launch planes from the hanger deck at the same time they were landing planes on the flight deck. this I belive was one of the deciding factors at midway as they were attacked while landing planes and could not launch more fighters to strengthen the CAP

would Japan have been betyter off to build more carriors rather than refit the existing ones ?

[Don Z.]

The problem at Midway was that the CAP was low, having just finished off the torpedo bombers when the dive bombers appeared.

At the same time, the planes were on the deck getting their bombs (loaded in expectation of bombing the island) replaced with torpedoes (needed to attack the American carriers) when the Americans attacked.

The CAP was in the wrong place, and even if they had been able to launch the planes on deck, they would not been able to assist the CAP because they weren't fighters. The other major problem was that the American bombs hit while they were on the deck, so they had nothing with which to counter-attack (I should mention that this was only true for three of the Japanese carriers... they certainly were able to heavily damage on American carrier, that later sank).

When you also consider that they had two more carriers in the home islands, that did not participate in the battle, and when you consider that a whole ship requires an awful lot of resources to enable the extra plane capacity, I'm not sure you have a valid thesis.

[John E Hardiman]

I'll have to dig out my references, but I thought the refits plated over the hanger deck openings because of shipping too much water. Anyway, at Midway the Japanese could not recover because they had planes ready to launch on the decks spotted aft (no catapults at that time), and the couldn't launch because of the 3 successive TBD squadron attacks had the carriers maneuvering out of the wind.

[George Ray]

Honda Point California, Sept 1923
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/ev-1920s/ev-1923/hondapt.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h84000/h84821t.jpg

[seanz]

The front fell off?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pittsburgh_(CA-72)#Damaged_by_a_typhoon

[Peerie Maa]

The front fell off?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pittsburgh_(CA-72)

That was no mistake, that was brilliant Damage Control and ship handling.
This: HMS Nottingham hits Australia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2329155.stm) was a mistake. The crew however also displayed brilliant Damage Control considering the extent of flooding.

[Paul Pless]

The Yamato, the Musashi, the Bismark, the Tirpitz. . .

all were failures. In the end, they were too expensive to risk their loss, so they were never used to their capabilities.




the lack of radar rangefinding on the japanese ships should probably be further noted, since it somewhat nullified the ability of their guns to be used at their fullest ranges of 25 miles plus

[Peerie Maa]

The British K and M class subs were a bit of a no-no.

However, not everything the Admiralty pushed through was a success. The K and M-class submarines were, in the words of Admiral Sir Geoffrey Layton, a “balls-up”. In this case, the Admiralty tried to make a submarine do what it quite clearly was not capable of doing!

The M-class submarines were fitted with a 12 inches Mark XI gun. This was simply put onto a K-class submarine’s hull. The theory, fine on paper, was that the M-class submarine should semi-surface, fire its gun at a large target and dive quickly using the extra weight of the Mark XI gun at the front of the hull. Whereas a torpedo could be avoided by a ship, a shell would have been impossible to avoid. The gun was set to fire automatically and was controlled from the periscope. Therefore, the diving submarine did not have to wait for any firing crew to return inside. There was only one problem – to reload the gun, you had to surface and on the surface the M-class would have made a large and inviting target.

Several points were against the M-class. The submarines rarely had a stable enough platform to fire the gun accurately and a ship hit above the waterline had a much greater chance of survivaal than a ship holed below the waterline.
The K's were big steam powered submarines (imagine the evolution of diving a steamer :eek: ) designed to keep up with a battle squadron.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Before Anderw gets himself too puffed up, let's point out that USS Constitution and USS Consellation pretty well settled who had the "best Navy" a long, long time ago.

It was the US who "stretched" Frigates to a longer length, reinforcing the hulls with diagonal iton straps, so that they could be fitted with more cannon than "conventioanl" Frigates of that time.

The English said that the "Americans were cheating".

The USS Constellation was known by the French as "The Yankee Racehorse" because she was very fast, having copied the French hull style typically capable of greater speed than the English style.

Besides Yankee warships always fed their crews better than the English did.

Moby Nick

[Peerie Maa]

Before Anderw gets himself too puffed up, let's point out that USS Constitution and USS Consellation pretty well settled who had the "best Navy" a long, long time ago.

It was the US who "stretched" Frigates to a longer length, reinforcing the hulls with diagonal iton straps, so that they could be fitted with more cannon than "conventioanl" Frigates of that time.

The English said that the "Americans were cheating".

The USS Constellation was known by the French as "The Yankee Racehorse" because she was very fast, having copied the French hull style typically capable of greater speed than the English style.

Besides Yankee warships always fed their crews better than the English did.

Moby Nick

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that this thread was called "Warship mistakes".:confused:

[Michael D. Storey]

Speaking of warship mistakes, I remember a navy - perhaps South American - who rigidly mounted their forward guns, requiring heading changes to aim them. Does anyone else know of this, as George Wallace once sed, "Fox Paw"

[Paul Pless]

I don't think the "Bismarck" should be in that list, Paul. She was used, to the fullest extent, she sank an elderly capital ship of theoretically equal power, and was sunk.

As a convoy raider, she was an utter failure (she was spotted by the escorts of a convoy, but either did not see, or chose to ignore, the convoy - her commanders did have other things to think about).I was headed back to add an asterisk to the Bismark, when I caught this comment.;):)

The sinking of the Hood sure put a 'bee in the bonnet' of the British Admirality... I suspect if she had not been sunk so early in her career, her presence in the Atlantic may well have brought the U.S into that war somewhat earlier.

[Peerie Maa]

Speaking of warship mistakes, I remember a navy - perhaps South American - who rigidly mounted their forward guns, requiring heading changes to aim them. Does anyone else know of this, as George Wallace once sed, "Fox Paw"

The three biggest South American navies bought their capital ships from Vickers and the Italians, definitely turret mounted armament.

[Michael D. Storey]

Before Anderw gets himself too puffed up, let's point out that USS Constitution and USS Consellation pretty well settled who had the "best Navy" a long, long time ago.



I didn't know that anything was ever settled in the navy.

