Campbell, Naval Weapons of WW2, p. 67: "...if control and mountings were of equal efficiency, the Bofors was reckoned to be twice as effective as the pom-pom against torpedo planes but not much better against very close range targets such as Kamikazes."The comparative service MVs of the Bofors/Pom-pom are 2720/2300fps - The Bofors will be more accurate and hit harder, but if a 40mm 2lb explosive shell can tear apart an airframe so can a 40mm 1.8lb explosive projectile as Campbell implies.
I did see that quote, but only after Id made my original post. An omission on my part, but doesnt change much. Campbell is being very kind to the 2 pdr here. The problem is this. Kamikazes like all aircraft start out as long range targets. Unlike other forms of attack, they close at very high speed, and reduce the range to zero. They tend to attack so as to reduce the effects of centrally located weapon systems....for example, if the main defences are located aft, they will attack from ahead. This is probably why in those reports I posted earlier, the British ceased firing at critical moments. And unlike the Bofors, the 2 pounder mountings tended to be concentrated at one point on the ship. Kamikazes had an easier time blocking fire from 2 pounder mountings than they did against the Bofors mountings....poorrer fields of fire I guess.
However thats not the point. Whilst both the Bofors and the 2pounder had the same sized explosive shell, both had difficulty in destroying Kamikazes at close range. It usually took multiple hits to stop a kamikaze, and that required successful engagement from long range. Once a Kamikaze got to within several hundred metres of the target, unless it just missed, it was too late. For either of the 40mm mounts to actually stop a kamikaze, they really had to do it several thousand metres from the target. 2 pounder fire was much less effective at that, as Campbell points out. In other words, he was trying to be charitable to the 2 pounders. Again,i would point you in the direction of the commanders on the spot. they were clamouring for the Bofors to replace the 2 pounders for precisely this reason.
By way of comment, the USN even considered the 5/38 as lacking effective stopping power for a kamikaze, which is one reason they were working on a 6in DP weappon at the end of the war.
With self destructing ammo, the Bofors and pom-pom had roughly the same effective range. A well maintained quad pom-pom was also quite reliable and had the advantage of a large on-mount ammo supply, that could fire without reloading for over a minute. One could fit a quad pom-pom into the same weight of mounting, occupying the same deck area, as a twin Bofors.
I dont know about the self destruct ammo. but its just untrue that the Bofors and 2 pounders had the same range. again I refer you to the commanders on the spot. They simply dont back up the claims you make for the 2 pounder. And as you are so fond of quoting max ranges all the time, the max horizontal range of 10750m and a vertical range of 23000 ft, compared to the 2pounders maxs of 6800 and 13k vertical. They are not similar at all. If we want to be realistic and look at max effective range, the Bofors was about 4000 yards horizontal, and about 6000 vertical, the pom was about 2000 horizontal ( in the DD mounts that were deployed) and about 1800 vertiical. Again not comparable at all. Thats why the BPF wanted to ditch their 2 pounders and replace them with Bofors.
Of course the larger and better armed late war USN destroyers had greater capability than existing BPF destroyers. The latest classes of RN destroyers were still working up in Europe as the war ended.
In your following posts you mention Battle classes and various of the C classes. We have talked a lot about the Tribals and the JKN classes, and that I dont mind in the case of the tribals and the JKN, because these classes are within the spec of the original topic. Just to remind you, Luckys original list did not include any of the super exotic late war types, including the battle class or the Gearing classes for that matter. The best you could do would be to compare the Fletchers to the L M clases. Incidentally, all your rants about prewar US DDs are completely off topic because they too are not mentioned. Stay inside the specs of the original topic, or at least within the spirit of those specs.
This i would be happy to say. The USN, after developing truly war winning designs across the board in 1940-41 pretty much resisted further changes,, because at some point they rightly recognized the need for numbers. In the case of DDs the designs were so good, they really didnt go too wrong with that policy. With cruisers it was a different story. The Clevelands are the case in point. A workable design, but badly affected by topweight disease, in my opinion they should have brought forward the Worcesters and the DesMoines. These two designs give some indication of the vastly superior designs that could have eminated from the US if the need in the destroyer area had arisen. The British, with their Battles and C classes were simply playing catch up to the US DD designs. You have to go to the darings before you start to get a superior British design, and these really were true post war designs, and in any event were outdated before they were even commissioned.