Dive bomber accuracy in perspective.

[JAG88]

I am afraid that I disagree. A number of the large modern German destroyers were seriously damaged and at least one was sunk using rockets. The German forces had formidable AA defences and they paid a heavy price against the Coastal Command attacks.

How is this "formidable"?




Or this? 20rd magazines, they last less than 3 seconds before change, so usually only 2 barrels fired at a time in order to try to keep fire up. Which is kind of a good thing, otherwise they would overheat as well...

So, NONE of the KM weapons could actually keep fire up due to RoF limitations, magazines or lack of cooling. Counting barrels is a meaningless exercise without context.

 

[JAG88]

I am afraid that I disagree. A number of the large modern German destroyers were seriously damaged and at least one was sunk using rockets. The German forces had formidable AA defences and they paid a heavy price against the Coastal Command attacks.

You mean the one the crew let sink in port after being damaged the day before? That one?

 

[Glider]

Simple really. The 37mm L83 (a semi automatic weapon) was replaced by the 37mm 69 which was an automatic weapon with a rof of approx. 250 rpm. The early 20mm C/30 had a 20 round magazine but this was prone to jamming and was replaced by a modified version/38 which had a 40 round magazine. A three directional stabilised mount was introduced in 1944 for the 20mm which would have also increased its effectiveness.

I think this addresses both your points.

The Light aa weapons carried by the German destroyers varied considerably, but were up to 10 x the 37mm and 16 x 20mm. By any standard a very heavy defence.

 

[JAG88]

Simple really. The 37mm L83 (a semi automatic weapon) was replaced by the 37mm 69 which was an automatic weapon with a rof of approx. 250 rpm. The early 20mm C/30 had a 20 round magazine but this was prone to jamming and was replaced by a modified version/38 which had a 40 round magazine. A three directional stabilised mount was introduced in 1944 for the 20mm which would have also increased its effectiveness.

I think this addresses both your points.

The Light aa weapons carried by the German destroyers varied considerably, but were up to 10 x the 37mm and 16 x 20mm. By any standard a very heavy defence.

I am sorry, were are getting this BS?

The M42 was introduced in 1944, and not everyone got them, the KM sat at the bottom of the priority pole as far as resources went which is why they started to scrounge Bofors and Oerlikons from wherever they could.

No, there was no 20rd magazine for 20mm flak, ever.

The three-axial stabilized mount was introduced... IN 1934!!! With the 37mm semi-auto, and it wasnt kept in service for the M42 or the Bofors.

You clearly need to read more on this subject, you are lost.

 

[buffnut453]

You clearly need to read more on this subject, you are lost.

Then why don't you enlighten us and provide sources. You've been asked for them several times but you just keep regurgitating data and opinions.

You clearly have some detailed knowledge on the topic. Why not tone down the arrogance and patronizing demeanour and try educating instead of mocking? Maybe then we can have an adult conversation instead of this rather silly willy-waving. Who knows, maybe you'd learn something too...if you're willing to listen?

None of us is as smart as all of us.

 

[Glider]

I will take your points one at a time.

I am sorry, were are getting this BS?

As mentioned by Buff sources are important. I have a number of book at home but they support the information that can be found on line at NavWeaps | Naval Weapons, Naval Technology and Naval Reunions If I could ask where you are getting your information it would be appreciated by myself and no doubt others.
To put it another way. I have told you where I am getting my BS, can I ask you to tell us where you are getting yours?

The M42 was introduced in 1944, and not everyone got them, the KM sat at the bottom of the priority pole as far as resources went which is why they started to scrounge Bofors and Oerlikons from wherever they could.

You are partly correct. The M42 was a later development but it was fairly widely used on U Boats, the Emden, Destroyers and Minesweepers. However there was another 37mm which was developed with the Army known as the 37mm/57 which was used by the Heavy and Light cruisers as well as some torpedo boats. Re the observation about the German use of the Oerlikons and Bofors, as far as the Bofor was concerned they were always in production in Norway under German occupation and the German Navy had first call on that production. So I suspect that knocks a significant hole in that claim of yours that the navy were bottom of the pile.