[Michael D. Storey]

The three biggest South American navies bought their capital ships from Vickers and the Italians, definitely turret mounted armament.

It was my understanding that this fixed gun thing was a retrofit.

[Peerie Maa]

It was my understanding that this fixed gun thing was a retrofit.

Could be, possibly to increase calibre or range, with guns that were too long to fit the barbette structure.

[Paul Pless]

which goes down to inter-service rivalryThankfully the Germans seemed to be afflicted by this quite often throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Not that other nations were/are particularly immune to it, mind you.

[Paul Pless]

Okay, what'd I win?:D

http://detourdetour.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3540187-vasa_ship-vasa.jpg

I believe she foundered less than a mile into her maiden voyage.

[Peerie Maa]

Definitely a contender, but I think the Mary Rose may have killed even more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose

The latest proposal explaining the loss of a ship long in service was a language barrier. It is suggested the a large part of the crew were Spanish mariners pressed into service rather than imprisoned ashore. The quote by the commander "that he had a sorte of knaves whom he could not rule" may relate to their inability to understand commands. Unlike Vasa, whose design was flawed due to Royal meddling, the Mary Rose was not a new ship, so there is little reason to assume that her design was any worse than those of the time.
Edited to correct quotation.

[seanz]

That was no mistake, that was brilliant Damage Control and ship handling.
.

I know that...:rolleyes:;)...and not a man lost, amazing.
It's just that "The front fell off" jokes are really hard to resist.
:o:)

[Peerie Maa]

I thought she had had a retrofit and had larger guns installed, reducing the freeboard and doing not a whole lot for the GZ curve...

Just sent you a PM on what I think may be a current mistake!

Could be, I think that the jury is still out, hence the latest proposal to which I referred. There has been a fair amount of modelling and analysis, that has not come to any clear conclusion, apart from the failure to close the gunports when manoeuvring.

[seafox]

I IIRC also though that the mary rose had recived an extra tecd in that retrofit with another deckload of guns to add to the top heavyness

dumb question time; why does reduced freeboard not make the ship more stable?

[Roger Long]

dumb question time; why does reduced freeboard not make the ship more stable?

It depends on what you mean by "stable".

Lowering the deck on the same hull and thus bringing the weight of all that structure lower, along with the rig and the lever arm the wind force act through, will significantly increase sail carrying power; especially if the weight saved in the topsides removal is put into ballast. This is why so many traditional vessels have such low freeboard. If you are trying to maximize the ability of your inefficiently stone or cargo ballasted vessel to get off a lee shore with primitive canvas sails or avoid capture by larger hostile vessels by out sailing them to windward, lower freeboard makes you safer.

However, you pay a price in the ability of the vessel to survive sudden and unanticipated events that heel it beyond normal sailing angles. You have to sail it very conservatively except when confronted with specific threats and long term survival will depend on an ability to do weather forecasting at the micro "what's going to happen in the next 5 minutes" level that few modern sailors are going to have enough sea time, apprenticed to people who have spent decades at sea under sail, to develop.

A low freeboard vessel that was treacherous after the rails went under might have been safer overall in the age of sail because the threats were different. Modern vessels power off of lee shores with the engine, have better sails, and are unlikely to have to escape a foreign man-o-war by beating to windward. Having a trainee injured or killed during a night time sail reduction can be a voyage, and even program, ending event instead of just a brief log entry and this is going to influence ship handling in a way that makes greater reserves of high angle stability much more important. Freeboard is what gives you that.

You might find this useful if you haven't read it:

http://www.rogerlongboats.com/Stability.htm

[Paul Pless]

Roger Long, just think of the fame and fortune you could've made back in the day, preventing disasters like the Vasa.:D

[John B]

There's been a few interceptions. Not quite a warship perhaps although on HMS..


It was originally planned that the naturalist (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Natural_history) Joseph Banks (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Joseph_Banks) and an appropriate entourage would sail with Cook, so a heightened waist, an additional upper deck and a raised poop deck (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Poop_deck) were built to suit Banks. This refit cost £10,080.12.9d. However, in sea trials the ship was found to be top-heavy, and under Admiralty instructions the offending structures were removed in a second refit at Sheerness, at a further cost of £882.3.0d. Banks subsequently refused to travel under the resulting "adverse conditions" and was replaced by Johann Reinhold Forster (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Johann_Reinhold_Forster) and his son, George (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Georg_Forster).

[James McMullen]

The CSA Hunley ended up killing more Confederates than Union sailors.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/hunley7.jpg

She killed 5 of her crew on an early test dive.
On a later test dive she killed 8: seven crew members plus the inventor Horace Hunley himself.

On the day of her "successful" attack on the USS Housatonic, she killed five Union sailors while killing all eight of her own crew at the same time.

The final score for CSS Hunley? 21 Confederates to 5 Unionists

Not even the mostly unsuccessful Japanese Kaiten midget subs of WWII had a worse record in terms of scoring "own goals".

[seanz]

I believe they were using a spar torpedo too......insanely brave men, with the accent, possibly, on the insane.

I wouldn't call the Hunley a mistake though.....it was a prototype and was successful enough to inspire further development of the concept...which would bring us back to Paul's original thread.
:)

Now that I think about it.......the kaiten were definitely a mistake as they were no more effective than a normal torpedo.

[Bill Huson]

I believe they were using a spar torpedo too......insanely brave men, with the accent, possibly, on the insane.

I wouldn't call the Hunley a mistake though.....it was a prototype and was successful enough to inspire further development of the concept...which would bring us back to Paul's original thread.
:)

Now that I think about it.......the kaiten were definitely a mistake as they were no more effective than a normal torpedo.

Hunley was designed top use a spar torpedo, but I believe the spar torpedo presented a handling problem and the attack was done by dragging a charge behind the Hunley - dive under ship, drag the charge into the ship, pedal like crazy in an attempt to outrun the result of the explosion. One can assume that didn't work.

[Bob Adams]

Okay, what'd I win?:D

http://detourdetour.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3540187-vasa_ship-vasa.jpg

I believe she foundered less than a mile into her maiden voyage.

