Destroyers.....

[RCAFson]

I agree that any destroyer on its own was in grave danger from air attack.
The RN lost many destroyers that were acting on their own or in loose cooperation with other ships, usually withdrawing troops without air cover.
They were attacked by very professional bomber crews who had a lot of experience and were well motivated.
I do not think that USN destroyers in the same position would have fared any better.

Just to provide some more data:
Coral Sea:2CV, 5 CA, 9DD.
At Coral Sea they claimed 49 AA kills of which about 37 were claimed by the USN carrier TG and they got 3. DDs in the CV screen claimed 11.

Midway first attack: 1CV, 2 CA, 5 DD
2nd attack: 1CV, 4 CA, 7DD
At Midway they claimed 20 AA kills and got 3. DDs claimed 8.

Eastern Solomons: 1 CV, 1 BB, 1CA, 1 CLAA, 6 DD
At Eastern Solomons they claimed 30 and got 4. DDs claimed 5.

Santa Cruz:
two forces:
1Cv, 1BB, 1 CA, 1 CLAA, 8 DDs
1CV, 2 CA, 2 CLAA, 6 DDs
Total: 2CV, 1BB, 3CA, 3CLAA, 14DD
At Santa Cruz they claimed 127 and got ~25. DDs claimed 22.

Yet the actuality is that USN destroyers probably shot down no aircraft in the first 3 actions and only a handful at Santa Cruz. All USN ships had progressively augmented CIWS by Coral Sea and none fought with their pre-war (design) CIWS. most had AA FC radar at Coral Sea and all by Eastern Solomons.

The first large scale air attack on the RN was on April 09 1940:

Two forces:

2 BBs 5 cruisers, 7 DDs
4 cruisers 7 destroyers
total: 2 BB, 9 cruisers, 14 destroyers (all ships had their pre-war AA/CIWS armament)

Attackers: 47 Ju 88 and 41 He111

Losses: DD Gurkha, several ships suffer minor damage; 4 Ju-88s shot down. Several He111s might have been lost as well, but this is unclear.



The RN forces were not concentrated and the only loss was Gurkha, and this occurred when she detached herself from her flotilla. At the time the RN was under the impression that only one Luftwaffe Ju-88 was shot down - another example of the RN being very conservative in its AA kill claims. None of the RN ships had AA FC radar but the BBs had air warning radars. The weather conditions were quite severe which greatly hampered destroyer gunnery, in sharp contrast to the Pacific actions where in each case the weather was quite calm.

 

[parsifal]

Ship trials are notoriously undertaken for political or propaganda reasons. Particulalry the french and Italians, whi would undetake speed trials under the most artificial of conditions......forced machinery, ultra light loads, hand picked sea conditions. Thats why Italian cruisers so often paraded as being much faster than the RN, were found to be about the same under wartime conditions.

I dont think the RN was as afflicted by that disease of fudgung trials results, but neither do i think it beyond possibility that they would not still frame the trials results in the best possible light. There were often peacetime gunnery competitions and the like that many ships would go to extraordinary lengths to win. I can easily see a gunnery trial being fudged for that reason....the gun set at the best elevation and traverse angle, the ship and sea state close to stationary as was allowed, the crews handpicked, extra gunnery hands on deck....who knows.

All I know is that results under wartime conditions are going to not as efficient as trials results, as a general rule. The only eception to that might be where the trials show up some problem.

 

[RCAFson]

I am not saying the trials were to mislead anyone at the time. If the writer knew what he saying and assumed the reader understood his term or phrase there is no misleading. If someone 70 years later wants to read something more than is stated based on a short excerpt?