No, there was no 20rd magazine for 20mm flak, ever.

I think you need to make your mind up here. It was your quote that said that the Germans only had a 20 round magazine, supported by your inclusion of a clip showing a German 20mm gun with a 20 round magazine. This supported your argument that the German guns could only fire for 3 seconds and now suddenly your saying that there was never a 20rd magazine. Again if you could sort out your understanding on this point I would appreciate it. My understanding is quite clear as stated in my previous posting, which is supported by the Navweapons site plus other books.

The three-axial stabilized mount was introduced... IN 1934!!! With the 37mm semi-auto, and it wasn't kept in service for the M42 or the Bofors.

Correct, but I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the stabilised mount was introduced for the quad 20mm in 1944

You clearly need to read more on this subject, you are lost.

I beg to differ

You mean the one the crew let sink in port after being damaged the day before? That one?

A couple of obvious points.
a) No navy 'lets' a modern powerful ship sink in harbour without good reason
b) She wasn't the only ship of that type/class to be severely damaged, but I will let you find the details

 

[Reluctant Poster]

For those of you who are actually interested in dive bombing the following video illustrates what the US Navy considered to be proper dive bombing:


The following graph shows that increasing the angle above 70 degrees does not result in an appreciable increase in accuracy, at least at reasonable release heights

As for penetration of armored decks the attached graphs show the capabilities of USN AP and SAP bombs.

It should be noted that the US Navy did not have amour piercing bombs in the early part of the war. The Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet report to the Commander in Chief ,United States Fleet states the following:
"86. Effectiveness of aircraft torpedoes and bombs must be increased
(a) A larger torpedo warhead is urgently required. The present strengthened torpedo is a favorable step in the right direction, but the torpedo must be designed for much higher speed drops. In the Midway action the B-26 and TBF planes received their most serious losses from Japanese fighters when they slowed down to limiting torpedo dropping speed.
(b) Had the 1000 lb armor piercing bomb under development been available for dive bombers, fewer of the many ships that were hit would have escaped; and fewer hits would have been needed to destroy the carriers."

The Task Force 16 Action Report from Midway states:
"9. (g) A.P. bombs suitable for our present dive bombers are required. With present 500 and 1000 lb. bombs attack against armored ships does not disable until ship has been knocked to pieces by many more hits than should be necessary."

This report also admonishes:
"9. (i) Dive bombing attacks on DDs are not profitable because of the difficulties of obtaining hits on such a small and highly maneuverable target. Such attacks should not be made if a larger and more valuable target is available."

 

[Reluctant Poster]

As to the importance of submarines in the Pacific war the following graphs illustrate their dominance

The Us Navy fleet boats did indeed strangle Japan while also destroying a large portion of the IJN.

 

[JAG88]

I will take your points one at a time.


As mentioned by Buff sources are important. I have a number of book at home but they support the information that can be found on line at NavWeaps | Naval Weapons, Naval Technology and Naval Reunions If I could ask where you are getting your information it would be appreciated by myself and no doubt others.
You are partly correct. The M42 was a later development but it was fairly widely used on U Boats, the Emden, Destroyers and Minesweepers. However there was another 37mm which was developed with the Army known as the 37mm/57 which was used by the Heavy and Light cruisers as well as some torpedo boats. Re the observation about the German use of the Oerlikons and Bofors, as far as the Bofor was concerned they were always in production in Norway under German occupation and the German Navy had first call on that production. So I suspect that knocks a significant claim of yours that the navy were bottom of the pile.
I think you need to make your mind up here. It was your quote that said that the Germans only had a 20 round magazine, supported by your inclusion of a clip showing a German 20mm gun with a 20 round magazine. This supported your argument that the German guns could only fire for 3 seconds and now suddenly your saying that there was never a 20rd magazine. Again if you could sort out your understanding on this point I would appreciate it. My understanding is quite clear as stated in my previous posting, which is supported by the Navweapons site plus other books.