Beat me to it. I believe we have a winner!

[WX]

Besides Yankee warships always fed their crews better than the English did.

true to some extent, but you might wonder why you use to call the Poms Limeys.

[Peerie Maa]

Hunley was designed top use a spar torpedo, but I believe the spar torpedo presented a handling problem and the attack was done by dragging a charge behind the Hunley - dive under ship, drag the charge into the ship, pedal like crazy in an attempt to outrun the result of the explosion. One can assume that didn't work.

Did they not find the remains of the spar still attached when they found her wreck?
You may be thinking of the Turtle, which was intended to screw an eyebolt into the ships bottom and drag a line with a charge on it through the eye until contact fired the charge. The copper bottoming prevented the screw from biting so the attempt failed.

[seanz]

I should look around for more precise Hunley information than I have stored in my brain thingy but I'm not in the mood for military history research, maybe later.

Anyone that has an interest in Naval History should take a close look at a spar torpedo......nuts.

So, there's our next nominee for Warship Mistake.....the original steam-powered torpedo boat with spar torpedo. Anybody know of one that was successful in action?

[Peerie Maa]

I should look around for more precise Hunley information than I have stored in my brain thingy but I'm not in the mood for military history research, maybe later.

Anyone that has an interest in Naval History should take a close look at a spar torpedo......nuts.

So, there's our next nominee for Warship Mistake.....the original steam-powered torpedo boat with spar torpedo. Anybody know of one that was successful in action?

There was also a submarine cannon. Fulton experimented with one, ideal range 15 foot, back to the battle of Trafalgar as far as tactics are concerned. Don't know whether it was ever used in anger.

[WX]

I came across this while looking at warship designs. Thought it might spark some interest.
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=88499&d=1260800493

The rave that went with it.:D

Constructionbegan in 1936, during rearmament, and was a combined effort of German and Japanese collaboration. Germany has the better version of the ship (designed specifically to kill ships) while the Japanese use it for Shore Bombardment and has a secondary role as Flagship/Carrier Defense.

its also a coal burner. while the 1955 refit is a n/reactor.

Also, its from a TL where Hitler was less of an Anti-Semite, and more "Anti British Navy"


and yes, it does float. every 20 meters of Hull is a completely self-contained unit sealed off by bulkheads that are capable of staying afloat independently. they are all held together by high-strength riveting, welding, and every other type of metal joining there possibly could be holding the damn thing together.
__________________

[WX]

Regarding the attached smaller ship.

and the POD is in like 1350 AD. gun technology is stifled until around 1720, but there it explodes up to 1775 levels by... 1775...

[Tom Hunter]

I'll add the "Fin de la Geurre"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Dutch_Ship_Fin_de_la_Guerre_%28Finis_Bellis%29%2C_ Siege_of_Antwerp_1585.jpg

She was built by the Dutch citizen of Antwerp to break the Duke of Parma's bridge and lift the siege of the city. She turned out to be such a pig that the Dutch were unable to sail her to the bridge. Before discovering this, they spent all their money, and used up most of their food an ammunition. After she failed, they surrenderd. So she really did finish the war, just not in the way her builders expected.

As a lover of irony she is one of my favorite failures. Victoria and Camperdown are up there too.

[James McMullen]

What on earth was that, WX? That must be fictional? I've never heard of anything like that.

[Peerie Maa]

What on earth was that, WX? That must be fictional? I've never heard of anything like that.

Look at that turret on the submarine, total BS, as is the rest of the image.

[ahp]

Wasn't there a thread on this forum describing a US warship that had three(?) forward facing guns that could be aimed in elevation but not in azimuth? Furthermore, the rounds were not propelled by powder, but by compress air.

[seanz]

If you click 'properties' on the pic you'll see it's from somewhere called alternatehistory.
You're just confusing the issue now, Gary.....
:D

[John B]

I suspect TL means time line as in the other one.

[Todd D]

I recall a navy that used battle cruisers with inadequate horizontil armor in an engagement with significant long range plunging fire. The result was greatly to the detriment of said battle cruisers. A tactical mistake, but also a mistake of retaining ships with outmoded armor.

[John E Hardiman]

Wasn't there a thread on this forum describing a US warship that had three(?) forward facing guns that could be aimed in elevation but not in azimuth? Furthermore, the rounds were not propelled by powder, but by compress air.

USS Vesuvius, Dynamite Crusier


Look at that turret on the submarine, total BS, as is the rest of the image.

While that picture is an "extension" of technology, the British M class (M1, M2, and M3) and the French Surcouf had turrets. FWIW, the person who drew that monstrosity has never taken a basic NA course because of the arrangements, i.e. there is a reason I said that the Dreadnought was a poor design.

[Michael D. Storey]

Wasn't there a thread on this forum describing a US warship that had three(?) forward facing guns that could be aimed in elevation but not in azimuth? Furthermore, the rounds were not propelled by powder, but by compress air.

Brings to mind the 'Punkin Chunkin', held every early November in Delaware, where left over pumpkins are fired down range with home made machinery. The propellant of choice for vegetable ballistics is strongly in favor of compressed air. Just google 'Punkin Chunkin'. See you there!

[WX]

If you click 'properties' on the pic you'll see it's from somewhere called alternatehistory.
You're just confusing the issue now, Gary.....
:D

Haha, well it must be my turn eh?

[seanz]

What are you implying?
;):D

[John E Hardiman]

Not exactly, so far as the Ms were concerned. The idea was to "semi-surface" - the commander then pointed the submarine at the target, as you would when firing a torpedo, but with less deflection, fired using the periscope and submerged again. The obvious problem was that you got one shot and had to surface fully to reload.

The X1 had two unarmoured turrets, she was more like the "Surcouf".

The X-1 and the "Surcouf" seem to have been inspired by the German "U-Cruiser" design of WW1.

The idea seems to have been to have a submersible ship, not a submersible boat!

An awful lot of muddled thinking with all these.