The L&M guns, at least according to a drawing in "Destroyer Weapons of World War II" British section by Peter Hodges, show four tubes in the ammunition hoist. The "front" two are the shell hoists and the rear two are the cartridge hoists. Pretty well laid out for firing along the axis of the ship. (no mention of how X turret was laid out but perhaps mirror image? shell hoists towards muzzle with guns pointed aft?) Since the ammunition hoist/trunk does not rotate when the guns are pointed 90 degrees to the broadside, say to starboard, the two shell hoists are next to the left hand gun and the two cartridge hoists are next to the right hand gun. The hoists being between the guns. This requires extra movement (distance) to get the right components to correct loading trays and a bit of interference as the left hand gun cartridge handler in order to place the cartridge in the loading tray has to stand in or very near where the left hand gun shell handler has to stand to get the shell out of the hoist. A similar dance has to be performed by the loaders of the right hand gun with the shell handlers dealing with 62lb shells. How this is "optimized for fire on the beams" is beyond me.

"If the director sights are stabilized, the guns are effectively stabilized as well"

If this was true a lot of navy's spent a lot of money on stabilized gun mounts that they didn't need to. The director sight may be stabilized and stay pointed at fixed point in space as the ship rolls, pitches and yaws beneath it but the gun barrels are going to be waving all over the place. You can rig the firing circuits to fire when the barrels are aligned with the sight and get sort of the effect of a stabilized gun but that plays merry h**l with the rate of fire as it may take a number of seconds for the natural motion of the ship to bring the guns into alignment with the sight.

The statement in March is "5 rounds in 17 seconds". If the gun is is loaded prior to firing it would be a misleading statement, but it doesn't say that.

I took another look at Destroyer Weapons and you're correct. At first glance it appears as though the drawings are opposite of their actual positions.

The whole point of stabilized sights is to allow continuous aim and fire from unstabilzed gun moutings; as long the layer and trainer follow their pointers the gun is effectively stabilized. AFAIK, only the RN Hazemeyer 40mm mounting and the German 4.1in twin mount used actual stabilzed (gimballed) moutings during WW2.

 

[Shortround6]

"5 rounds in 17 seconds" isn't really misleading. That is what it did. They are not claiming that is the firing cycle or that they can fire 10 rounds in 34 seconds or 17.6 rounds per minute. Your original quote was "..........5 rounds in 17 seconds" which rather makes it look like something got left out. It may have been totally unimportant.

As far as "as long the layer and trainer follow their pointers the gun is effectively stabilized" goes that is a might tough condition and actually darn near impossible even with a power worked mounting. For one thing elevation and train are only two axis of movement while most stabilized mountings or sights are stabilized in 3 axis. The Germans started with a bi axial mounting in 1929 and progressed though several mounts and systems (changing to a triaxial mounting real quick) using at least 3 guns starting with 8.8 cm guns. There was also a traxial stabilized twin mount for the 3.7cm LC/30 gun.
The Italians had a Quadraxial 90mm/50 gun mounted in the Littorio and Duilio classes but it ran into a number of problems.
The British were working on stabilized 40mm mountings beside the Hazemeyer during the war but none made it. The post war STAAG MK II went 15-17 tons for a pair of 40mm barrels which both shows the problem of good stabilized mounts performance wise ( reliability excepted) and the price they were willing to pay to get it, weight wise. Granted it carried it's own radar on the mount.

With enough electronic trickery one can get a stabilized gun sight to function with non-stabilized guns but it is going to take a lot more than a follow the pointer system. RPC (remote power control) is needed at a minimum.

Some estimates on how well the British pre war guns/mounts met requirements can be worked out by looking at some of the late war/post war guns/mounts like the twin 4.5in. Apparently it took almost 50 tons to provide 80 degrees of elevation for a pair of guns that that didn't perform much better than the late 1920s 4.7in and didn't fire any faster to boot? 12-14rpm hand worked (loaded) and 18rpm burst fire.

Either the US MK 37 did something the British directors didn't do or the British were sold a bill of goods because the last Battle class Destroyers (the 1943 group) were to be given US MK 37 directors or a system using MK 37 components if not the actual directors, but fitted with British radar. Of course by this time the VT fuse was coming into wide spread use and the bigger guns (4in and above) had some hope of engaging a dive bomber with it.

