Matrix Games Forums

sHi all,

This thing always puzzled me...


In all those historic documentaries about WWII Pacific (especially those at the end of a war when Japanese employed Kamikaze units) the amount of USN AA fire was tremendous!

Since kamikazes attacked from all sides (shallow dives, steep dives, sea skimming) the AA from attacked USN ships at times seemed not to be paying attention to other near by ships (i.e. the AA fire was pouring out in all directions)!

So...


What was the risk of serious AA friendly fire losses in such cases?

Where there such losses documented (and numbered)?

Was there any study done regarding this?


Thanks in advance for knowledgeable responses!


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [EDIT]

The word "looses" replaced with "losses"... [8D]

I don't know about any of those stats, but in a number of accounts that I've read and ones I've seen on TV it was noted at certain times that firing ceased or couldn't begin because of the danger to one ship or another. So it must have been a pretty big factor.

I've read numerous accounts where ships, especially carriers, shut down their 5" fire because the risk of hitting screening ships was too great to justify the reward. There were unfortunately frequent injuries or deaths among deck crewmen in TFs when the Kamikazes came in... If you watch the old footage of some of these attacks, you can see the shell splashes "walking up" to neighboring vessels...

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: madflava13

I've read numerous accounts where ships, especially carriers, shut down their 5" fire because the risk of hitting screening ships was too great to justify the reward. There were unfortunately frequent injuries or deaths among deck crewmen in TFs when the Kamikazes came in...

OK.

If you watch the old footage of some of these attacks, you can see the shell splashes "walking up" to neighboring vessels...

This is exactly what prompted me to start this thread in the first place!


Leo "Apollo11"

Combined arms research library has an article about friendly fire:

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... hrader.asp

I'm sure it happened often in the heat of battle but have not read anything myself that highlights it.
On a somewhat frivelous note I did find the following (with typical British humour) -

Book: Task Force 57 by Peter C Smith (page 107)
Quote
“Enroute to the refuelling area anti-aircraft gunnery exercises were carried out with US Marauder squadrons providing the towing aircraft for the sleeve targets. Some over enthusiastic firing seems to have taken place which produced the following signal.

From ‘Indomitable’ to Rear Admiral Aircraft Carriers repeated to ‘Howe’:
Regret two rounds of pom-pom fired in error in direction of ‘Howe’ during test at 15. 10 today.

Any hurt feelings aboard the battleship were no doubt countered by a message a few days later:
One of my a/c handling party was was struck painlessly on the buttock by a fragment of shell during Serial 5. Suggest this cancels my pom-pom assault.

From ‘Howe’ to ‘Indomitable’:
Your 09.50. Please convey my regrets to to the ratingand ask him to turn the other cheek.

Basically, the fighters would engage the enemy planes until they were over the fleet, then break off so as not to be picked off by their own AAA. There were certainly cases where friendly planes would chase enemy AC over the fleet determined to down the Kamikazes or attacking bombers. In some cases it earned a medal for pursuer, and in some cases he paid the price that AAA generally doesn't discriminate. I'm also reading a book about VMF-214 (not Boyingtons autobio), recent case one of the USMC pilots sought refuge in the AAA of the convoy he was protecting, because several Zeros had him at a disadvantage.

Again, pilots would normally cease pursuit when over friendly ships except in extreme circumstances (either by heroics, target fixation, or sheer stupidity).

-F-

Posted this before, but seems relevant.
My dad-in law Al Brew was a 40mm quad gun chief on the APA Callaway, and told me when the proximity fuses came out, anybody on deck was likely going to be wounded, on ANY ship within the convoy. In fact, he claims more feared friendly fire than they did the Japanese.

Al was a Coastie.......

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Basically, the fighters would engage the enemy planes until they were over the fleet, then break off so as not to be picked off by their own AAA. There were certainly cases where friendly planes would chase enemy AC over the fleet determined to down the Kamikazes or attacking bombers. In some cases it earned a medal for pursuer, and in some cases he paid the price that AAA generally doesn't discriminate. I'm also reading a book about VMF-214 (not Boyingtons autobio), recent case one of the USMC pilots sought refuge in the AAA of the convoy he was protecting, because several Zeros had him at a disadvantage.

Again, pilots would normally cease pursuit when over friendly ships except in extreme circumstances (either by heroics, target fixation, or sheer stupidity).

Thanks for info!

BTW, my "fault" is that I didn't epmhasize that I am primarily interested in friendly fire losses on ships from their own AA or AA on other ships in TF / convoy...


Leo "Apollo11"

I was at an airshow a number of years ago where Joe Voss and James Swett (2 Marine Medal of Honor winners) in the days of the Cactus air force took off one night to try to nail "washing machine Charlie", and nearly both got shot down by "friendly" AA. They never tried again.

Swett said "friendly fire is never really very friendly". On the mission that got him the MoH (he shot down 8 planes in a single engagement) he ended up with a big hole in his wing because of AA fire. The plane never made it back to base.

