# Ship defenses.



## starling (Jul 5, 2012)

Hey guys,Does anyone know which ship of any navy,shot down the most aircraft with its guns,Starling.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Jul 5, 2012)

SOuth Dakota claimed 26 during the battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. It probably only actually got about half that number but its still pretty high. Enterprise has got to be in the running, I would think.


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

I doubt it was an aircraft carrier, battleship or heavy cruiser as they spent so little time in contact with the enemy. Something like this is more likely.

*Schwimmende Flakbatterie Undine *
Ariadne History


----------



## parsifal (Jul 6, 2012)

Dictionary Of American naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) gives details on AA claims for the major warships. I think the South Dakota holds the record, but will stand corrected.

Tirpitz I believe shot down 13 a/c over a two year period, but would like to hear what others have to say. 

British AA suffered from a poor choice of Direction but was still quite lethal. The importance of flak at sea, like everywhere, however, is not so much the numbers of a/c shot down, as the ability to throw attackers off aim, or force attackers to abort their attack or drop ordinance early. A rough rule of thumb is that for every aircraft shot down, there are at least two that have had their attacks spoiled by the flak being fired at them.


----------



## davebender (Jul 6, 2012)

Leaving aside purpose built AA vessels....

KM Scharnhorst and KM Gneisenau spent most of their service life providing British aircraft with target practise. I wouldn't be surprised if total British aircraft sorties vs these two ships numbered over 1,000. 

Target practise cuts both ways. Their AA gunners had to be among the best in the world and these German dreadnoughts had plenty of radar directed Flak. The 10.5cm/65 twin mount was especially effective and each Scharnhorst class dreadnought had seven. They must have shot down quite a few aircraft over the course of the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 6, 2012)

probably an unknown German Flak Ship in north sea


----------



## parsifal (Jul 6, 2012)

There were a number of flak barges in the thames I womder what results they achieved .


----------



## Airframes (Jul 6, 2012)

Currently reading 'Condor - Scourge of the Atlantic'. Although small in comparison to the actions by other ships, the Merchant vessels attacked by the FW200 put up a good showing, shooting down or damaging a fair few, some to crash on return to Bordeaux. Some of these 'kills' were even achieved with ancient Hotchkiss machine guns, or stripped Lewis machine guns.


----------



## Juha (Jul 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> I doubt it was an aircraft carrier, battleship or heavy cruiser as they spent so little time in contact with the enemy. Something like this is more likely.
> 
> *Schwimmende Flakbatterie Undine *
> Ariadne History
> View attachment 205807



I doubt that
VVS KBF did a short work on Niobe losing only one A-20G at Kotka harbour.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jul 7, 2012)

The best RN AA cruiser, the old coverted HMS Carliste was credited 11, the best modern Dido class ship got only 5, of the normal RN cruisers the best was HMS Penelope - 7, the best of aux. AA ships was Alynbank - 6.

Juha


----------



## davebender (Jul 7, 2012)

Probably effective when the Luftwaffe appeared over London. However that didn't happen often. Luftwaffe sorties over London were probably less then 10% of RAF sorties over Berlin.

The key to getting lots of kills are skill, plenty of targets and luck to survive. Look at the scores racked up by German fighter pilots such as Gunther Rall when faced with hordes of enemy aircraft. Some German flak gunners (both naval and on land) must have racked up equally impressive scores as they were bombed almost continually from September 1939 to May 1945.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> Probably effective when the Luftwaffe appeared over London. However that didn't happen often. Luftwaffe sorties over London were probably less then 10% of RAF sorties over Berlin.
> 
> The key to getting lots of kills are skill, plenty of targets and luck to survive. Look at the scores racked up by German fighter pilots such as Gunther Rall when faced with hordes of enemy aircraft. Some German flak gunners (both naval and on land) must have racked up equally impressive scores as they were bombed almost continually from September 1939 to May 1945.



I would agree that the numbers of sorties flown by the luftwaffe were much less than those flown by the RAF over Germany. However its a question of efficiency. German flak efficiency fell away markedly in the later stages of the war. According to Westermann, the most efficient year for the German flak arm was 1942. Against BC targets the average flak expenditure was 4000 shells per kill. By 1944, this figure had blown out to 16000 shells per kill, due to a number of issues, morst notably the falling crew proficiency (many of the experienced giunners were drafted into the frontlines and replaced by part timers).

By comparison, Allied AA started off really poorly, but improved over time. In 1940, British AA is estimated to have shot down about 400 German a/c for the entire year. More than 1000 Axis A?C were shot down in 1941, and more still in 1942 (I forget the number). By wars end a USN study concluded that with VT fuses the average ammunition expentiure per kill was about 5-600 rounds per kill. By then Allied AA was positively deadly. So, even thouggh there were less opportunities, you are wrong to suppose that proficiency improved continuously throughout the war for the Germans , and fail to take into account the enormous advantages the allies gained as the war progressed


----------



## davebender (Jul 7, 2012)

I don't believe that.

