AFAIK, Delhi never saw an enemy aircraft during her entire time in UK waters. IMHO, Delhi must have been having problems with her MK37 system, especially after radar was added. Since she was one of the first ships equipped with it, it would have been very surprising if she had no problems.
Destroyers.....
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
AFAIK, Delhi never saw an enemy aircraft during her entire time in UK waters. IMHO, Delhi must have been having problems with her MK37 system, especially after radar was added. Since she was one of the first ships equipped with it, it would have been very surprising if she had no problems.
vinnye
Senior Airman
I think these late USN destroyer losses were acting as radar pickets to give the fleet early warning of any raids.
In this situation, they were acting alone - like some RN destroyers that were sunk by the LW.
Even though they were built later and had more technology as standard and had the chance to learn lessons from others early experiences.
When acting in close fire support to capital ships, they were usually NOT the target, so the fact that THEY were not hit is not a reflection of their AA effectiveness.
In this situation, they were acting alone - like some RN destroyers that were sunk by the LW.
Even though they were built later and had more technology as standard and had the chance to learn lessons from others early experiences.
When acting in close fire support to capital ships, they were usually NOT the target, so the fact that THEY were not hit is not a reflection of their AA effectiveness.
Glider
Captain
Having already supplied the evidence that the British 40 deg gun can only fire for approx 35 seconds at a bomber, how can you think that this would be any use at all?
Torpedoboot Type 39 (1297 tons standard/1752 full load) Barbara plan 10x37mm automatic (2x1+4x2) + 8 (4x2) 20mm but that wasn't implemented. So Usually they had 4 (2x2) 37mm C/30 + 12 (3x4) 20mm plus sundry extra guns if lucky.
Hatsuharu and Shiratsuyu classes 1490 tons standard/1802 tons full load) landed one of their 5" gun in 1942/43 and got more AAA and after that had 4 (2x2) 5" DP + 13 – 21x25mm + 4x13mm
USN Bensons/Bristols (1839 tons standard /2395 tons full load) late war 4x5" DP + 4x40mm Bofors (2x2) and 4 – 6x20mm.
Glider
Captain
You are of course entitled to your view, mine is that as she impressed in the AA trials that were undertaken, its both my view and reasionable to assume that she didn't have any issues with the 5in/mk 37 combination.
As for your comment about the Delhi and her time in UK waters, it isn't her fault that the RN put a well equipped AA vessel on escort duties escorting high value ships. Many of the best equipped AA RN vessels were on similar duties and to imply that its a slight on the vessel and her equipment without evidence, is a little desperate.
This is only a guess but one reason which may have stopped HMS Delhi taking part in the Malta convoys were its 5in guns. She was one of the best equipped AA vessels in the RN, but she was the only vessel in the RN to have these weapons and the USN were not involved in the Med at that time. To stock and distribute a unique type of ammunition for one vessel which could go anywhere would have been an administrative nightmare. You don't know which base she might go to, so ammunition would have to be stored in a number of places around the Med. How you would have got supplies to Malta to restock the Delhi for the trip home, when every spare space was taken up with supplies to feed and maintain the island I do not know.
Last edited:
And why then RN evaluaded gunnery trials of Delhi as highly successful?
35 seconds by 6 destroyers ( a typical 1942 carrier TG escort) = 210 seconds = 210 rounds predicted rounds fired (if we assume a JKMN), plus an umbrella barrage, placed over the target ship as the aircraft begin their dive, for another 200 - 400 rounds.
They may have been successful within certain parameters, but do we have the full story? Until I began looking for info on the Mk37 and 5"/38 I was unaware that there were problems with both. Most accounts, such as Navweaps and Campbell are highly laudatory about the Mk 37 and neither mentioned the stability problems that occurred, nor the slowness of the Mk 1 computer, so until more info comes to light, I will remain skeptical about HMS Delhi, especially as RN deployment of her suggests a less than satisfactory performance. We know from well researched accounts (Lundstrom) of USN AA in the Pacific that the MK 37 wasn't terribly effective there, so why should it be any different for Delhi? In fact it would be amazing if the RN did better with Mk 37 than the USN itself!
Here's some more info on the Mk 37:
Sorry, but I just don't buy the "Delhi was perfect" story as it doesn't fit the overall facts.