Correct, but I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the stabilised mount was introduced for the quad 20mm in 1944

I beg to differ



A couple of obvious points.
a) No navy 'lets' a modern powerful ship sink in harbour without good reason
b) She wasn't the only ship of that type/class to be severely damaged, but I will let you find the details

LOL! Ok...

The M42 entered service in 1944, there were never enough to go around, AGAIN, the KM always and for good reasons was at the bottom of the resource priority list to the point that even then the LW got most of the Bofors available as even a cursory search would show...

LOL! The KM didnt have "first call" on anything, it was what was left, and even then the LW got the bulk of the weapons.

Please, the Flak 36/37 was a LW gun, beyond some anecdotal use and the fact that the M42 was developed from it, well, it is inconsequential.

20rd? A Typo, it is your ridiculous 40rd magazine, somehow NavWeaps hasnt fixed that mistake in years, one that seems to have originated on a Polish publication, likely a confusion caused by this...

The 20rd magazines came in 2-magazine boxes, 40rds total... there are no pictures of such magazines and with tens of thousands of guns and hundreds of thousands of magazines... where are they? Let me know when you find one...

The stabilized quad is a heavy and LATE mount, used on large ships, how is THAT relevant? How doest THAT fix the RoF issue? The lack of cooling?

LOL! Sure, like I would waste my time looking for data that are unwilling to show yourself... I wonder why...

Z24 sank the day AFTER being damaged, made port and sank at its berth, you are welcome to go ask its crew why they let a DD sink in late 1944...

 

[JAG88]

Then why don't you enlighten us and provide sources. You've been asked for them several times but you just keep regurgitating data and opinions.

You clearly have some detailed knowledge on the topic. Why not tone down the arrogance and patronizing demeanour and try educating instead of mocking? Maybe then we can have an adult conversation instead of this rather silly willy-waving. Who knows, maybe you'd learn something too...if you're willing to listen?

None of us is as smart as all of us.

Please... if you have any interest on naval issues you can find most of the info readily on NavWeaps, it is not like it is any mystery or obscure data. The annoyed tone is due to someone clearly looking AT THE SAME DATA and deliberately misconstruing the info talking about earlier version of a gun which were never part of the issue as the flak 30 or that somehow, magically, the KM got showered with fully automatic 37mm guns when the Heer was being crushed on a two front war, the LW measuring new figther pilot lives in HOURS and even putting the MG151 and the 20 into service as a desperate measure to try to stop the thousands of Il-2s, Typhoons and P-47s thrown at them?

Context.

 

[buffnut453]

Please... if you have any interest on naval issues you can find most of the info readily on NavWeaps, it is not like it is any mystery or obscure data.

It may be very familiar to you but it may not be for others. Instead of snarky patronizing responses (to me), why couldn't you just post the web page and say "Take a look here"?

The annoyed tone is due to someone clearly looking AT THE SAME DATA and deliberately misconstruing the info talking about earlier version of a gun which were never part of the issue as the flak 30 or that somehow, magically, the KM got showered with fully automatic 37mm guns when the Heer was being crushed on a two front war, the LW measuring new figther pilot lives in HOURS and even putting the MG151 and the 20 into service as a desperate measure to try to stop the thousands of Il-2s, Typhoons and P-47s thrown at them?

Context.

Firstly, you're making an assumption that someone is deliberately misinterpreting information. You freely admitted that some of the info on NavWeaps is incorrect (the 40-round magazine, for example)...so, again, how are the less-expert among us supposed to know what is correct and what isn't when you won't provide sources (NavWeaps excepted, and Glider actually posted that source first)?