 

[parsifal]

Either the US MK 37 did something the British directors didn't do or the British were sold a bill of goods because the last Battle class Destroyers (the 1943 group) were to be given US MK 37 directors or a system using MK 37 components if not the actual directors, but fitted with British radar. Of course by this time the VT fuse was coming into wide spread use and the bigger guns (4in and above) had some hope of engaging a dive bomber with it

.

Thats one of RCAFs central points. He claims that USN overclaimed by at least 5:1, and then used that propaganda to sell their systems to everyone else. He claims the Mk 37 to be an overall liability and the 5/38 to be an overrated gun.

Im not saying that i agree with any of this. in fact I think it quite laughable that anyone might take the claims seriusly. But thats what he believes, and nothing will sway him from his opinion.

Good luck trying to convince hime otherwise

 

[RCAFson]

. Thats one of RCAFs central points. He claims that USN overclaimed by at least 5:1, and then used that propaganda to sell their systems to everyone else. He claims the Mk 37 to be an overall liability and the 5/38 to be an overrated gun.

I used the USN's own kill claim data (and I provided the hard numbers from USN sources), and Lundstrom's data on actual USN AA kills - so this is not my opinion! The truth of the matter is literally staring you in the face. Any reasonable person will accept the facts as they stand.



The USN didn't "sell" their systems to the RN, they gave them away via LL- March makes it clear that the UK could not produce enough FC equipment to meet RN needs and so they ordered USN equipment in the USA. Lendlease regulations prevented USA manufacturers from producing UK spec guns and equipment so the RN had no choice but to order USN spec equipment - I've already discussed this and provided a source to verify this; North American Supply.

 

[parsifal]

sorry, but they ARE your opinions. youve taken selected opinions and reports, ignored the opinions of others,, including some highly qualified officers in far better position to know than you or I, used questionable basic data, skewed data or even incorect data, and reached a highly biased and innaccurate conclusion, simply because thats the conclusion you wanted in the first place. i think it safe to claim, that no-one else participating in our discussion agrees with your conclusions. your entitled to your opinions, but claimimg they are not your opinions (which infers they are facts) is just further evidence of your incredible arrogance and bias in this matter. Dont get me wrong, you have produced some amazing pieces of information that has certainly changed my view on particular details. But the conclusion YOU draw from the data you present is somewhere bewtween amusing and alarming for me.

If you want to get on better and avoid being hounded every time you open your mouth, try a few things from someone who has made every possible mistake in this place.

1) Dont try to claim your opinions as facts. Even if they are wll supported, with the level of disagreement you are facing right now, you cant claim any of your thesis as anything but opinion at this point.
2) Dont openly say you are goiong to ignore some sources and then parade other sources as fact, just because they accord to your preconseptions. In particualr, give due respect to front line soldiers who have enjoyed success doing things and following procedures you might not agree with.
3) Try going into discussions with an open mind for a change. its very refreshing once you try it. I speak from personal expoereience ther, so dont think for a moment that I consider myself superior to you.
4) Stop lecturing the rest of us
5) Try listening rather than talking down at us
6) Learn to respect the viewpoits of others, even if you dont agree with them.
7) Dont instantly get onto the forum if you see statements that you dont agree with. Allow the debate to mature a bit. You might be surprised, we may even reach a point that we will agree with you on something.

 

[RCAFson]

sorry, but they ARE your opinions. .

Sorry, but I've produced hard data to back up the fact that the USN claimed 87 AA kills from Coral Sea to Eastern Solomons and yet only got 10 AA kills. That's not my opinion.

