Which doesn't invalidate what hipper said at all.
No, but it does invalidate the thesis that only lighter weapons were used against the transports - the 6" cruisers had to expend something like 1,900 rounds to fire 60% of their ammunition, and Lupo could not have absorbed anything near that total.
the quote regarding ammunition expenditure is quite specific - it referred to AA ammo expended
6" guns were not Anti aircraft Guns therefore the ammo expended was not 6" ammunition
Some more interesting info ... at least I think it is. It tends to suggest that in the Med theatre at least the RN was conducting a war based on preservation of forces and that the high rates of ammunition expenditure might have something to do with British caution as much as anything else.
http://rommelsriposte.com/2008/07/16/some-italian-navy-reports/
Well, if we divide through by the known Lupo dud rate, then that means there were approx. 320 live rounds fired.
If I had to put my money on one of those three options it would be the last one to be honest.Why the Lupo was hit by that many non-detonating shells could be duds, could also be improper fusing, could be failure of the striking surface to set off the fuze.
That will be less of an issue here, first because of the RAF, and secondly because the RN will be mixing it up with the convoy, reducing their ability to attack without risking significant collateral damage. In addition, it's not just Fighter Command you have to worry about, but also Bomber Command, Coastal Command and the Fleet Air Arm. Training Command (mostly Tiger Moths fitted with 8 * 20lb bombs) was going to be held back to repel actual landings.That night convoy battles could eat up ammunition is also suggested by the actions of Force C when it contacted the second Axis convoy; King decided not to attack due to fears of exhausting AA ammunition supply.
The article stated that Dido expended 22% of its ammunition before 0930 and 70% by the next morning. It did not state how much of the remaining 48% was fired for anti-aircraft, and how much was fired in surface combat.
Originally Posted by hipper
6" guns were not Anti aircraft Guns therefore the ammo expended was not 6" ammunition
The article did not state that. It stated that after the convoy battle, the 6" cruisers had expended 60% of their ammunition and the Dido had expended 70%.
That night convoy battles could eat up ammunition is also suggested by the actions of Force C when it contacted the second Axis convoy; King decided not to attack due to fears of exhausting AA ammunition supply.
Its quite clear that the Anti aircraft ammunition remaining was the subject of the Signals you seem to differ, I'm curious why.
The fact that any ammunition was expended in aerial combat invalidates the reference for ammunition expenses in naval combat, because we simply don't know which was which. (The enormous ammunition expenses off Crete will require checking of ammunition stocks in each British port, if this information is even available).
You indicated that the context of the discussion was AA ammunition, which is correct, but the decision to withdraw due to shortage of ammunition was takenafter the convoy battle, not after the air attacks the proceeding day. Force C's ammunition expenses in aerial combat had been so heavy that it could not afford to even engage in surface combat.
I think this suggests that ammunition expense in surface combat had either been heavy, (Force D) or anticipated to be heavy (Force C). Otherwise Force D would have withdrawn before the convoy battle, and Force C would have attacked the 2nd Convoy without fear of depleting its stocks.
The fact that any ammunition was expended in aerial combat invalidates the reference for ammunition expenses in naval combat, because we simply don't know which was which. (The enormous ammunition expenses off Crete will require checking of ammunition stocks in each British port, if this information is even available).
You indicated that the context of the discussion was AA ammunition, which is correct, but the decision to withdraw due to shortage of ammunition was takenafter the convoy battle, not after the air attacks the proceeding day. Force C's ammunition expenses in aerial combat had been so heavy that it could not afford to even engage in surface combat.
I think this suggests that ammunition expense in surface combat had either been heavy, (Force D) or anticipated to be heavy (Force C). Otherwise Force D would have withdrawn before the convoy battle, and Force C would have attacked the 2nd Convoy without fear of depleting its stocks.
I think this suggests that ammunition expense in surface combat had either been heavy, (Force D) or anticipated to be heavy (Force C). Otherwise Force D would have withdrawn before the convoy battle, and Force C would have attacked the 2nd Convoy without fear of depleting its stocks.
This statement is factually incorrect and was made without any evidence - history by excel spreadsheet.
I think that for AJAX and ORION the 58% and 62% of AA ammunition expended refers to 4" ammunition.
I'm sorry, I just happened to find this:
in another thread, and I thought "that's rich!"