As to context, you've said "counting barrels is meaningless" and yet that's a vital aspect of operational deployment. It's blindingly obvious that a 30-rpm weapon is inferior to a 250-rpm weapon when comparing the 2 side-by side. However, the operational environment is more complex than that. For example, is a single 250-rpm weapon better than 8x30-rpm weapons? By the single metric of rate of fire (ROF), the answer is "yes" but against a squadron of attacking aircraft, I'd rather have 8 slower-firing weapons because they can engage multiple targets simultaneously.

This all comes back to your definition of "weak" which you seem to base purely on comparisons with other weapons. However, by clustering vessels in fjords, the Germans were able to provide mutual support and, even if the individual weapon ROF is poor, the combined effect against a squadron of attacking aircraft was probably not intrinsically weak. And that's before we consider any shore batteries that would contribute to the defensive AAA fire. The simple fact of putting rounds in the sky will have some deterrent effect on attackers.

 

[JAG88]

No one posts sources for EVERY statement they make, in fact, it is seldom done UNLESS is something out of the ordinary, not common knowledge, mentioning NavWeapons falls into that.

When something is patently obvious ceases to be an assumption, talking about an old gun and implying that the "new model", which was the wartime standard, fixed something relevant to the discussion is simply ridiculous and dishonest. Same thing with saying the 37mm C30 was "replaced", it never was, served all the way to the end of the war. Where is his source for that? Nowhere in NavWeaps... saying "NavWeaps" doesnt mean the thinks he makes up are true, in there or even relevant to the discussion. Did you check or were simply blinded by a link that you ultimately ignored?

Want sources? Go check Campbell and Friedman. There, happy? After all, you are not going to check that either, right?

8 vs 1? How about 8 vs 4? Or 20 vs 1? 20 Muskets vs 1 MG 42... How about that?

That is why I talked about context, Glider mentioned they had "formidable AA defenses" as if that ALONE meant something, that was HIS argument, and you come up with this?

The dumb fjord thing again... cargo ships are vehicles, they move stuff from A to B, that is where they are most vulnerable and actually being useful which is why they steam under armed escort. All ports in the war zone had defenses, what an absurd an irrelevant argument. Lets keep all cargo ships in port, there they shall be safe...

The defense is weak because the effects and results obtained for the effort and resources employed are underwhelming, deck space is limited which is why weapon quality is VERY important (go ask the IJN, Yamato went down with 150+ 25mm AA), use better weapons and you get a better return, a better defense for the investment. Replace them with water-cooled twin Bofors, you get a defense as strong as it could be at the time, not a weak one.

The Germans could have easily had a water-cooled version of the M42 developed pre-war, that alone would have done wonders for them.

 

[JAG88]

And just so we are clear...

From Friedman:

"An automatic gun to replace the single-shot SKC/30 (which, however, served out the war) was
ordered in 1939; it materialised as the 3.7cm Flak M42, a lengthened (69 calibres overall) version of
the army's Flak 36. It was fed by a six-round horizontal clip (ammunition strip), firing 160 to 180
rnds/min. Both the single Flak LM42 and twin Flak LM42 had conventional pointer-trainer control by
hand wheels. There was no associated director. Initially few were mounted, but in 1944 an AA
improvement programme was set up. Smaller units and submarines were to be given Flak M42;
battleships and cruisers were to have the follow-on Flak M43. It never went into production.

Battleships and cruisers were rearmed with single 40mm Bofors under the designation Flak 28.
The programme was Project Barbara. The first ships fitted were the heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper
and Prinz Eugen. The 'pocket battleships' were also rearmed. Other guns were planned for light
cruisers. During 1945 rearmament extended to many smaller ships. The small scale of anti-aircraft
upgrade, compared to other navies at the same time, is striking evidence of how little experience the
wartime German navy had of air attack. In addition to 4cm guns, the Germans added 20mm guns on a
substantial scale."