 

[cherry blossom]

I suspect that RCAFson is correct that RN heavy anti-aircraft fire was more effective than USN anti-aircraft fire over 1941-2. This is because the HACS system (much criticized on the internet) had been improved by adding the Gyro Rate Unit Box (GRUB) and integrated radar ranging. Thus in December 1941, the RN probably led the World in AA capacity. Unfortunately, Force Z suffered because the critical radars did not work in the very humid Gulf of Siam. They did normally work in the Mediterranean or off Norway and might have worked for Force Z if there had been time to make adjustments for the local conditions.

The problem is that from late 1942, the USN also added radar ranging and soon proximity fuses. Thus by 1944, the USN heavy AA was probably much more effective than that of the RN who lacked proximity fuses. Similarly, the USN was able to equip its ships with Bofors much faster than the RN although both navies were equally desperate to fit those guns.

 

[Njaco]

We're watching......

 

[parsifal]

we are trying.

Ive had a bit of a look at Lundstrom and, judging from his explanation of sources, I think he is simply publishing known or confirmed losses when it comes to AA. He relies on Japanese accounts of losses as well as the observations of the fliers themselves. Yet I dont think the japanese are in much better position to know the cause of losses than the Americans were. They would certainly know the total losses but would not be in much better position to know the cause of those losses. It may also well be the case that an aircraft hit but not destroyed on the spot may not make it home. For major battles like Midway and Coral Sea, the overall losses are pretty well documented, whats at issue are the causes for those losses.

So it may be that the differences between the final USN estimates and Lundstrom relate to how the losses are being collated. I dont think there is any argument now that the original claims by the USN especially for 1942 are pretty badly inflated. I am less convinced about the end of war report. The Americans had three years in which to revise and collate that report. They would have good knowledge of the pilots claims, and because they were reading about 70% of enemy signal traffic, would also have pretty complete knowledge of enemy total losses. We dont know how many of the Japanese losses were due to non-combat related issues. Some of the aircraft listed as missing in the japanese loss records may well have gone down due to battle damage, and some of that battle damage may well have been due to flak damage.

For that reason, whilst Lundstrom is held in near deity like reverenace around here, I am inclined to think that the final US estimates are as reliable as his figures. If we want to be honest about this, the facts are there are alot of unexplained losses, and losses that would be misreported. It may be the case that Lundstroms tallying methods are not comparable to the tallying system used by the USN.

Finally I note that in the 1942, the tables refer to "bags" and not kills. What exactly is a "bag". Given the huge discrepancy in the kill tallies of this claim sheet, one has to at least wionder what it is they were recording.

 

[Juha]

Sorry, but I've produced hard data to back up the fact that the USN claimed 87 AA kills from Coral Sea to Eastern Solomons and yet only got 10 AA kills. That's not my opinion.

IMHO not the fact but Lundstrom's interperation of limited facts and oppinions available. While Lundstrom's books are very good one must remember that his books are on USN fighter pilots and IMHO at least on the first one, The First TEam, had biased towards fighter claims against AA claims when they were in conflict as they many times were, because overclaiming was fairly bad problem in early part of the Pacific War.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

IMHO not the fact but Lundstrom's interperation of limited facts and oppinions available. While Lundstrom's books are very good one must remember that his books are on USN fighter pilots and IMHO at least on the first one, The First TEam, had biased towards fighter claims against AA claims when they were in conflict as they many times were, because overclaiming was fairly bad problem in early part of the Pacific War.

Juha

Lundstrom may be biased towards awarding kills to fighter pilots rather than AA, but by the same token Shores and Co. are probably guilty of the same when assessing RN AA and FAA fighter kill claims in the Med. However, it seems to me that Lundstrom has closely examined all the sources and we can be fairly certain that he is in the ball park - even if we increase AA kills by 50%, it still leaves the USN over claiming AA kills by a factor of 6.

Again, IMHO, a typical RN officer who read the USN AA claim reports probably assumed that there was some over-claiming, perhaps by a factor of two, however since they knew that USN CIWS were far weaker than in the RN, they could then only assume that the USN's 5" MK33/37 GFCS were responsible for the still impressive (albeit false) number of AA kills. I have to wonder, though, that if the USN assessed their AA kills as severely as the RN did if we would be having such heated discussions about the relative efficacy of RN and USN naval AA?