While I would agree the M class was a pretty mixed bunch (and unlucky to boot) and the X1 was just cobbled together from leftover parts, the later Surcouf and more successful US counterparts Narwhal (SS167) and Nautilus (SS168) were fully realized long range commerce destroyers. The only problem was they were designed for a very narrow tactical situation that never appeared against the enemies of the time (they would have filled the same niche as the german raiders). However, Surcouf operational in the S Atlantic/Indiain Ocean the hands of the Vichy/Germans would have been "interesting" and most likely why the RN placed high priority on seizeing her.

[Dave Carnell]

Halsey should have been courtmartialed for taking us right through the center of that typhoon. I was CIC officer in USS JOHN RODGERS (DD 574), screen commander when PITTSBURGH came on the radio "My bow just broke off and is floating down my side. Keep Clear. Two ships from our squadron escorted her until a tug took her in tow. She backed all the way to Guam. We were unable to maneuver in the storm. When the battleship commander moaned that "his boys were rolling 28°, our commodore replied "my boys are rolling 70°. Probably not quite that much because of the inertia of the clinometer bob, but it felt as if we were on our beam ends.

[John E Hardiman]

Halsey should have been courtmartialed for taking us right through the center of that typhoon. I was CIC officer in USS JOHN RODGERS (DD 574), screen commander when PITTSBURGH came on the radio "My bow just broke off and is floating down my side. Keep Clear. Two ships from our squadron escorted her until a tug took her in tow. She backed all the way to Guam. We were unable to maneuver in the storm. When the battleship commander moaned that "his boys were rolling 28°, our commodore replied "my boys are rolling 70°. Probably not quite that much because of the inertia of the clinometer bob, but it felt as if we were on our beam ends.

Whenever I do my training for my platform COs and Conning Officers, I read excerpts from PACFLT Letter 14CL-45 "Subject: Damage in Typhoon, Lessons of." (it is now declassified on the Naval Historical center site (http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq102-4b.htm)). I like, and often use, in this modern eletronic age the following quote:
"Yet the Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet wishes to emphasize that to insure safety at sea, the best that science can devise and that naval organization can provide must be regarded only as an aid, and never as a substitute for the good seamanship, self- reliance, and sense of ultimate responsibility which are the first requisites in a seaman and naval officer.

The last, most telling, paragraph:

18. In conclusion, both seniors and juniors alike must realize that in bad weather, as in most other situations, safety and fatal hazard are not separated by any sharp boundary line, but shade gradually from one into the other. There is no little red light which is going to flash on and inform commanding officers or higher commanders that from then on there is extreme danger from the weather, and that measures for ships' safety must now take precedence over further efforts to keep up with the formation or to execute the assigned task. This time will always be a matter of personal judgment. Naturally no commander is going to cut thin the margin between staying afloat and foundering, but he may nevertheless unwittingly pass the danger point even though no ship is yet in extremis. Ships that keep on going as long as the severity of wind and sea has not yet come close to capsizing them or breaking them in two, may nevertheless become helpless to avoid these catastrophes later if things get worse. By then they may be unable to steer any heading but in the trough of the sea, or may have their steering control, lighting , communications, and main propulsion disabled, or may be helpless to secure things on deck or to jettison topside weights. The time for taking all measures for a ship's safety is while still able to do so. Nothing is more dangerous than for a seaman to be grudging in taking precautions lest they turn out to have been unnecessary. Safety at sea for a thousand years has depended on exactly the opposite philosophy.

[johnw]

Why has no one mentioned this?

http://www.steelnavy.com/images/2002November/Novgorod6a.jpg

[John E Hardiman]

Nothing wrong with a Popoff hull form as long as you use them for what they were designed for, i.e. shallow water gun platforms. The Tsar's yacht was even more interesting, a "turbot" hull.

[Captain Intrepid]

As I understand it, the difficulty was actually getting there, and then stationkeeping as the guns were fired.

[John B]

Hahaha.. where's Peter Lenihan when you need him.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a388/ashanti01/Livadia/Lidvaliayacht.jpg

[Peerie Maa]

Today's warship mistake; the commander and two navigating officers of HMS Superb reprimanded for stuffing the Mon, Mar 15, 2010 girl into a charted rock in the Red Sea.

Copy cats:p

http://telstarlogistics.typepad.com/telstarlogistics/images/san_franciso_drydock_1.jpg

[John E Hardiman]

Copy cats:p
<<removed picture>>


San Francisco's seamount was mischarted. What you see there is not a mistake on the designers part, but a reason we always keep some Safety Factor hidden in our hip pocket. Impact 5 degrees more towards CL and there would have been one more on eternal patrol. We just returned the "Hon Francisco" to the fleet not to long ago.

[Peerie Maa]

San Francisco's seamount was mischarted. What you see there is not a mistake on the designers part, but a reason we always keep some Safety Factor hidden in our hip pocket. Impact 5 degrees more towards CL and there would have been one more on eternal patrol. We just returned the "Hon Francisco" to the fleet not to long ago.

Who drew the chart, you lot or ours? A really spectacular prang though;)

[The Bigfella]

I bet that spilled the coffee

[chasbartlett]

http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_sanfrancisco_ssn_711_grounding.htm

[martin schulz]

Looking at those Panzerkreuzer/Schlachtschiffe of the German Navy after WWI (Bismarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau) one must say that the idea behind it very soon lost its meaning during WWII were other aspects of modern warfare supported by inventions like Radar & Asdic interfered with their effectiveness.

Dönitz tried early on to put all efforts of the German Navy arms industry behind the U-Boot Waffe (submarine weapon), but Hitler, notoriously incompenetnt esspecially when it comes to warfare on the water (more or less like Napoleon in that respect) still believed in a WWI like battle of the Line, where large battleships were the decisive factor. Perhaps the grandeur of those "monumental" battleships also played a role, but fact is/was that those ships were too easily spotted & sunk.

What if...the time/energy wasn't wasted on battleships and the Graf Zeppelin and the submarime Type XXI had been built years earlier? But instead of having the first real submarine (a boat that can operate under water) at command, Dönitz had to operate with those lousy pre WWII Type VII boats, which were sunk 4 out of 5 in the end of the war, because they had to drive above water most of the time.