From Koop:

"In November 1944 it was decided to upgrade the ships' anti-aircraft battery in a gradual
programme, by, for example, filting two additional 3.7cm twins at the level of No 2 gun forward of
the bridge, two more twins replacing the singles amidships and three further twins replacing No 3
gun; 3.7cm-calibre guns would supplant the 2cm singles aboard destroyers fitted with a 15cm main
armament, and additional light AA mountings would be positioned on the bridge.

As the borders of the Reich became increasingly compressed, the programme could only be
partially completed. Only a few destroyers were re-armed fully in accordance with the plan, and the
additions are described below, though others acquired extra mountings during dockyard refits and
fitted them according to the 'Barbara' instructions."

 

[buffnut453]

No one posts sources for EVERY statement they make, in fact, it is seldom done UNLESS is something out of the ordinary, not common knowledge, mentioning NavWeapons falls into that.

I wasn't asking for a source for every statement but I did want to know what sources you were using. A great many people (on this forum and others) pass off their own opinion as fact. It would be nice to work out where opinion overcomes fact in your comments.

When something is patently obvious ceases to be an assumption, talking about an old gun and implying that the "new model", which was the wartime standard, fixed something relevant to the discussion is simply ridiculous and dishonest. Same thing with saying the 37mm C30 was "replaced", it never was, served all the way to the end of the war. Where is his source for that? Nowhere in NavWeaps... saying "NavWeaps" doesnt mean the thinks he makes up are true, in there or even relevant to the discussion. Did you check or were simply blinded by a link that you ultimately ignored?

Actually, I didn't ignore it. I went and checked it out. That's what I do when people provide reasonable leads to the sources they're using. Lo and behold, here's a quote from the page on the 3.7cm C30 (bold added by me for emphasis):

"As this was a manually-loaded, single-shot, semi-automatic weapon with a slow rate of fire, the KM started a development program to produce an automatic loader for it. While a prototype was successfully tested, the developmental contract was cancelled in late 1943 as the SK C/30 was becoming obsolete and was already being replaced on naval vessels by the 40mm Bofors and the 37mm KM42 and KM43 naval FLAK guns."

So I call BS on your commend that the C/30 was never replaced. It may have served throughout the war but we need details on how many were serving, where and when. Certainly in 1943 it was starting to be replaced. Some undoubtedly lingered on but how many? Do you have those statistics to hand? If not, quit berating people about being dishonest when they are simply stating facts from the same sources you are citing. You're making an assumption that all 3.7cm AAA guns were C/30s while others are perhaps assuming that many had been replaced by the later weapons.

Want sources? Go check Campbell and Friedman. There, happy? After all, you are not going to check that either, right?

Well, I just said that I checked the NavWeaps site. I presume Campbell and Friedman is a book? Perhaps a title to go with the authors might be useful?

8 vs 1? How about 8 vs 4? Or 20 vs 1? 20 Muskets vs 1 MG 42... How about that?

For pity's sake, I was simply using an example of how ROF isn't the only useful metric in operations. Again, can we have a grown up conversation here? I'm beginning to think that's impossible.

The dumb fjord thing again... cargo ships are vehicles, they move stuff from A to B, that is where they are most vulnerable and actually being useful which is why they steam under armed escort. All ports in the war zone had defenses, what an absurd an irrelevant argument. Lets keep all cargo ships in port, there they shall be safe...

They weren't only in ports. They were also using fjords as protected areas during daylight and moving during the night, leapfrogging down the coast. It is entirely relevant to the discussion because it demonstrates (a) the impact of Allied air attacks, and (b) German efforts to consolidate their AAA defences to protect the ships. But, presumably, you didn't watch the videos I posted because those points were made clear!

The defense is weak because the effects and results obtained for the effort and resources employed are underwhelming, deck space is limited which is why weapon quality is VERY important (go ask the IJN, Yamato went down with 150+ 25mm AA), use better weapons and you get a better return, a better defense for the investment. Replace them with water-cooled twin Bofors, you get a defense as strong as it could be at the time, not a weak one.