Germany had radar directed flak and searchlights during 1940 but that wasn't the end of development. Improved radar and flak fire control systems were introduced over the course of the war.


----------



## starling (Jul 7, 2012)

Hey guys,I was reading an article on wiki a while back,it concerned the British operational analysis team,they were part of the army I believe.Part of it was about their part in A-A in Britain,something about 'how many shells were req'd etc.,I can't remember what their conclusions were,can you guys enlighten me about this group of people please.im sorry its a bit off thread.Did other nations use their teqnique's too.? Starling.


----------



## ccheese (Jul 7, 2012)

The U.S.S. HUGH W. HADLEY (DD774) is officially credited with shooting down twenty-three Japanese planes in a single engagement, while on Radar Picket Duty. While on Radar Picket Station Number Fifteen, off Okinawa, Nansei Shoto, 11 May 1945. Her after action report can be found here:

http://www.usshadley.com/CombatReportA.htm

BTW... it all happened in one hour and thirty-five minutes of continuous combat !!!

Charles


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 7, 2012)

Wow... 95 minutes of hell....


----------



## parsifal (Jul 7, 2012)

davebender said:


> I don't believe that.
> 
> Germany had radar directed flak and searchlights during 1940 but that wasn't the end of development. Improved radar and flak fire control systems were introduced over the course of the war.



Westermann has a 15 page bibligraphy that inlcudes primary german records

in his concluding chapter westermann does make some intersting observations as to why performance had degraded so badly....."_an often quoted statistic is that in 1944 there was an average expenditure of 16000 heavy shells (75mm or higher) per kill. at a cost of approximately 80RM per shell, thats 1.3 mlion RM per kill. But this fails to take into account attritional cost (such as barrle explosioons whichaverged 380 per month) and labour downtime. whilst technically accurate this figure fails to take into account the much higher levels of efficiency of earlier years. In 1942 the average expenditure was 4000 heavy rounds per kill, and the average barrel failures 46 per month. 

The total of 16000 rounds per kill in 1944 is biased by a number of factors. first, the overwhelming majority of flak guns were 88mm model 36/37. the guns had an effctive ceiling of 26K, in excess of the avergae B-24 ceiling, but well below the maximum efective ceiling of the b-17. the overwhelming use of the b-17 over germany in 1944 meant that most of the LW flak batteries were stretched or beyondthe limits of their effective ceilings. second, many batteries were forced to continue using guns well past their barrel replacement stage, which reduced effective ceilings greatly, and greatly increased the rate of barrel failures (earlier in the book Westermann cites a LW report that details the effective ceiling of many 88mm batteries by 1944 was less than 21K). It also decreased firing accuracy to a significant extent. further the proficiency of the crews had decrease, rather than increased. in 1942, the flak arm was a fully professional force, manned by full time, fully trained professional soldiers. by 1944 262 batterieswere manned by erstaz 9home guard) crews. this represented well over 505 of the force structure. these crews were not adequately trained and lacked the experience of the fully professional crews. These batteries also lacked the sophisiticated fire control and radar direction of the professionally manned batteries 9my note; Westermnn earlier details the orders given in 1944 to use battery fire against the bombers by the ersatz crews). As a matter of necessity, these batteries were ordered to use battery fire rather than attempt to use directed fire, with consequent losses in accuracy.

Another factor was the effective use of various allied countermeasures, that greatly reduced the accuracy and effectiveness of many german flak batteries....."


Where good crews, modern equipment and proper fire control and directors were available, german flak efficiency remained high. 128mm guns (all fully manned by professional crews), averaged less than 3000 rpk....the performance of the 128mm gun crews demonstrates the results that could have been obtained with well trained crews and modern equipment that was not worn out. unfortunately for the LW, there were only 31 two barrelled 128mm guns and a further 525 single barrelled guns, approximately 5% of the toal flak park...." _


----------



## davebender (Jul 8, 2012)

Aircraft losses in Europe.
Army Air Forces in World War II
*1943.*
.....877 Enemy aircraft.
.....252 AA fire.
.....132 Other causes.
1,261 total.

*1944.*
.....2,902 Enemy aircaft.
.....3,501 AA fire.
.....1,346 Other causes.
7,749 total.

*1945 (Jan to May).*
.....446 Enemy aircraft.
.....1,627 AA fire.
.....549 Other causes.
2,622 total.

It's readily apparent that German fighter aircraft became less effective but German flak was good and getting better right up to May 1945.


----------



## ccheese (Jul 8, 2012)

Hey Dave.... those are interesting statistics, but what does it have to do with "Ship Defenses", which was the subject of this thread ?

Charles


----------



## davebender (Jul 8, 2012)

The German Navy used similiar AA technology but they were normally a year or two behind the Luftwaffe in adopting new equipment.

The LM44U (twin 30mm) flak mount developed for the Type XXI submarine is the exception to the rule. It was very advanced for WWII. The Heer made plans for a modified version which would fit on a light tank chassis.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 8, 2012)

davebender said:


> Aircraft losses in Europe.
> Army Air Forces in World War II
> *1943.*
> .....877 Enemy aircraft.
> ...