 

[RCAFson]

Finally I note that in the 1942, the tables refer to "bags" and not kills. What exactly is a "bag". Given the huge discrepancy in the kill tallies of this claim sheet, one has to at least wonder what it is they were recording.

I think my reply to Juha covers the first part of your post.

The USN used bird hunting terminology for some reason, and if you look at their AA kill tables by gun type they refer to "rounds per bird" rather than aircraft.

 

[Juha]

Lundstrom may be biased towards awarding kills to fighter pilots rather than AA,... However, it seems to me that Lundstrom has closely examined all the sources and we can be fairly certain that he is in the ball park - even if we increase AA kills by 50%, it still leaves the USN over claiming AA kills by a factor of 6...

I agree with that, IMHO he was less biased, at least the possible bias was less obvious, in his second book, The First Team and The Guadalcanal Campaign.

but by the same token Shores and Co. are probably guilty of the same when assessing RN AA and FAA fighter kill claims in the Med...

Entirely possible but the fighting in Europe was a bit different from that in the Pacific where intense carrier war was common, so maybe that bias isn't so important. When there was no fighters around AA was clearly the obvious killer.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

Entirely possible but the fighting in Europe was a bit different from that in the Pacific where intense carrier war was common, so maybe that bias isn't so important. When there was no fighters around AA was clearly the obvious killer.

Juha

All of the Malta Convoys had some carrier or shore-based fighter support.

 

[Juha]

Every USN CV carried 20-27 Wildcats during the timeframe we are talking about, so they had more and generally better fighters available at that time than RN so in the Pacific fighters had greater impact.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Sorry, but I've produced hard data to back up the fact that the USN claimed 87 AA kills from Coral Sea to Eastern Solomons and yet only got 10 AA kills. That's not my opinion.

However you have ignored the other part of the posting where Parsifal said
sorry, but they ARE your opinions. youve taken selected opinions and reports, ignored the opinions of others,, including some highly qualified officers in far better position to know than you or I,

There can be no doubt that you have ignored these officers statments, people who were both experienced in combat and had seen both RN and USN at first hand.

There is also no doubt that you tend to make statments as if they were facts e.g The RN wanted the 5in because they were free. Nope the RN already had weapons lined up for the war built destroyers (the ones they were built with) and wanted the 5in because:-
a) we had seen an example on HMS Delhi and it had impressed
b) The officers whose opinions you have ignored were impressed
c) Because they were better than anything the RN had at the time

There is also no doubt that when faced with a question you cannot answer you just leave it and hope it goes away:-
So we agree that the Tribals had the 4in and the 20mm before they received the 40mm guns. Which brings us back to the question you keep avoiding. Of course the toweight increased, the question is, was this a problem for the Tribal class destroyers.
My case is no it wasn't. I support this by the simple fact that the guns were added and no guns were removed to cater for it.
Your case is yes it was a problem but your evidence is -----------? what exactly

Adding a bit of ballast doesn't count as a problem as the ship still functioned in the front line with all her weapons.

I also believe , that was well as the additional 40mm the Surviving Tribals also had a lattice mast added to hold the heavy radars. What they weigh I have no idea but they would have weighed something all without losing any weapons.

On attached photo I see 6 x 4.7, 2 x 4in, 4 x TT, 4 x 2pd, 6 x 40mm (single Mount), heavy mast and radars high up

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...v=2&tbm=isch&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CC4QrQMwAg

 

[parsifal]

Im happy, if for no other reason than we are getting some great images of the Arunta. Youd have to agree.....a fantastic looking ship if nothing else.

 

[RCAFson]

However you have ignored the other part of the posting where Parsifal said
sorry, but they ARE your opinions. youve taken selected opinions and reports, ignored the opinions of others,, including some highly qualified officers in far better position to know than you or I,

There can be no doubt that you have ignored these officers statments, people who were both experienced in combat and had seen both RN and USN at first hand.

