FW Condor attacking a ship with engines off - thoughts?

[WATU]

Survivor's report from SS Tunisia which was sunk by aircraft on 4 August 1941.
I have copied the relevant part of the captain's report. I wondered what people think about the two mentions of the attacking Condor having its engines turned off? Are there other cases? Is there any evidence from Luftwaffe reports of this ever being done? I have my own thoughts but want to see the view of others before I give an opinion.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I don't think they actually turned the engines off but throttled back to idle.

 

[WATU]

I don't think they actually turned the engines off but throttled back to idle.

Agreed, that is my thinking.

 

[Koopernic]

Survivor's report from SS Tunisia which was sunk by aircraft on 4 August 1941.
I have copied the relevant part of the captain's report. I wondered what people think about the two mentions of the attacking Condor having its engines turned off? Are there other cases? Is there any evidence from Luftwaffe reports of this ever being done? I have my own thoughts but want to see the view of others before I give an opinion.

View attachment 609492View attachment 609493

What blows me away is that a giant aircraft like a Fw 200 took on a ship with a 40mm Boffors at strafing height to bomb and came back to straff and then bomb again. In British service this gun had a range of just over 9000 yards at 45 degrees much more than the 4700 yards of the Pom Pom. In US service the Boffors had an 11000 yards range because of a more powerfull US cartridge. It's a very powerful AAA weapon. It indicates the gun sights must of been ring and bead Iron sights. There is something at odds about the description of 8 bombs dropping which I think is more than it could carry. Condors did carry concrete bombs to estimate wind drift.

When they received computing bombsights in 1942 they were very accurate against merchant ships from around 12000-14000 feet.

 

[Glider]

I'm surprised that a Merchant vessel in August 1941 had a Bofors. They were as rare as hens teeth and I would have expected the RN to have first choice

 

[WATU]

Condor 2003-C could carry 2 500kg bombs, 2 250kg bombs and 12 50kg bombs. Not sure of the logic for the small bombs. Enough to do nasty things to a small undefended ship? Some did carry a single concrete "bomb" for wind adjustment but that would not be relevant at low level.
The tactic was low level until the AA fits caused excessive damage when they went to high level bombing. A single Bofors was seen as an acceptable risk I suppose. The ship was sunk and the Condor survived (or no claims that it did not).

I'm surprised that a Merchant vessel in August 1941 had a Bofors. They were as rare as hens teeth and I would have expected the RN to have first choice

Good point. A few Bofors were grabbed from the army and installed in DEMS ships in 1941 and this might be one of those. (Norman Friedman, Naval AA Guns and Gunnery)

 

[pbehn]

Maybe a Condor just wasn't as noisy as some people thought it should be?

 

[Ascent]

My great uncle served on MGB662 in the Med and in the write up of his career he did for his grandsons he talks about a time when three Ju-88's used a similar tactic. It was night and they would throttle back so they couldn't be heard and attack from out of the moon. It was only after they dropped their bombs and started to climb away that they would throttle up.

 

[fastmongrel]

The report mentions the weather. If the wind was very strong and the Condor was coming into the wind the sound might not be noticed till too late.

 

[RCAFson]

What blows me away is that a giant aircraft like a Fw 200 took on a ship with a 40mm Boffors at strafing height to bomb and came back to straff and then bomb again. In British service this gun had a range of just over 9000 yards at 45 degrees much more than the 4700 yards of the Pom Pom. In US service the Boffors had an 11000 yards range because of a more powerfull US cartridge. It's a very powerful AAA weapon. It indicates the gun sights must of been ring and bead Iron sights. There is something at odds about the description of 8 bombs dropping which I think is more than it could carry. Condors did carry concrete bombs to estimate wind drift.

When they received computing bombsights in 1942 they were very accurate against merchant ships from around 12000-14000 feet.

HV Pom-pom range was ~7000 yds.

The Mk 14 Gyro gunsight (and Mk 51 director) wasn't ready until the late summer of 1942.

 

[Koopernic]

HV Pom-pom range was ~7000 yds.
SNIP.

Not according to this?
United Kingdom / Britain 2-pdr [4 cm/39 (1.575")] QF Mark VIII - NavWeaps

 

[RCAFson]

Not according to this?
United Kingdom / Britain 2-pdr [4 cm/39 (1.575")] QF Mark VIII - NavWeaps

According to Naval Weapons of WW2 by Campbell, max range of the HV pom-pom round was 6800 yds at 2300fps, which was a typical gun in service. A new gun at 2400fps would have a longer range, probably ~7500 yds. The same source gives the maximum range of the 40mm Bofors as 10,750yds at 2800fps. However, both these guns maximum range was limited to 2500-4000 yds against aircraft because they used self destructing ammo. Max effective range with on-mount eye sights was about 1700 yds or less:

"The "Maximum Effective Ranges" of close range weapons are as follows:-

2-pdr. multiple Pom-Pom and Bofors in local control 1,700 yards.
Oerlikon 20 mm. single gun1,000 yards.
0.5 in. Machine gun. 800 yards.
0.303 in. and 0.30 in. weapons 400 yard"
The Gunnery Pocket Book - Part 4

 

[Andrew Arthy]

Hi,

It doesn't answer the question, but here's the initial German report on the attack: "13:50: one merchant vessel 'Tunisia' of 4,337 BRT 750 kilometres west of Westport was attacked by a bomber (FW 200) with four SC 250 bombs. Two impacts were directly on the stern. The ship then began to list heavily and was abandoned by the crew as it sank." A later report noted that two attack runs were made, with white smoke developing from the middle of the ship after hits on the stern.