The great majority of HARPOON AND PEDESTAL Malta convoy escorts didn't make the trip all the way to Malta but turned back with the carriers.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
I must repeat what I have posted before. A destroyer is lucky to hit a ship in 35 seconds against a small aircraft, its close to mission impossible. Just a thought but do you disagree with that statement?
If a ship had 210 seconds they would have a chance. All that would happen in your scenario is that all the ships are almost certain to miss. Also in your scenario there is the added confusion of the ships trying to work out which shell bursts are theirs and which are the the other destroyers.
It was bad enough at sea targets, the French introuduced dyes to their shells so that each ship could concentrate their fire as they knew that they were firing Red and the ship behind Blue.
Its also worth remembering that 35 seconds is the absolute maximum time and depends on the destroyer opening fire at exactly the right time.
Last edited:
Glider
Captain
It isn't a case of Delhi was perfect, just that it was a lot better than anything else, that anybody else had. Its main problem with the combination was the problems at close range when the target was not flying straight, which isn't unexpected. Thats why navies had the short range fast firing guns. I am old enough to have served on HMS Tiger and even we had the 3in and Seacat for close range defence and our 6in was deadly against aircraft.
Yes, the odds of hitting are low, as the USN found out during 1942 - having HA guns didn't change things much, if at all, since even when targets were theoretically within range of HA guns, fire was still usually delayed for one reason or another.
Please provide some proof for your statement.
BTW, how many aircraft did Delhi shoot down and how did she rank compared to other AA cruisers?
Last edited:
Did any of these weapons use Mk 37/Mk 1 computers? In fact, they used vastly more advanced computers.
We have all been fed a snow job about the MK37/Mk 1 - actual combat proved that it just wasn't very effective.
parsifal
Colonel
Ammunition expenditures per kill did not remain static. As time progressed the number of rounds tended to drop, moreover the number of rounds required per kill was different for each nationality. A study by the USN is attached that gives the most accurate data that we have on USN AA performance.
I wonder if there is anything similar for the RN. Especially during the BPFs deployment off Japan and Okinawa in 1945. We have some snippets here and there like the performance of the Illustrious' gunners in January 1941, but I dont think that is a fair comparison, and unless we can get a campaign summary of some description, we get endless circular debate about repective AA performances, plus whether this or that piece of equipment works or doesnt work.
Antiaircraft Action Summary · World War II
That and other USN AA studies are interesting, but these are based upon their own (USN) estimates of how many aircraft were shot down, rather than post war verfied accounts, so the AA effectiveness seems much better than it was. Similarly, Wikipedia gives this info regarding RN AA claims up to Dec 31 1942:
HACS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a must read - the footnotes and external links are invaluable.
The above USN study gives these figures:
totals for 1942:
_____5" Com__
Rounds_15,110-
Kills__60
R.P.B.__252
yet Lundstrom estimates about 90 AA kills for all of 1942 from all gun types (mainly CIWS). If we add actual AA kills at Pearl Harbour we get 100-110 AA kills where the USN AA study states 246 for kills by weapon type for 1942 and 228 for total kills from Dec 07 1941 to end 1942. It is very obvious that 5in kills are greatly overestimated in this study.
We should remember Captain Gatch's estimate that 5in AA only accounted for 5% of the kills at Santa Cruz.
Last edited:
Maybe you should try to get access to Edgar J. March's British Destroyers A History of Development 1892 - 1953 (1966) you would find out that A.C.N.S.(H) wrote in Sept. 40 "...4.7-in....40deg is good L.A., very bad H.A." Or that V.C.N.S. proposed 70deg or 80deg or more, that 55deg be pressed for Emergency Flotillas, if possible 60deg, "and ask U.S.A. if they can supply their new 5-in. guns and mountings, if not make details known to us"
Juha
I should be able to find copy in a local library but even used copies are selling for $250. We have to draw a clear distinction between the power operated 40deg 4.7in twin, with on-mount fuze setters and the previous (and post, in war emergency program destroyers) 4.7in single. However, and as I stated previously 40 degs is not, obviously, optimal for HA fire but neither is it useless or "very bad".
Very bad was the professional oppinion of the RN's Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, he might have known something on the subject. And most probably wasn't an Anglophobe.
Juha
As I stated, we have to draw a distinction between the twin and single 4.7in mount. Does the ACNS do that?