There is also no doubt that you tend to make statments as if they were facts e.g The RN wanted the 5in because they were free. Nope the RN already had weapons lined up for the war built destroyers (the ones they were built with) and wanted the 5in because:-
a) we had seen an example on HMS Delhi and it had impressed
b) The officers whose opinions you have ignored were impressed
c) Because they were better than anything the RN had at the time

I haven't ignored anything- but at some point I simply stop repeating myself...I have stated repeatedly, that IMHO, the RN was swayed and misled by the extreme degree of AA kill overclaiming by the USN - something they were not in a position to know was happening at the time but something that I have proved conclusively did happen. If Delhi "impressed" it was during gunnery trials, in early 1942 yet the USN itself stated:

Existing primary fire control systems in combatant vessels (Mark 37 or 33) are designed for dual purpose functions. Their efficiency in handling a critical AA. problem accordingly suffers. Unfortunately this deficiency does not become apparent as a result of training because the towed sleeve, with which the bulk of training is of necessity performed, lends itself well to the shortcomings of the system...
HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--Suicide Attacks [Chapter ]

It is a fact that Delhi never saw combat during the critical Malta convoy battles of 1942 and when she did enter combat she had a less than stellar record; much less stellar than other AA cruisers equipped with RN equipment, and that Delhi was originally slated to have RN AA guns and FC installed. I have produced numerous quotes showing that the USN itself became disenchanted with Mk37 because of it's sluggish processing speeds and that they considered the MK33 to be an outright failure. The RN never attempted to purchase USN guns and firecontrol and what they did get, they got via lend-lease, effectively for free! They ordered USN firecontrol (via Lend-lease and according to USA LL policy they could not order RN spec equipment) because the UK could not produce enough to meet it's own needs.

There is also no doubt that when faced with a question you cannot answer you just leave it and hope it goes away:-
So we agree that the Tribals had the 4in and the 20mm before they received the 40mm guns. Which brings us back to the question you keep avoiding. Of course the toweight increased, the question is, was this a problem for the Tribal class destroyers.
My case is no it wasn't. I support this by the simple fact that the guns were added and no guns were removed to cater for it.
Your case is yes it was a problem but your evidence is -----------? what exactly

The Tribals deleted the 56000 lb 4.7in twin at "X" position (one deck above the weather deck), then added a 4in twin in it's place saving 19000lb. They then added 4 - 6 20mm guns which weight about 1500lb for the single mount and about 2900lb for the power operated twin mount, so this weight is more than compensated by the removal of the 4.7in twin mount, plus at some point they also deleted the two .5in quad mounts at 2600lb each, so they reduced weight by 19000 + 5200lb = 24000lb and added a maximum of 12000lb for 3 twin 20mm and several tons for radar etc. They then deleted all the 20mm guns and added 6 x single 40mm bofors in either Mk V power mountings (the Boffin mounting) or MK VII power single mount- both of these mounts weighed about 1.4-1.5 tons according to Campbell and Friedman.

so to sum up the RAN deleted 24000lb in the twin 4.7in and the two quad .5in and added about 18000lb for the 6 x 40mm single mounts, leaving 6000lbs for other additions.

Adding a bit of ballast doesn't count as a problem as the ship still functioned in the front line with all her weapons .

The ship wouldn't have functioned properly without the ballast - March makes that clear! (note that this appears to be your opinion... )

I also believe , that was well as the additional 40mm the Surviving Tribals also had a lattice mast added to hold the heavy radars. What they weigh I have no idea but they would have weighed something all without losing any weapons.

On attached photo I see 6 x 4.7, 2 x 4in, 4 x TT, 4 x 2pd, 6 x 40mm (single Mount), heavy mast and radars high up

Yes, the lattice mast was required for the radars, which is why they weighed so much.