[martin schulz]

As to strategic mistakes, one wonders why Hitler acted almost the same way as Napoleon did before (disregard of the maritime warfare, assault on russia).

Of course the Tannenberg thesis, overevaluation of the Wehrmacht strength (fed by those sucesses in the Blitzkrieg) and a dangerous underestimation of the russain resistance ability played a part in this, but looking back one is tempted to say: Gee, Idiot, don't make this mistake again, just look at Napoleon's defeat!

[martin schulz]

This is hopelessly OffTopic (Sorry), but here it is:


The Battle of Tannenberg was in August 1914 a decisive engagement between the Russian Empire and the German Empire in the first days of World War I, fought by the Russian First and Second Armies and the German Eighth Army between 23 August and 30 August 1914. The battle resulted in the almost complete destruction of the Russian Second Army. A series of follow-up battles destroyed the majority of the First Army as well, and kept the Russians off-balance until the spring of 1915. The battle is notable particularly for a number of rapid movements of complete German corps by train, allowing a single German Army to present a single front to both Russian Armies.

Although the battle took place near Allenstein, Ludendorff's aide Max Hoffmann suggested to name it after Tannenberg in an attempt to erase the defeat in the medieval Battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg) of 1410 in which the Teutonic forces were defeated by the Poles and Lithuanians. As pointed out by Christopher Clark, the actual Tannenberg is some thirty kilometres to the west, and there was no intrinsic reason - other than the historical battle and its emotive resonance in the narrative of German Nationalism - to name for it the 1914 battle.

The problem with this WWI battle is that Hindenburg and of course Ludendorff, who were in charge deliberately used this battle as proof that the German Army was unbeatable, leading to the famous "backstab-theory" (Germany was defeated by communist elements from the inside). Also this battle served as proof that it is/was possible to beat the Russians on their soil, a feat considered to be impossible up until then.

I am sure that Hitler and his Oberste Heeresleitung (Highest Command) were confident that an even better Army in WWII could do the same.

[donald branscom]

It is all just rich people using poor people to play their sick little games.

At least with the advent of missiles now countries do not have to go broke building battle ships.
Problem now is all titanium hulled subs loaded with many nukes and speed of sound torpedoes being developed. that is costing even more.

[donald branscom]

It is all just rich people using poor people to play their sick little games.

[Peerie Maa]

Martin's reference to using rail to move troops is interesting.

Apparently the Germans continued to rely on rail in the second war, and in retreat wasted time and resources ripping up tracks behind them. The irony being that it was not practical to land rolling stock through a mulberry harbour, so all of the liberation armies relied on lorries, and could ignore the rail network.

[Daniel Noyes]

I should look around for more precise Hunley information than I have stored in my brain thingy but I'm not in the mood for military history research, maybe later.

Anyone that has an interest in Naval History should take a close look at a spar torpedo......nuts.

So, there's our next nominee for Warship Mistake.....the original steam-powered torpedo boat with spar torpedo. Anybody know of one that was successful in action?

A Union "torpedo boat" steam launch fitted with spar torpedo sucessfully sunk a confederate ironclad (CSS Arkansaw?) the concussion sank the launch and only a coulpe crew made it back to Union lines

[John E Hardiman]

A Union "torpedo boat" steam launch fitted with spar torpedo sucessfully sunk a confederate ironclad (CSS Arkansaw?) the concussion sank the launch and only a coulpe crew made it back to Union lines

CSS Albemarle by Lt Cushing in Picket Boat #1. There were other successful spar torpedo attacks during the ACW besides the Hunley, David vs New Ironsides and Squib vs Minnesota both were successful attacks that failed to sink the target.

[Daniel Noyes]

thats it, thanks
what a story.

[seanz]

Thank-you Martin, very interesting.

Back to the terrifying spar-torpedo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Albemarle

I'd already formed the notion that 'spar-torpedo' was just another way of spelling 'suicide mission' and that article just confirms it.

Some of the military equipment I'm most interested in is the umm...dead-end type.....Armstrong disappearing guns etc. and the Steam Torpedo Boat seems to fall into this catagory. Neither the guns or the torpedo boat in the local harbour were ever really used....probably a good thing.

And, of course, thank-you Daniel and John for chasing that up.
:)

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

(I really hate to say this...)

Angled flight deck - Captain Dennis Campbell, RN

Steam catapault - Commander Colin Mitchell, RN

Armoured flight deck - The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors

All invented by the world's best Navy and offered free of charge to the world's biggest Navy ...

but then we also invented the carrier.

PS. Thank you for the submersible boat and the submarine.

;)

And the armoured ship.
And the rotating turret.
Thank you for "Turbinia"
Unfortunately most of those first generation aircraft carriers were still on the Royal Navy's roster in '39.

[The Bigfella]

Unfortunately most of those first generation aircraft carriers were still on the Royal Navy's roster in '39.

Along with some rather outdated aircraft

[The Bigfella]

Not a warship... but definitely a mistake. From today's paper....



AUSTRALIA'S Antarctic flagship MV Aurora Australis has racked up a huge unnecessary expense on its current voyage, after it was discovered a vital piece of equipment had been left on the dock in Hobart.

The ship is due at Davis Station this weekend but before arriving there it off-loaded cargo at Macquarie Island.

While that was happening it was supposed to supply fuel to the sub-Antarctic station, home to about 40 expeditioners over summer.

But it wasn't until the specialist refuelling crew of about half a dozen got settled on this Southern Ocean voyage that they realised the big, long, very large hose they use to transport fuel from ship to shore was missing.

The Australian Antarctic Division blunder has forced it to organise a special additional return voyage to Macquarie Island at a cost sources say will start upwards from $500,000.

The Aurora Australis is now scheduled to turn around to refuel Macquarie Island the same day it arrives in Hobart from Davis Station, March 30.


I reckon someone's going to be a bit unpopular.

[Paul Pless]

Along with some rather outdated aircrafttake these, for instance

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Fairey_Swordfish_on_Airfield.jpg/800px-Fairey_Swordfish_on_Airfield.jpg

[The Bigfella]

I think they still managed to sink a few ships with them....

