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 You're making an assumption that all 3.7cm AAA guns were C/30s while others are perhaps assuming that many had been replaced by the later weapons.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...
