Research Note
Ramming as a Tactic
John Harland
David K Brown and Philip Pugh analyzed the topic in an article entitled
'Ramming', which appeared in WARSHIP 1990, pp. 18-34. This is worth the
attention of anyone with a serious interest in the matter. The article is too
densely written to abstract easily, but we may single out one feature ....the
ramming of U-boats. This was often attempted, and indeed succeeded in 19 cases
in WW 1, primarily with the 20-knot patrol craft (P-Boats), and 27 cases in WW
II. It was discouraged after 1943, partly because the damage sustained by the
rammer would take weeks to repair ...as folk would say today, the cost-benefit
ratio was not favorable. A typical escort saved two or three merchantmen per
year, and it was calculated that the 'cost' of repairing an escort damaged by
ramming was about 0.4 subs, while if a U-Boat was sunk, it would save about 14
merchantmen. The authors note that a surfaced U-Boat was a difficult target
because the curvature of the plates tended to deflect the projectiles, and
depth charges were relatively ineffective because they were designed to explode
at depth. Later in the war depth-charge fuses were developed which allowed them
to be set to go off at very shallow depths, and usable against a surfaced
U-boat. The maneuver was in many instances executed after damaging the U-boat
with depth-charges, and one reason for engaging in ramming at that point was
the relative ineffectiveness of gunfire, using the then available projectiles,
against a rounded target, like a surfaced U-boat.
The rammees did not always take kindly to this practice. The master of a
British ship Brussels attempted to ram the U-33 in March 1915. The ship was
subsequently captured by the Germans, and Captain Fryatt (technically a
non-combatant) was tried, condemned and shot on July 27 1916.
The ram-bow was occasionally adopted as a sort of design-fad in civilian craft.
In the whaling museum in Sandefjord, Norway, there is a beautiful model of a
whalecatcher, TANAHORN, built by Akers mek. Verk. in 1885. Whalers universally
featured a marked cut-up of the forefoot, necessary because of the need for
making quick turns, and TANAHORN offers a unique exception to this. I can only
imagine it was done to satisfy some quirk on the part of the owner. [If anyone
is interested, plans are shown on page 324. Catchers and Corvettes: The
History of the Steam Whalecatcher in War and Peace.
{John Harland}
Back?