Dive bomber accuracy in perspective. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Sorry, but when someone claims a weapon was REPLACED, something known to be false, or claiming a new version of the 20mm flak "fixed" something relevant, well, I call BS.

Just a detail, Z39 in Boston with 2 of those "replaced" guns next to what it seems to be a M42.

 
Last edited:

You certainly did provide quotes from two different sources and I provided clear photographic evidence contained in a book you have already mentioned and I assume you own, which shows that these vessels were armed with these weapons. Something you find it difficult if not impossible to acknowledge.
It is impossible for you to argue against a photo but I could certainly put up a good case for disagreeing with one of the quotes if I were in a debate with the author. To say the following:-

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.

Flies in the face of all the evidence. The huge loss of supplies in the med to air attack. The massive escorts needed to get even a couple of merchant ships from point a to point b, plus the constant attacks launched by no 2 Group on shipping and the formation of strike wings. Then the massive effort needed to produce flak ships, flak barges and other escorts to fend off air attack all say something different.
 

Lol! Because its irrelevant, let me repeat it for the 3rd time:

"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."

You may have whatever anecdotal evidence you may like, the facts remain unchanged and in no way the picture contradicts that...


No, it flies in the face of your wishful thinking which is why its upsets you...

No comments on the photo that proves the "replaced" weapons were still there? No?

Sad...

Lets put it up again, just for kicks.

 
Well I don't know if the equipment in question was replaced but assuming it was maybe it's possible they didn't know or maybe, god forbid you misread something or as is usually the case with these sorts of things the truth lies somewhere in between i.e. perhaps it was replaced in some instances and not others or something along those lines.
Different sources can often show different information.
Compairing information and sources is more enlightening than hitting each other over the head with them..............Ok I'll bow out now.
 
The German destroyer Z-39 in the photo above finished the war with a pretty decent light AA suite.
another photo of the same area.

USS Z-39 (DD-939)/ Ex-German Z-39) showing after 37mm Bofors-type A.A. gun platform, near the after stack. Note these 37mm guns are of two different types. Taken at Boston Navy Yard, August 11, 1945. Courtesy of Robert F. Sumrall. Source: Naval History and Heritage Command, Photo No. NH 75405.

The shrouded twin mount (and it's sister on the other side of the funnel) were the old manual loaded guns. the guns just forward were the newer automatic guns.
however there there were a further eight of the new guns mounted. Two twins just forward of the bridge behind A turret and two more twins (one on each side) just behind the aft bank of torpedo tubes. the 20mm AA battery appears to be one twin mount on each bridge wing and two quads back to back above X gun.
picture from the stern

The main guns were pretty much useless for AA fire. (my opinion) because they were 15cm guns with low rates of fire and for the single mounts low elevation. The twin mount had 47 degrees of elevation but it's elevation speed, traverse and rate of fire may have been lacking.

I would note that in order to mount this AA battery one 15CM gun has been removed from the after deck house where it pointed forward over the aft torpedo tubes.

I have no information on when the 15cm was pulled and the extra Flak guns installed.

Information on the Navy 37mm Flak/42 is a bit sketchy. it is said to be developed from the army 37mm Flak 36/37 but with a bit longer barrel and a higher rate of fire.
The old Army guns used 6 shot "clips" fed in the side, the Navy gun used a 5 shot (?) clip fed in the top. The fast firing Army 37mm Flak 43 used an 8 shot clip fed in the side.

I have no idea why the Army and Navy adopted different model guns using different feed systems and different ammo. The navy did use some of the Army 37mm Flak 43s on some ships.
There may be some dispute about the rate of fire of the 37mm Flak 42. Anthony Williams book says 160-180 rpm not 250rpm. 250rpm is correct for the Army Flak 43.
Since they used different ammo, used a different feed set up and had different length barrels it is a bit difficult to believe they had identical rates of fire. However 4-5 times the rate of fire over the manually loaded guns is still a very significant improvement. (I have a hard time believing the 30rpm for the manually loaded gun for any length of time or in bad weather)
 

Probably happened when in 1945 while repairing bomb damage. In any case, it is telling that one of the last DDs to be commissioned (Aug 43) still used the obsolete 37mm semi-auto in spite of all the additions, you use whatever you can get I guess. All that is missing is a Bofors to complete the collection of KM flak types... what a mess, would have certainly been better off with a M42 or Bofors-only AA suite.

The 37mm makes more sense on a PaK38 mount than on a ship...

Actually, the few photos I have seen of the M42 are with what appear to be 8 shot clips.







These ones show 8 as well, no round chambered yet maybe?

Would make sense if they are using the same ammo as the flak 43, not the same loading system but if 8 rounds have been decided to be manageable...

There is a nice mess around 37mm KM flak, sometimes even mixing it with 30mm guns, to me the "souped up flak 36" version makes plenty of sense, likely it would have been forced on the KM on logistical grounds, besides, if they wanted to use a 37mm round other than the LW's, well, they already had a very good one, true, it appeared to be an AT round more than a flak one but, still, it was theirs and already in production, no need to set up a new production line.

But its nazi Germany, so who knows, maybe they did introduce a completely new gun and shell just as everything crumbled around them, crazier shit happened. Maybe someday someone will find the definitive documents in some box with Russian markings on it.