I found a following report: "Amicicide at sea: Friendly fire incidents during World War II naval operations" (http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA278291). Among the results:

Total casualties from friendly fire aboard US ships: 53 recorded incidents, 186 KIA, 438 WIA
Casualties during tactical situations:
"Anti-aircraft, screening": 6 incidents, 8 KIA, 63 WIA
"Attacks, raids, sorties": 9 incidents, 19 KIA, 152 WIA
"Picket duty": 3 incidents, 1 KIA, 7 WIA

I believe Paul Kemp has a book on the subject, called Friend or Foe. I have't read it.

You have to take into account "target fixation" where gunners fix on a target and continue firing while paying no heed to background objects. It is just human nature to do this when on a high adrenalin rush.  I would expect any gunner in the middle of an air attack to be working on pure adrenalin. It happened all the time and caused a lot of casualties. We have all read of tail gunners shooting then back end off of their own airplane. The same thing happened with AA gunners. Experience helped but not always.

Tolley in "Cruise of the Lanikai" tells about almost firing on a Dutch seaplane, and of how the crew were almost going to fire regardless of the airplane's markings because they were so pumped up.

The original poster was referring to ship to ship fire, but of plane to plane "friendly fire", Butch O'Hare was surely the most famous victim in this theatre.

In the ETO, it may have been Glenn Miller, (if theories hold true.?)

I never heard the Glenn Miller theories. What are they?

All I know of it is my father telling me was I was a kid that back in the war Glenn Miller's plane had disappeared over the English Channel and it was a mystery what ever happened to it (we were watching that old Glenn Miller bio/movie at the time).

From Wiki -
 
There have been sixty years of theories about what happened to Glenn Miller. Buddy DeFranco, one of the leaders of the post war Glenn Miller orchestra explained to George Simon, that at many of the concerts where he was leading the Glenn Miller band in the nineteen-seventies, more than a few people confided to him what "really" happened to Glenn Miller. "If I were to believe all those stories, there would have been about twelve thousand four hundred and fifty eight people there at the field in England seeing him off on that last flight!" [Simon 446]. It is now thought more than likely that Glenn Miller's plane was accidentally bombed by RAF bombers over The English Channel, after an abortive air raid on Germany and short on fuel dumping four thousand pounds of bombs in a safe drop zone to lighten the load. The logbooks of Royal Air Force pilot Fred Shaw record that a small mono engined plane was seen to spiral out of control and crash into the water.

Yikes!

Hi all,

Thanks guys!


BTW, if someone finds some reference regarding casualties on ships caused by same or other ship AA please post it...


Leo "Apollo11"

I've posted these before, but the deck logs of the Enterprise are a wealth of information.

This is the deck log from the Home Islands raid where Ent got hit by a Kamikaze. Their procedure for firing the 5" guns are to not fire them below a certain elevation, so as not to endager other ships in the TF. However, there are berating comments in the write-up that disicpline of the 40mm mounts was poor, and that the Bataan was hit. There are also two instances of fire on friendly aircraft recorded.

There is a LOT of information in the deck logs. It's great reading of the time. There are write-ups for every action, including squadron debriefs etc on that site.

Enjoy.

Deck Log of CV-6 Enterprise May 1945

-F-


Five inch fire was ceased and recommenced as noted in sketch; 40MM continuously until he caught fire and crashed.

The last attack at which this ship was able to fire effectively occurred ten minutes later at 0814. The formation was then on course 270°T. A single Zeke was picked up visually at bearing 150° relative making a run from astern on the BATAAN. Five inch and 40MM fire was opened immediately and continued until the plane which had then been hit and was burning commenced its final dive into the water close aboard to the BATAAN. During the firing the course was being changed right to 000°T but the turning of the ship on this occasion did not interfere with the effectiveness of the five inch fire. Almost simultaneously with the crashing of the Zeke, one or more explosions (presumably five inch fire) was seen to occur on the port quarter of the BATAAN near the waterline.

At 0817 the next and last attack of the day, also a Zeke, approached from dead astern and was picked up too late to open fire effectively with the after five inch guns because of the proximity to ships in the formation. A few rounds of 40MM were fired but the Zeke was already afire and cease fire was ordered to prevent firing into other ships.

On two occasions during the afternoon fire was opened on what later proved to be friendly planes.

In the first instance a few rounds of 40MM were fired at an F4U making a low level glide run on the ship from a relative bearing of about 110°. The fighter immediately turned away and fire was ceased as soon as positive identification was made.

Later in the afternoon at 1640, C.I.C. reported a group of bogies approaching from the west. At 1642 one ship reported over the AA Coordination Circuit that they had sighted a "bandit" in the sun. Visual identification was made by the range finder operator in the after director and reported as 4 F6F's. However, when several other ships opened fire and the fighters pushed over into steep dives to evade the bursts, the five inch Battery Officer on the after starboard group opened fire in local (Mk 51 Director) control. Cease firing was given but not until a few rounds had been fired at the friendlies.
.
.
.
Fire Discipline.
Evidence of poor fire discipline is brought out by the hits sustained by the BATAAN. As carriers are still high priority targets and are a ready source of conflagration, intensive training must be given to all control personnel. This applies particularly to ships with enclosed mounts where personnel are denied a clear picture of the position of targets in relation to friendly forces.

This ship has recently been the recipient of friendly AA fire and it has been noted that the effect upon the morale of the exposed gunners is very noticeable.