[Tom Lathrop]

(I really hate to say this...)

Angled flight deck - Captain Dennis Campbell, RN

Steam catapault - Commander Colin Mitchell, RN

Armoured flight deck - The Royal Corps of Naval Constructors

All invented by the world's best Navy and offered free of charge to the world's biggest Navy ...

but then we also invented the carrier.

PS. Thank you for the submersible boat and the submarine.

;)

You forgot the landing flight path light system.

Might have stretched the invented carrier bit. Open to question.

[seafox]

the Huntly was origionally planed to use a towed torpedo and sank a target barge but durring training while being towed behind the david spar torpedo boat the tide turned and an exciting time occured IIRC when the tow ling got fouled in the david propeller and the towed torpdo overtook the pair of craft. afterward the david declined to tow the huntly and there after the huntly had to make the complete trip under man power.
Clive Cussler in his book the sea hunters belives that the Huntly suscefully survived the explosion and signaled shore of the suscesfull attack with a blue light; but then was run over by another blockader that was rushing to rescue the men of the sunk ship

in the attack on the Albemarle none of the yankeys were killed by the explosion two drowned two made it back to the fleet and the rest captured when the colume of water swamped the open boat.

in the david attack on the new ironsides the blasst origionally was thoght not to have done much dammage but later when the coal was moved away from that part of the ship it was found the damage was significent and the the new ironsides was sent north and sat out the rest of the war. again the colume of water that was thrown up into the air landed on the david and put out her fires. the captian and another sailor abandant ship but the fireman and the pilot could not swim so the hung on to the craft. when it did not sink they climbed back aboard restarted the fire and steamed back to charleston. their was a " super david " that was three times bigger at about 150 foot long and 18 foot dia that was captured when charleston fell and it was kept at anapolos for many years. it s unknown weather it was ment to be a torpedo ram or a blockade runner.
spar torpedo craft were extensively used in the russo-turkish war of 1878

[seafox]

one of the greatest mistakes the Germans made and maybe it was something they could not have done differently was not having tracked suport vehicles to keep up with their tracked panzers

was going to add the very first spar torpedo boats tried in tests were canoes but they were inevitably sunk

the turtle of the american revolution origionally tried to attack the HMS eagle but as noted the copper sheeting defeated the auger that was ment to anchor the mine. the fireing mechinism was a clockword device and so the crew, a shargent Lee released the mine in hope it would be hear a english ship and not still attached to himself. in only one place have I read about a second attack but the turtle could not get close enough because of petroling boats

[WX]

Hitler and his advisers may have thought that "conditions are now different"
I think the plan was to be in Moscow before winter hit...sadly, for them not the case. One morning they woke to find the sumps in the vehicles frozen and the guns incapable of firing. The fact that Hitler had all the branches of the military competing with each other ensured a fine degree of poor forward supply planning. As in no winter clothing in time for winter.

[WX]

petroling boats
Seafox you have got to be one of the most inventive people on this forum when it comes down to spelling.

[seafox]

Hey WX
maybe I'll be better next week
btw on the hippi chick thread I read the houses reference you gave me and wanted to thankyou again

[WX]

No worries mate. my pleasure.:D

[John B]

Flower class corvettes were 'lent' to the US in WW2.

[John B]

No way I'm being the threadkiller on this one.;)



The Flower class corvette [1] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-0)[2] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-1)[3] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-2) (also referred to as the Gladiolus class)[4] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-3) was a class (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Ship_class) of 267 corvettes (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Corvette) used during World War II (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/World_War_II), specifically with the Allied (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II) navies as anti-submarine (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare) convoy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Convoy) escorts during the Battle of the Atlantic (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic_(1939-1945)). Several vessels saw service with the United States Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/United_States_Navy) where they were known as Action-class patrol gunboats.
The majority served during World War II with the Royal Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Navy) (RN) and Royal Canadian Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy) (RCN), with some being built for, or transferred to, other Allied navies such as the United States Navy (USN) (where some were manned by the U.S. Coast Guard (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard))[5] (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/#cite_note-4), the Free French Naval Forces (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Free_French_Navy), the Royal Netherlands Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Netherlands_Navy), the Royal Norwegian Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Norwegian_Navy), the Royal Indian Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Indian_Navy), the Royal Hellenic Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_Hellenic_Navy), the Royal New Zealand Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Royal_New_Zealand_Navy) and, immediately post-war, the South African Navy (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/South_African_Navy). Several ships built largely in Canada were transferred between the USN and RN under the lend-lease program, seeing service in both navies.
After World War II (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/World_War_II) many surplus Flower-class vessels saw use in non-Allied navies the world over, as well as civilian use. HMCS Sackville (K181) (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/HMCS_Sackville_(K181)) is the only member of the class to be preserved as a museum ship (http://www.woodenboat.com/wiki/Museum_ship).


The only reason I know is because I was looking up Candytuft, a corvette which was transferred to the US and became Tenacity.

[seanz]

Ah, yes the Flower class......it seems the RN ships were crewed by such savage he-man brutes that they had to give the ships names that would calm the crew down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_class_fast_patrol_boat

[John B]

My old friend from Candytuft and the subs after her is no he man brute. He has what Dave Hadfield interpreted for me as " command presence " though. When he looks at you and says something.. you want to do what he suggests, and for some reason.. you want to do it quite quickly.;)

[seanz]

A different breed. A friend's Uncle was in the Merchant Marine, he was torpedoed four times and refused to serve on tankers because when they went down there was less flotsam to grab hold of.

[Dan McCosh]

A different breed. A friend's Uncle was in the Merchant Marine, he was torpedoed four times and refused to serve on tankers because when they went down there was less flotsam to grab hold of.

Not to mention swimming in a pool of flaming oil.

[seanz]

No, that sort of thing isn't mentioned.

I just liked the attitude, he knew he was going to end up in the water and just wanted the best chance of surviving till he was rescued.

