Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that the Royal Marines use of the folboat, a type of collapsible canoe/kyak to attack ships in harbours in France, Belgium and Holland, was for the low cost........ a tremendous success.
With two Marines on each boat( they were about 18 feet long ) the craft were launched from RN submarines, just after actual dusk had set. Paddling hard they had about 10 hours to get to their lay up position, where they would hide during the next day. Some of the target ships were located up a long estuary, quite a distance from the sea. Target ships were merchant carriers, especially petroleum tankers.
After dark on the second night, they paddled to their target ship, planting magnetic limpet mines below the water line, with a 19 hour delay fuse. Escape by stealth, and eventual rv with the submarine. The method of attaching the magnetic mine, which weighed about 50 pounds , was simple. Starting about 15 feet from the side of the hull, the mine was lowered on a rope to about 20 foot depth and then the canoe was slowly paddled into the side of the ship, until the mine's magnet made contact. Pulling on a second light line started the timer.
Here is a link to a website about the Royal Marines operation Frankton, that involved paddling seventy MILES up a river to mount an attack on shipping in a harbour in France .
And yes the film "Cockleshell Heroes " was based on this actual WW2 operation. It was just one of many daring jobs that the RM performed in that long ago time.
A slight correction...........when referring to a Canadian naval ship, drop the word " the " from the sentence. If you say the entire name of the ship out loud, as in Her Majesties Canadian Ship HAIDA, the word "the " is not required.
The Tribal class was the largest of it's type in British, Canadian and Australian service, with 27 ships in total. All were named for native tribes, such as Zulu, Ashanti, Sioux, and so on. Haida was first laid down in 1942, commissioned in 1943 and she served until paid off in 1963. Unlike her sisters who were built for the RN, Haida had both heating and cooling systems, as well as a improved engine room, with more HP and more range in her fuel tanks.
Haida is the only war ship ever credited with destroying a train........actually a number of them, during the Korean war. She was on routine off shore patrol when a North Korean freight train was seen on a rail line that ran along the coast. Haida's gunnery was accurate and the train was destroyed. A few days later the feat was repeated in another area. Both A and B turrets were soon decorated with a "train buster " cartoon.
Jim B.
Jim, with no disrespect to Haida or her crew, she was not the only ship to destroy trains in Korea, nor the highest scoring.
28 trains (engines) in total were destroyed by UN warships in Korea, Canadian warships claimed 11 of them, which led the pack of "train busters" for the whole war.
HMCS Crusader, a Crescent class destroyer, got 5 of them, including a North AND Southbound train, at the same time. Her tally was more than any other "train buster" of the UN fleet.
I don't mean which TYPE of ship (aircraft carrier, battleship, etc.), or even which CLASS of ship (Essex class, Iowa class, etc.). Rather, which individual ship (or two or three) made the biggest contributions to their country's fight?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25
My answer is going to have to be the LIBERTY SHIP.
The Enterprise had a good war, and it'd be hard to beat her out. But I'd like to at least include in the conversation some of the destroyers that supported the landings on Omaha Beach. Some of those ships sailed just a couple of hundred yards off the tideline, scraping the bottom and even grounding themselves for short periods of time, trying to get close enough to blast German defensive positions off the face of the bluff with direct fire from their 5-inch guns. Some of the skippers directly disobeyed explicit orders governing the rules of engagement; they saw that if the troops on the beach were left to fight their way off by themselves, they had no chance, and sailed right up to the beach on their own initiative to blast the machine gun nests and pillboixes. If not for the actions of the destroyers, I believe the Omaha landings quite probably would have failed.
And yes, I know the group of 8 American DDs don't meet the criteria of the OP. But what the hell; it's a free ranging discussion, and those brave skippers and crews deserve a mention every now and then.
And yes, I know the group of 8 American DDs don't meet the criteria of the OP. But what the hell; it's a free ranging discussion, and those brave skippers and crews deserve a mention every now and then.
Then try this...The USS Herndon (DD-638) and USS Shubrick (DD-639).
The Enterprise had a good war, and it'd be hard to beat her out. But I'd like to at least include in the conversation some of the destroyers that supported the landings on Omaha Beach. Some of those ships sailed just a couple of hundred yards off the tideline, scraping the bottom and even grounding themselves for short periods of time, trying to get close enough to blast German defensive positions off the face of the bluff with direct fire from their 5-inch guns. Some of the skippers directly disobeyed explicit orders governing the rules of engagement; they saw that if the troops on the beach were left to fight their way off by themselves, they had no chance, and sailed right up to the beach on their own initiative to blast the machine gun nests and pillboixes. If not for the actions of the destroyers, I believe the Omaha landings quite probably would have failed.
And yes, I know the group of 8 American DDs don't meet the criteria of the OP. But what the hell; it's a free ranging discussion, and those brave skippers and crews deserve a mention every now and then.
On Saturday, I was at a used book sale and picked up a book about destroyers at Normandy for my brother-in-law, who was a destroyer crewman (late '50's). I don't know if the ship that he was aboard was there.
I gotta go with aircraft carriers, especially in the Pacific Theater where we launched all those air assaults from them, on Japan.
In the European Theater, maybe amphib ships? I think they called 'em LST's & LSDs? How many guys used those for D-Day!
In a different way of thinking, You could maybe say the Nazi U-Boats, at least before we broke the Enigma code and began using convoys and radar that lead to their demise. (U-Boat casualty rate for Germans in WWII was a staggering 80%).
But early in the war they wreaked total havoc, sinking millions of tons of allied shipping. I cannot help but wonder if Germany would have been defeated earlier than the middle of 1945 without them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're kidding ....right?