No it isnt. its a measure of how many USAAC aircraft were over enemy territory in 1943, 44 and '45. A small presence in 1943, a much larger presence in 1944-5. You cannot draw any conclusions about efficiency from that 

To do this properly, you need to look at the number of guns deployed, the number of shells expended and the number of shoot downs achieved from that effort. Westermann has already done that and arrived at efficiency rates for us. He uses and comments on the US Army's statistical information incidentally, and points out its shortcomings.

For the record the german flak park (Hvy/Lt/ Total) altered as follows during the war. To a degree, it shows why the total number of shoot downs went up. It does not tell the whole story however, To do that we need to also look at ammunition expenditures which unfortunately I have at home

These figures are taken from a mid year date, I forget the exact date however. 

1939: 2600/6700/9300
1940: 3161/8290/11454
1941: 3880/9020/12900
1942: 4772/10700/15472
1943: 8520/17500/26020 
1944: 10600/19360/29960


----------



## parsifal (Jul 8, 2012)

ccheese said:


> Hey Dave.... those are interesting statistics, but what does it have to do with "Ship Defenses", which was the subject of this thread ?
> 
> Charles



Sorry Charles, I didnt see this before my last post. Will get back OT.


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2012)

davebender said:


> Aircraft losses in Europe.
> Army Air Forces in World War II
> *1943.*
> .....877 Enemy aircraft.
> ...



Statistics are only meaningful when given context. These are out of context.

Steve


----------



## starling (Jul 16, 2012)

Hey guys,what about that fateful day that Yamato was sunk,did it shoot down many,if any allied aircraft,or are there any records .?cheers,Starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2012)

USN lost 10 aircraft from more than 600 strike sorties. There was no aircover provided, it took about three and half hours and three strikes to sink the great ship. The lack of aircover allowed the Americans to form their attakcs up just outside AA range and attack from directions where the most damage and the least AA could be expected


----------



## Juha (Jul 18, 2012)

On Yamato
it was not alone when it was sunk, it was escorted by one CL and 8 DDs and besides Yamato USN planes sunk the CL and 4 out of 8 DDs and a few of the 4 surviving DDs were badly damaged. Maybe a few of the 10 lost USN planes were shot down by the escorts.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Jul 19, 2012)

Of course, and further, the escorts were not really attacked until after the tomato was well and truly squashed. OTOH the IJN defenders were spaced at 1500 yards, which meant ther had to be gaps between the overlapping defence zones. The main light AA weapons were 25mm guns, which had an effective range of around 500-600 yards frokm memory. That means that from any given angle of attack, you might have the Tomato firing plus two of her consorts. Roghly speaking, I would say that Tomato was contributing about 80-90% of the defensive fire for most of the engagement

In addition, the attacking planes spent a lot of time milling around outside the kill zone, where only the Tomatos san shiki guns had any chance of an effect.


----------



## Juha (Jul 19, 2012)

Hello Parsifal
IIRC the CL Yahagi and one of the DDs were sunk by the first wave, so from the beginning some of the planes attacked the escort. And the 5" guns of the DDs were capable to engage at least VTs. Older IJN fleet DDs had 75deg elevation for their 5" guns, newer ones had 55deg elevation.

Juha


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 20, 2012)

A brilliant analysis of IJN AAA in use during the battle of Midway can be found in "Shattered Sword". It seems (if I remember correctly) the Japanese quad 25mm was not the best gun for the job, ballistics wise. If that was still part of the AAA compliment on latter IJN ships I would think they would be fighting at a bit of a disadvantage and so might be taken out of the running...


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2012)

The 25mm was still in service. it had its shortcomings, but wahtever shattered sword has to say, it was an adequate weapon. the japanese were generally very happy with it. its chief shortcomings were the slow training rate of the quad mount, insufficient shell weight, hand loaded magazines and inadequate sighting

Japan 25 mm/60 (1") Type 96


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2012)

This is reportedly footage of aircraft attacking the yamato


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY06OsGOV1Y_


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2012)

And this is a Japanese dramatisation of the great ships final hours


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0VH0W0Tz-o_


----------



## Juha (Jul 20, 2012)

Hello
there was no quad 25mm, only triple, twin and single mounts. The USN 1.1" (28mm) was quad mounted.

Juha


----------



## R Pope (Jul 20, 2012)

Did Yamato ever use her big gun AA rounds that contained 2000 steel balls? I would hate to get in the way of one of those!


----------



## parsifal (Jul 21, 2012)

R Pope said:


> Did Yamato ever use her big gun AA rounds that contained 2000 steel balls? I would hate to get in the way of one of those!



Yes. She used them in the last battle. I also believe they were used the preceding October as part of the Leyte operation. 

These guns were not that effective. Neither were their rockets


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jul 22, 2012)

Juha said:


> Hello
> there was no quad 25mm, only triple, twin and single mounts. The USN 1.1" (28mm) was quad mounted.
> 
> Juha



I stand corrected.


----------