[The Bigfella]

I think HMS Nottingham got a mention for its attack on Wolf Rock... but I don't think we had a photo of her return voyage to the UK

http://www.modelboatmayhem.co.uk/Common/Images_Jokes/nottingham.jpg

[skuthorp]

Dad said he served aboard HMAS Geranium, probably when she was a survey ship as a training reservist. Late 1920's I think.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/HMAS_Geranium.jpg

[The Bigfella]

I wonder if this one qualifies as a warship mistake?

THE GREATEST SEA TRAGEDY OF ALL TIME. The 25,484 ton German luxury cruise liner, launched in 1937, was built to carry 1,465 passengers and a crew of 400. The Gustloff and her sister ship Robert Ley, were the world's first purpose-built cruise ships. The ship, now converted to a 500 bed hospital ship, set sail from Gotenhafen (former Gdynia) in the Bay of Danzig en-route to the port of Stettin as part of the largest naval rescue operation in history (Operation Hannibal.) Overcrowded with 4,658 persons including 918 naval officers and men, 373 German Women Naval Auxiliaries, 162 wounded soldiers of whom 73 were stretcher cases, and 173 crew, all fleeing from the advancing Red Army, the ship plowed her way through the icy waters of the Baltic Sea. Just after 9pm the ship was hit by three torpedoes from the Russian submarine S-13 (a German designed boat) commanded by Alexander Marinesko. The first torpedo hit the bow of the ship, the second, below the empty swimming pool on E-deck where the Women Auxiliaries were accommodated (most were killed) and the third hit amidships. Indescribable panic reigned as the ship listed and sank in about ninety minutes near the Danish island of Bornholm. Many families committed suicide rather than drown in the freezing waters. Rescue boats picked from the stormy minus 18 degree Celsius seas 964 survivors, many of whom were landed at Sassnitz on the island of Ruegen and taken on board the Danish hospital ship Prince Olaf which was anchored in the harbour. The exact number of drowned will never be known, as many more refugees were picked up from small boats as the Wilhelm Gustloff headed for the open sea and were never counted. Around 4,000 of those who died were children. (Latest research puts the number of people on board at 10,582) Many of the 964 persons rescued from the sea, died later, and it is likely that well over 8,500 souls perished.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/images/wilhelm_gustloff.jpg

[martin schulz]

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/images/wilhelm_gustloff.jpg

What I always will remember when the GUSTLOF is mentioned is that 1st hand account of an elderly Lady in an interview, saying, between sobs, that because the life jackets weren't designed to keep kids afloat, she had to watch the dead bodies of children in life jackets drifting by with their head under water and their stiff frozen legs above...

[Bob Adams]

If she were a known hospital ship, it was not a mistake, it was a war crime.

[heimlaga]

The book Stalins Hämnd by Niclas Sennerteg lists a lot of terrible war crimes committed by Soviet troops on German civilians. Terrible reading.

The Soviet army were driving the civilians before them towards a few harbour still held by German troops. The German commanders postponed evacuation of civilians until the last minute in order to please Hitler. Soviet submarines did all they could to sink as many refugee ships as they could. Some of the greatest losses were:

-Wilhelm Gustloff was ferrying 6000 civilian refugees trying to escape from the Soviet troops. A few houndred survived.
-General von Steuben was a recognized hostpital ship and painted white when she was sunk. 3500 victims. A few survivors.
-Goya was transporting approximately 6000 or 7000 civilians and wounded troops when she was sunk. 165 survived.

There was a great number of fishing boats and small merchant wessels sunk with losses of a few houndred people per sinking......

[heimlaga]

Maybe we should create a separate thread for "naval crimes of war" and go back to the misstakes.

I wote for the Swedish 126 gun three decker the Kronan. She was lost in the beginning stages of a battle in 1676. The newly appointed admiral who had never been to sea nor served in the navy before ordered the ship to tack with all sails set and the windward gunports still open. The capitain who was a skilled sailor tried to stop it but orders were orders. The ship heeled over on the new tack and water poured in through her open gunports and she capsized. A match fell into a barrel of gunpower and the ship blew up. This caused such a cunfusion in the line of battle that the Swedish fleet lost the battle completely.

[floatingkiwi]

Honda Point California, Sept 1923
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/ev-1920s/ev-1923/hondapt.htm
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h84000/h84821t.jpg
My God. I don't mean this to be taken the wrong way but, who needs enemies with navigators like this. Terrible mistake made less catastrophic by there not having a lot more people on board(s).

[John E Hardiman]

I'm supprised that no one has mentioned USS Guitarro (SSN 665), especially after all the TV coverage.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0866512.jpg

http://www.tvacres.com/images/award_fickle2.jpg

[donald branscom]

I wonder if this one qualifies as a warship mistake?

THE GREATEST SEA TRAGEDY OF ALL TIME. The 25,484 ton German luxury cruise liner, launched in 1937, was built to carry 1,465 passengers and a crew of 400. The Gustloff and her sister ship Robert Ley, were the world's first purpose-built cruise ships. The ship, now converted to a 500 bed hospital ship, set sail from Gotenhafen (former Gdynia) in the Bay of Danzig en-route to the port of Stettin as part of the largest naval rescue operation in history (Operation Hannibal.) Overcrowded with 4,658 persons including 918 naval officers and men, 373 German Women Naval Auxiliaries, 162 wounded soldiers of whom 73 were stretcher cases, and 173 crew, all fleeing from the advancing Red Army, the ship plowed her way through the icy waters of the Baltic Sea. Just after 9pm the ship was hit by three torpedoes from the Russian submarine S-13 (a German designed boat) commanded by Alexander Marinesko. The first torpedo hit the bow of the ship, the second, below the empty swimming pool on E-deck where the Women Auxiliaries were accommodated (most were killed) and the third hit amidships. Indescribable panic reigned as the ship listed and sank in about ninety minutes near the Danish island of Bornholm. Many families committed suicide rather than drown in the freezing waters. Rescue boats picked from the stormy minus 18 degree Celsius seas 964 survivors, many of whom were landed at Sassnitz on the island of Ruegen and taken on board the Danish hospital ship Prince Olaf which was anchored in the harbour. The exact number of drowned will never be known, as many more refugees were picked up from small boats as the Wilhelm Gustloff headed for the open sea and were never counted. Around 4,000 of those who died were children. (Latest research puts the number of people on board at 10,582) Many of the 964 persons rescued from the sea, died later, and it is likely that well over 8,500 souls perished.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/images/wilhelm_gustloff.jpg

I hope those submarine war heroes are proud of themselves. $#$##@^$!!!!