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

 

[Vincenzo]

The Fw 200C3/U-4 other the internal load, as WATU post, (for clear is 2x500 or 2x250 or 12x50) can load four bombs under the wing with a maximum underwing load of 5,400 kg, 4x250 is a more real world load

 

[nuuumannn]

he Fw 200C3/U-4 other the internal load, as WATU post, (for clear is 2x500 or 2x250 or 12x50) can load four bombs under the wing with a maximum underwing load of 5,400 kg,

Which in any terms was an impressive load, being less than 3,000 lbs less than what the Halifax and Lancaster could carry! It's lucky that in conversion from an airliner Fw sought to suitably strengthen the aircraft so it wouldn't suffer structural... Oh, wait...

 

[Koopernic]

Which in any terms was an impressive load, being less than 3,000 lbs less than what the Halifax and Lancaster could carry! It's lucky that in conversion from an airliner Fw sought to suitably strengthen the aircraft so it wouldn't suffer structural... Oh, wait...

The latter Fw 200C3 was strengthened. The issue was more the intense manoeuvring carried out during low level attacks as these incident reports indicate. It's pretty clear The aircraft was also exposed heavily to wind shear and buffeting as well. It was pretty good for 1940/41. There were some plans to give it a tail gun position and more powerful engines but it appears to have been too optimally constructed to allow such growth without extensive work. (You never know, maybe politics behind it)

 

[GrauGeist]

There's been several conversations about an attacking aircraft having "shut off it's engines" and there's several points to that:
Firstly, an attacking aircraft in a dive (shallow or steeper) with it's engines throttled back will not emit much in the way of sound.
Secondly, the "Doppler effect" will alter the approaching aircraft's engine sound to the point of a whisper if they're not under load.

To the layman, it would certainly seem that they've been shut off, but in reality, temporarily shutting off the engines on a multiple engined aircraft and then restarting all if them and getting up to power is not a simple task.

 

[Milosh]

The Fw 200C-3 introduced some more reinforcements, although still insufficient, a gun turret to replace the fairing above the cockpit, two beam guns, an increase in bomb load, and an additional crew member. It also had 1200hp BMW 323-R2 engines to compensate for the weight increase. Soon a number of variations in armament appeared, as the MG FF and MG 15 were replaced by far more powerful 15mm and 20mm MG 151 cannon, or the 13mm MG 131. With these changes, the later Condors were very well armed.

For offensive purposes the Fw 200C was equipped with the low-altitude Revi bombsight, or the Lofte 7D sight for attacks from between 3500m and 4000m. Radar appeared, on the Fw 200C-4, in the form of Rostock or Hohentwiel anti-shipping radars. These modifications increased the weight and reduced the speed. the max level speed of the Fw 200C-4 was a very unimpressive 330km/h at 4800m, down to 280km/h at sea level. The speed of 450km/h was not be exceeded, and brusque evasive manoeuvres could results in structural failures. Endurance was 14 hours, for a range of about 3860km, or 18 hours if additional fuel tanks were carried instead of bombs, and cruising speeds were around 250km/h. The common bomb load on long-range missions was just four 250kg bombs.

Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor - Technical pages - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net

 

[Koopernic]

The Fw 200C-3 introduced some more reinforcements, although still insufficient, a gun turret to replace the fairing above the cockpit, two beam guns, an increase in bomb load, and an additional crew member. It also had 1200hp BMW 323-R2 engines to compensate for the weight increase. Soon a number of variations in armament appeared, as the MG FF and MG 15 were replaced by far more powerful 15mm and 20mm MG 151 cannon, or the 13mm MG 131. With these changes, the later Condors were very well armed.

For offensive purposes the Fw 200C was equipped with the low-altitude Revi bombsight, or the Lofte 7D sight for attacks from between 3500m and 4000m. Radar appeared, on the Fw 200C-4, in the form of Rostock or Hohentwiel anti-shipping radars. These modifications increased the weight and reduced the speed. the max level speed of the Fw 200C-4 was a very unimpressive 330km/h at 4800m, down to 280km/h at sea level. The speed of 450km/h was not be exceeded, and brusque evasive manoeuvres could results in structural failures. Endurance was 14 hours, for a range of about 3860km, or 18 hours if additional fuel tanks were carried instead of bombs, and cruising speeds were around 250km/h. The common bomb load on long-range missions was just four 250kg bombs.

Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor - Technical pages - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net

In 1942 the Ju 290 was starting production though only coming into service as a long range reconnaissance aircraft in October 1943 and of course the He 177 was supposed to be coming into service as well in 1942. The Fw 200 should have been replaced and done something more useful such as transport.

The Failure of the RLM/Luftwaffe to provide long range maritime reconnaissance and to the German Navy and its U-boat commerce war was one of its biggest failures.

Parts of the Atlantic were so infrequently patrolled that if a convoy was discovered by a Fw 200 it would merely change course because reconnaissance was so sparse. Reports of convoys size and escort strength was poor. The lack of long range escort fighters meant the U-boats were not protected over the Bay of Biscay. It was an absolute disaster. The German Navy needed its own air arm as they do now and as they did in WW1.

 

[pbehn]

There's been several conversations about an attacking aircraft having "shut off it's engines" and there's several points to that:
Firstly, an attacking aircraft in a dive (shallow or steeper) with it's engines throttled back will not emit much in the way of sound.
Secondly, the "Doppler effect" will alter the approaching aircraft's engine sound to the point of a whisper if they're not under load.

To the layman, it would certainly seem that they've been shut off, but in reality, temporarily shutting off the engines on a multiple engined aircraft and then restarting all if them and getting up to power is not a simple task.

Another thing is that a boat isn't silent, you get used to the noise but it is still there.