The Germans could have easily had a water-cooled version of the M42 developed pre-war, that alone would have done wonders for them.

Again, "better" does not mean that the existing capability is "weak". Anything can be improved upon.

As to the Bofors, again from NavWeaps "By July 1941 the Kriegsmarine had 247 guns in service and by March 1942 the Luftwaffe had 615 guns in service." Now I know that 247 is not a large number...but that's in the summer of 1941. How many had been delivered and were in operation in 1943 or 1944? Which ships and which shore installations had them? Again, it would be good to know these details because it may be that many of the vessels in Norway had them. If you have data to the contrary, again please share.

Clearly, the KM was getting Bofors first and as early as mid-1941 so it's reasonable to assume that a number were still in service in 1943-44...because, as noted in my previous NavWeaps post, "in late 1943 the SK C/30 was being replaced...by the 4cm Bofors."


So, once again, quit the snarky comments; it's getting really old. We all just want to learn so how about contributing to the discussion in a more positive tenor?

 

[JAG88]

I wasn't asking for a source for every statement but I did want to know what sources you were using. A great many people (on this forum and others) pass off their own opinion as fact. It would be nice to work out where opinion overcomes fact in your comments.




Actually, I didn't ignore it. I went and checked it out. That's what I do when people provide reasonable leads to the sources they're using. Lo and behold, here's a quote from the page on the 3.7cm C30 (bold added by me for emphasis):

"As this was a manually-loaded, single-shot, semi-automatic weapon with a slow rate of fire, the KM started a development program to produce an automatic loader for it. While a prototype was successfully tested, the developmental contract was cancelled in late 1943 as the SK C/30 was becoming obsolete and was already being replaced on naval vessels by the 40mm Bofors and the 37mm KM42 and KM43 naval FLAK guns."

So I call BS on your commend that the C/30 was never replaced. It may have served throughout the war but we need details on how many were serving, where and when. Certainly in 1943 it was starting to be replaced. Some undoubtedly lingered on but how many? Do you have those statistics to hand? If not, quit berating people about being dishonest when they are simply stating facts from the same sources you are citing. You're making an assumption that all 3.7cm AAA guns were C/30s while others are perhaps assuming that many had been replaced by the later weapons.

So, AGAIN:

From Friedman's Naval Anti Aircraft Guns and Gunnery:

"An automatic gun to replace the single-shot SKC/30 (which, however, served out the war) was
ordered in 1939; it materialised as the 3.7cm Flak M42, a lengthened (69 calibres overall) version of
the army's Flak 36. It was fed by a six-round horizontal clip (ammunition strip), firing 160 to 180
rnds/min. Both the single Flak LM42 and twin Flak LM42 had conventional pointer-trainer control by
hand wheels. There was no associated director. Initially few were mounted, but in 1944 an AA
improvement programme was set up. Smaller units and submarines were to be given Flak M42;
battleships and cruisers were to have the follow-on Flak M43. It never went into production.

Battleships and cruisers were rearmed with single 40mm Bofors under the designation Flak 28.
The programme was Project Barbara. The first ships fitted were the heavy cruisers Admiral Hipper
and Prinz Eugen. The 'pocket battleships' were also rearmed. Other guns were planned for light
cruisers. During 1945 rearmament extended to many smaller ships. The small scale of anti-aircraft
upgrade, compared to other navies at the same time, is striking evidence of how little experience the
wartime German navy had of air attack. In addition to 4cm guns, the Germans added 20mm guns on a
substantial scale."

From Koop's German Destroyers of WW2:

"In November 1944 it was decided to upgrade the ships' anti-aircraft battery in a gradual
programme, by, for example, filting two additional 3.7cm twins at the level of No 2 gun forward of
the bridge, two more twins replacing the singles amidships and three further twins replacing No 3
gun; 3.7cm-calibre guns would supplant the 2cm singles aboard destroyers fitted with a 15cm main
armament, and additional light AA mountings would be positioned on the bridge.