[downthecreek]

I imagine the collision between HMS Victoria and HMS Camperdown ranks as a pretty mighty mistake on the part of Admiral Tryon....

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/victoria.htm

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MoreImages6/HMSVictoriaAfterCollision.jpg

[David W Pratt]

Actually, I think there was a mistake on the British side prior to the war of 1812. Their frigates were armed with carronades rather than the cannons of the US frigtates. The shorter range of the british ordnance led to the Constitution's nickname.

[Clan Gordon]

Don't really think that was a mistake - just a difference in emphasis.

The British frigates of the day were effectively cruisers/patrol vessels - not able to stand up to a battleship (ship of the line), but able to get away. Britain had 125 of these at the battle of Trafalgar alone.

The limited resources of the then USA could not afford such a fleet. I think the US fleet had only 12 frigates by 1798 - and no ships of the line. So they built a few larger, vessels that were bigger and better armed than most (if not all) the British frigates.

These US frigates were comparable to a "fifth rate" ship-of-the-line - certainly a heavy frigate. A fourth-rate ship-of-the-line was about 1000 tons with 2 gun decks and HMS Victory was a first rate - with 3 gun decks and 2200 tons.

The US frigates of that time were perhaps akin to WW1 battlecruisers - able to destroy anything smaller than themselves and run from anything bigger.

[johnw]

Until they were overhauled and raked by a faster British frigate - our cousins like to talk about the USS "Constitution" but they don't like to talk about her sister ship the USS "President" .

But I suspect that armchair re-fighting of the naval war of 1812 deserves its own thread!
I wonder how that would have turned out had the President not been crippled before the encounter, with her back nearly broken and her masts sprung.

Now, shall we talk about the Macedonian, or are you going to throw the Chesapeake in my teeth?

[martin schulz]

How about this one:


Brandtaucher was a submersible designed by the German inventor and engineer Wilhelm Bauer and built by Schweffel & Howaldt in Kiel for Schleswig-Holstein's Flotilla (part of the Reichsflotte) in 1850.

In January 1850 Bauer, a cavalryman during the German-Danish War, designed Brandtaucher as a way to end the Danish naval blockade of Germany. Bauer's early sketch attracted the attention of the Minister of Marine, who allowed him to construct a 70 x 18 x 29 cm model. The model was demonstrated in Kiel harbour in front of naval dignitaries. Its satisfactory performance led to the construction of a full-scale model, which was funded by contributions from army personnel and local civilians. Due to the inadequate funding, the scale of the boat had to be downgraded, resulting in a reduced diving depth from 30 m to 9.5 m. Brandtaucher was 8.07 m long, 2.02 m at maximum beam and had a draught of 2.63 m. It was propelled by a crew of three turning large tread wheels connected to a propeller. The boat could reach a speed of 3 knots, but could not be maintained for long periods of time.

On 1 February 1851 Brandtaucher sank after a diving accident during acceptance trials in Kiel Harbour.[1] The submarine experienced equipment failure, and sank to the bottom of a 60-foot hole at the bottom of Kiel Harbour. Bauer escaped by letting in water, thus increasing the air pressure, which allowed Bauer and his two companions to open the hatch. They floated to the surface in large bubbles of air escaping the submarine. This was the first submarine escape to be witnessed and reported.[1]

In 1887, the wreck was discovered and was raised on 5 July 1887. Brandtaucher was first placed on display at the Naval Academy in Kiel and then in 1906 it was moved to Museum für Meereskunde in Berlin. From 1963 to 1965 it was restored in DDR at Rostock, and placed on display at the Nationale Volksarmee Museum in Potsdam. The boat can now been viewed at Militärhistorisches Museum der Bundeswehr (German Army museum of military history), in Dresden.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Wilhelm_Bauer_Brandtaucher.gif

[martin schulz]

Disqualfied on grounds of being a sucess (compared to the CSS Hunley, a huge sucess!)

Well the German Wikipedia article described much better why this U-Boot sunk.
Apparently the boatyard Howaldt changed a lot in the original design. They installed a fixed weight made from cast-iron instead of the planned weight-trimming by water in ballast-tanks. They also changed the hull thickness from 12,5 to 6 inch and instead of balancing the boat by letting water into ballast-tanks the water was directly let into the hull.

When the boat went under down too much water was let into the hull and the pumps were unable to pump it out. When on the ground the crew had to wait for 6hrs before able to get out of the hull to dive to the surface.

[John B]

If it were a novel you wouldn't believe it.

[seafox]

If the admedral in charge hadn't decited he was going to die any way I wonder if he might have swung around japan and came in from the north with a better chance?

my impression is he went into the battle with no hope

[Paul Pless]

I saw an interesting documentary on The Battle of Midway a couple of nights ago. While clearly the American victory can be most greatly attributed to Admiral Fletcher's superior strategy, available military intelligence, and the element of surprise; there were other factors. First was the experience gained saving the Yorktown. Secondly and important to our discussion here is the very lax manner (with regards to safety) in which operations were conducted on the Japanese carriers. They stored aviation fuel, torpedoes, and bombs on both the hanger deck and the flight deck during combat operations. This directly led to the loss of their carriers, as not only did these munitions and fuel contribute to larger fires, they also led to the deaths of hundreds of sailors working on these decks that would have primariliy responsible for damage control. Another failure of the Japanese at Midway versus the Americans was the use of carbon dioxide. The Americans had by this time learned to top off all space in fuel tanks, both fuel oil and avgas, and the fuel lines which carried the fuel with carbon dioxide to prevent fires. The Japanese never adopted this procedure during WWII.