Talk:Operation Catechism

Redevelopment underway
As a rather belated note, I'm currently developing a new version of this article at User:Nick-D/Drafts12. I expect to post it here later today, or within the next week. Comments and changes are most welcome both while it is in draft stage and, of course, after it is posted here. Apologies for the late notification. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just posted the new version of the article. Sorry again for not inviting contributions to its development earlier. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hell, Nick, what are you apologizing for; i assume you're NOT a paid contrib'r, esp'ly given the topic! Well, maybe you teach at some Royal Naval War Establishment; even so, any regrets should be addressed to yr employer/sponsor, not us grateful wiki-colleagues!   For yr consideration, in any case: i kinda contrapositivized yr final sentence, to emphasize a presumably well-drilled execution, lest presumably routine professionalism be miscontrued as either "dumb luck" or "divine providence" (not to be confused with the environs of the allied naval station in Rhode Island, from wnich my old man contemporaneously... well, never mind, that's a whole 'nother story.... --JerzyA (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of main guns for AA?
The article says Tirpitz fired on the bombers with her massive 15-inch main guns. On the face of it, this seems like a pointless thing to do - compared to a dedicated AA gun, the main guns turn and fire very slowly, are directed by the wrong kind of system (a gun laying "computer", rather than a radar system) and fire AP rounds with contact fuses, rather than fragmenting rounds with proximity fuses. They surely couldn't expect to ever hit a plane with that. Were the guns loaded with some kind of canister round? Were they just trying to add smoke to obscure themselves? It doesn't seem likely that a trained professional crew like Tirpitz would just fire just on the off chance of some one-in-a-million hit - so what was their intention? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Afaik there was anti aircraft ammunition for the main guns of the yamato class. Maybe Tirpitz had similar ammunition? 193.90.160.128 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you're right on the money there. The article on Yamato leads us to that kind of ammunition, San Shiki (anti-aircraft shell) - and that article says the "38 cm SK C/34 naval guns of the Bismarck-class battleship Tirpitz were modified to allow their use against aircraft, being supplied with specially-fuzed 38 cm shells for barrage antiaircraft fire". So that's surely what they were using. I'm a bit reluctant to change the article to reflect that, as I can't verify the source, and it would be nice to describe the German round by the proper name (as it doesn't sound like they just used the Japanese round, but invented their own similar thing). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, the 38 cm SK C/34 naval gun article says the same thing, and explicitly says that's what they fired during Catechism. So I think it's safe to briefly mention that here. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Every source I consulted says that Tirpitz's main guns fired on the bombers. One or two of them noted that this was a fairly desperate measure, and it clearly failed here. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems to be the American opinion of the Japanese equivalent system too - cool looking but ineffective. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, should we mention in the article that the use of this was, as you say, desperate? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

bomb craters...
i remember very vividly that there was an enourmous crater shot at ground level near the Tirpitz sunk. I can't find it, you ever seen it? Was it actually removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

BST
I think a footnote linked to British Summer Time is needed to explain to those who do not know that during WWII the British opperated BST (in winter) and DBST (in summer), otherwise people may think that it is odd (or inaccurate) to use BST instead of GMT for an operation taking place in November. -- PBS (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)