As the borders of the Reich became increasingly compressed, the programme could only be
partially completed. Only a few destroyers were re-armed fully in accordance with the plan, and the
additions are described below, though others acquired extra mountings during dockyard refits and
fitted them according to the 'Barbara' instructions."

For pity's sake, I was simply using an example of how ROF isn't the only useful metric in operations. Again, can we have a grown up conversation here? I'm beginning to think that's impossible because you just want to score points and show how much "smarter" you are than the rest of us (and, yes, the "" are deliberate).

A simplistic example, what did you expect? You and Gilder keep pointing at the number of guns as if that meant anything by itself and then complain when challenged.

They weren't only in ports. They were also using fjords as protected areas during daylight and moving during the night, leapfrogging down the coast. It is entirely relevant to the discussion because it demonstrates (a) the impact of Allied air attacks, and (b) German efforts to consolidate their AAA defences to protect the ships. But, presumably, you didn't watch the videos I posted because those points were made clear!

As Friedman put it, the KM had suffered little against AA attack so improvements were slow, after all, they were operating coastal convoys for a long time with little air support, right?

"Again, "better" does not mean that the existing capability is "weak". Anything can be improved upon.

As to the Bofors, again from NavWeaps "By July 1941 the Kriegsmarine had 247 guns in service and by March 1942 the Luftwaffe had 615 guns in service." Now I know that 247 is not a large number...but that's in the summer of 1941. How many had been delivered and were in operation in 1943 or 1944? Which ships and which shore installations had them? Again, it would be good to know these details because it may be that many of the vessels in Norway had them. If you have data to the contrary, again please share.

Clearly, the KM was getting Bofors first and as early as mid-1941 so it's reasonable to assume that a number were still in service in 1943-44...because, as noted in my previous NavWeaps post, "in late 1943 the SK C/30 was being replaced...by the 4cm Bofors."

You can see the LW had more guns, right? Who do you think kept getting the bulk of them after Barbarossa? If they had so much access, why werent all the KM ships so rearmed? They must have had PLENTY by 1943? And yet, they couldnt even do so with their DDs even in 1944...

I am pretty sure that was due to having far more urgent needs elsewhere...

 

[buffnut453]

You and Gilder keep pointing at the number of guns as if that meant anything by itself and then complain when challenged.

Sheer numbers do mean something, particularly in how the forces are laid down and operate. Conversely, you seem to focus solely on the technical parameters of the weapons. Both were important. My frustration is your unwillingness to accept that the tactical laydown of "poor quality" weapons can have a cumulatively positive effect on the defence of, say, a group of vessels.

You can see the LW had more guns, right? Who do you think kept getting the bulk of them after Barbarossa? If they had so much access, why werent all the KM ships so rearmed? They must have had PLENTY by 1943? And yet, they couldnt even do so with their DDs even in 1944...

I am pretty sure that was due to having far more urgent needs elsewhere...

Yes, the LW had more guns but that total is dated 8 months after the total provided for the KM so we can't really draw any conclusions about priorities from these 2 data points because we don't know how many guns the KM had at the end of February 1942.

The KM may not have been getting the guns but what about the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe forces in Norway? Little old Norway was one of the most heavily occupied countries in Europe, with over 400,000 German soldiers. In addition, there was a large quantity of coastal guns as part of the "Atlantic Wall". Such installations are almost always supported by AAA batteries. I keep mentioning the potential for supporting AAA from land-based batteries but you assiduously ignore that comment and continue to focus solely on the KM.

In line with my last though, it would be good to know what other AAA assets were available along the coast of Norway that could help provide defensive fire for the convoys. Certainly there were Wurzburg and Freya radars and what's the point of having those if there aren't any guns associated?

