Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
You clearly need to read more on this subject, you are lost.
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.I am sorry, were are getting this BS?
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.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.
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.No, there was no 20rd magazine for 20mm flak, ever.
Correct, but I wasn't saying that. I was saying that the stabilised mount was introduced for the quad 20mm in 1944The 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.
You clearly need to read more on this subject, you are lost.
You mean the one the crew let sink in port after being damaged the day before? That one?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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!
"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 and Gilder keep pointing at the number of guns as if that meant anything by itself and then complain when challenged.
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...
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.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.
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