What is the reference for that claim?
 
Last edited:
I believe the 37mm Flak 42 used a round all it's own.
see :ANTI

2nd photograph.

Judging ammo capacity/size of clips gets tricky as these top hopper feed guns can usually take two clips at a time. Some people claim the 40mm Bofors can take one clip, 2 loose rounds and then a 2nd clip but I would like to see that one

but

shows 7 rounds above the receiver/gun housing. I would guess that there is one more in the feed way or ready to go in the feed way that is out of sight.
I have no idea what is going on here or how it would work.

except to note again the bottom visible round does not appear to be in a position to go into the chamber.

Or try this video, about 1:10
 

I think you need to tone it down and knock it off with the snide insults, comments and arrogance. They will not be tolerated any minute longer.
 
Last edited:
The facts seem to be similar to most navies. Some shops received the full rebuild of which F5 was an example. Most received what was available such as Z39 which clearly had a significant number of the latest weapons but kept some of the old guns.
My understanding that the old weapons were replaced was wrong but to pretend that the new weapons were rare was equally incorrect. The photo in the destroyers I mentioned shows two modern twin 37 on each side of the bridge, and was dated summer 44. In fact almost any late war photo of a German Destroyer or larger will have such weapons as the shields are distinctive.
The Royal Navy were similar there was the official equipment but in reality it was a combination of availability and space to put them.
 
Shortround6 said:
I believe the 37mm Flak 42 used a round all it's own.
see :ANTI

2nd photograph.
Click to expand...

Thx! That is, simply, crazy. Did T. Williams get the shell's details?

There is very little difference between that one and the already in use Flak 36 ammo... what would be the point? Raeder...

Judging ammo capacity/size of clips gets tricky as these top hopper feed guns can usually take two clips at a time. Some people claim the 40mm Bofors can take one clip, 2 loose rounds and then a 2nd clip but I would like to see that one
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought of that, but since the Flak 43 used 8-clips made sense they would use something similar on the KM version but, if you are crazy enough to forbid GEMA from providing the latest radar to the LW, this is peanuts.
 
Shortround6 said:
I believe the 37mm Flak 42 used a round all it's own.
see :ANTI
Click to expand...

I just noticed that is the shell from the PaK 36... wtf! So it ends up being the other way around? What was the point of creating the 37x263mm for the Flak 18 if you already had a pretty similar 37mm shell?

Germans...
 
JAG88 said:
Yeah, I thought of that, but since the Flak 43 used 8-clips made sense they would use something similar on the KM version but, if you are crazy enough to forbid GEMA from providing the latest radar to the LW, this is peanuts.
Click to expand...

different clips?


Ammo and "clip" for the Flak 43

The Flak 42 might (?) use a clip more like the Bofors?

BTW, drawing of Bofors gun.

It looks like 2 rounds are hidden inside the gun housing depending on position of the breech block and feed mechanism.

I am beginning to suspect that a bunch of sources are full of baloney and the German Navy Flak 37 mm 42 was some sort of unlicensed bofors gun, and not developed from the Fak 36 at all. I could be totally wrong but the Flak 42 appears to use a Bofors type feed, it does not use short recoil like the early Army guns or gas like the M43.
 
Shortround6 said:
different clips?

Ammo and "clip" for the Flak 43

The Flak 42 might (?) use a clip more like the Bofors?.
Click to expand...

Oh sure, both clips are quite different, I was thinking along the lines of manageable weight for the ammo loaders, after all those have to be a compromise between weight and how fast the gun goes through the clip so the loaders dont tire too quickly.


I wouldnt be surprised and I am with you on the Bofors feed, but why a different shell then? Why not simply adapt it to either existing 37mm flak shell? Why use a 37mm round going OUT of production?

Maybe prevent their ammo supply/suppliers from being stolen by the Heer/LW!?!?! Now it makes "sense"...
 
LONG ago when writing my first book (Dauntless Dive Bomber, 1976) I found a 4th Marine Air Wing study of relative accuracy between SBDs and F4Us in CentPac low-threat environments. IIRC the difference between them was surprisingly little, somewhat favoring Dauntlesses as you'd expect. Apparently the specifics were edited out, more's the pity...
 
I would have expected a substantial difference in accuracy. Live and learn I guess............And great book by the way
 
I think the rocket accuracy needs to be looked at in perspective. Yes, against armoured vehicles in Normandy they normally didn't hit, but a panther is about 22ft long. An R boat, a not unusual escort for coastal convoys, was about 135ft long. A destroyer is what? 400-500ft long? The merchant vessels must have been a similar size. It was not unusual for 50% or better hit rates from rocket attacks.
 
Interestingly (and somewhat maddeningly), in May '45 the ORS found that Mosquito salvo accuracy vs. shipping could have gone up from 55% to 80% had the sight harmonisation been 14 mils lower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

XB-24J prototype bomber
Replies
18
Views
994
GrauGeist
T
B24 use in ETO
Replies
3
Views
173
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
R
SBD dive bombing procedures
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Retattack
R
Swedish Ju86K
Replies
7
Views
1K
The Stannum Liberator
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
673
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register