 

[Glider]

What I find interesting is that I am being pretty well slaughtered for following a source that most people agree normally has a high standard of accuracy yet it was JAG88 who posted the following:-
'No, there was no 20rd magazine for 20mm flak, ever.'
Something that seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

The German ships were very well armed and by the end of the war the defence was formidable. Z5 for example at the end of the war carried a light aa of 10 x 37mm and 13 x 20mm. Note all of the 37mm were of the M42 version.
I also firmly believe that the 3.7cm/57 was widely deployed in the German Navy, its shields are very distinctive and are often seen in photographs. German Destroyers of WW2 page 157 clearly shows two of these mountings in the bridge wing of a destroyer and the photo was taken in the Summer of 1944

PS - if you can find a source that doesn't consider the quad 20mm to be a serious danger then I would be interested.
PPS - I haven't complained about being challenged, but you seem to have thrown a right strop

 

[michael rauls]

Please... if you have any interest on naval issues you can find most of the info readily on NavWeaps, it is not like it is any mystery or obscure data. The annoyed tone is due to someone clearly looking AT THE SAME DATA and deliberately misconstruing the info talking about earlier version of a gun which were never part of the issue as the flak 30 or that somehow, magically, the KM got showered with fully automatic 37mm guns when the Heer was being crushed on a two front war, the LW measuring new figther pilot lives in HOURS and even putting the MG151 and the 20 into service as a desperate measure to try to stop the thousands of Il-2s, Typhoons and P-47s thrown at them?

Context.

For whatever it's worth, the guys you are talking to don't deliberately misconstrue information. Could they misinterpret something? Sure, anyone can but I've been reading there posts long enough to know they don't deliberately misconstrue anything.
Just a friendly suggestion that a more congenial manner might be appropriate.

 

[Shortround6]

With ships the quality of the guns is important, this is my opinion.

But based on.

There are only so many additional weapons you can add to a ship due to:

1. limited deck space.
2. top weight, stability concerns.
3. limited crew to man additional weapons.

That said just about all Navies did add additional AA guns and some navies took off surface guns and/or torpedo tubes to compensate. Some navies had more spacious crew quarters to begin with and could jam in more men easier. Some Navies accepted the reduction in sea worthiness (stability) as less of a risk than getting sunk by air attack. Some navies added ballast in the bottom of the ship. Stability may have been preserved but freeboard went down. There was often more to it than just how many guns could be delivered from the factory.

The early German 37mm AA gun was one of those triumphs of gunnery hubris over practical results (my opinion). The rate of fire was too low and the gun weight (and mount weight) was too high for the effect hoped for. It was a large, heavy, but high velocity gun but the extra velocity (less lead needed) didn't make up for the low rate of fire.

 

[JAG88]

What I find interesting is that I am being pretty well slaughtered for following a source that most people agree normally has a high standard of accuracy yet it was JAG88 who posted the following:-
'No, there was no 20rd magazine for 20mm flak, ever.'
Something that seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

The German ships were very well armed and by the end of the war the defence was formidable. Z5 for example at the end of the war carried a light aa of 10 x 37mm and 13 x 20mm. Note all of the 37mm were of the M42 version.
I also firmly believe that the 3.7cm/57 was widely deployed in the German Navy, its shields are very distinctive and are often seen in photographs. German Destroyers of WW2 page 157 clearly shows two of these mountings in the bridge wing of a destroyer and the photo was taken in the Summer of 1944

PS - if you can find a source that doesn't consider the quad 20mm to be a serious danger then I would be interested.
PPS - I haven't complained about being challenged, but you seem to have thrown a right strop

LOL! I already addressed the 20rd issue, feel free to read it again...

I already provided QUOTES of two different sources regarding the availability of new weapons for the KM, feel free to write to the authors to contest their statements...

You can believe whatever you want.

So, how did your inquiry on the DD "sinking", go?