Dive Bomber Comparison

[Glider]

There is no doubt that the RN were impressed with the 5in L38. HMS Delhi was fitted out with these in the USA durng a refit in 1941, and the RN tried to aquire 60 gun/director sets for installation in RN vessels. Unfortunately the US were working flat out to fit out their own fleet and none could be spared.

 

[RCAFson]

There is no doubt that the RN were impressed with the 5in L38. HMS Delhi was fitted out with these in the USA durng a refit in 1941, and the RN tried to aquire 60 gun/director sets for installation in RN vessels. Unfortunately the US were working flat out to fit out their own fleet and none could be spared.

They were very impressed that they got the equipment for free, but they might have had a different opinion if they actually had to pay for it.

HMS Carlisle, a converted AA cruiser armed with these guns, shot down 11 aircraft during the war, the highest score among British cruisers. The Auxiliary AA ship Alynbank, also armed with these guns, shot down six aircraft.

British 4"/45 (10.2 cm) QF HA Marks XVI, XVII, XVIII and XXI

How many planes did Delhi shoot down?

The other factor is that we have the USN making really inflated claims of AA kills with their 5in guns, and that must have swayed RN opinion.

 

[RCAFson]

Hello RCAFson
we all know, and have knew a while that you think that RN AA was best of the world in early part of the war, but show by some concrete figures when it did clearly better than USN AA.

Again the end of your message #218, do you read the chapter 9 of the action report of Enterprise, USN saw the dive-bombers when they were well in their dives, see my Indomitable case on 12 Aug. 42, RN AA succeeded to shoot down max one out of 12 Dive-bombers in similar circumstances. How that shows that RN automatic AA was better than that of USN?

Weather was rather cloudy during the Japanese attack, which made it difficult especially to heavy AA.

You quoted Yorktowns combat report but the Enterprise action report, even if critical to the performance of 5" guns gives entirely different recommendations.

On those screenings, as I wrote earlier, USN liked to have its DDs in circular formation 2000y out of the escorted ships, and by the way, according to p. 282 in RN official history, when air attack threatened PQ-18, 8 of the screening DDs moved nearer to the merchantmen, nearer than 1000 y from nearest merchantman, others keep their position 3500-5000y out from the nearest merchantman, so much your 6000 minimum distance for RN DDs.

And your last message clearly shows, that you really see what you want. Maybe some basic study on LW loss reporting might help. notice that the %? was in dam column not in loss column.

And maybe you should find out a bit more on staff studies and why they were classified.

We have a USN gunnery officer on Yorktown recommending replacement of 5" guns with 40mm, this should tell you something...and we have Enterprise saying that 5" are only effective at long range.

The USN did not think the 1.1" was superior to a pom-pom and for you to argue that USN had better AA in Oct 1942, you would need to prove that the 1.1" was better than a pom-pom, and it simply wasn't.

Anti-Aircraft Protection.

1. The fire control radar in ENTERPRISE was ineffective. It is not known whether or not other vessels in the Task Force obtained acceptable results from their corresponding equipment, but the fact remains that no 5-inch fire from any vessel in the Task Force was commenced while the enemy aircraft were at the high altitudes at which these guns were the only ones having the necessary range. The 5-inch fire was commenced only after that of ENTERPRISE small caliber weapons, and after the first attacking planes were in their dives.

Action Report: 24 August 1942
This was at eastern Solomons and again the 5" was useless.


The distance of the destroyer screen is based upon whether or not the ships being screened have 40mm AA with SD ammo, if they don't then a closer range is possible, albeit with greater likelihood of damage from FF.

Imagine a TB flying low between two ships armed with bofors or pom-poms, if each engaged the TB, they could easily hit each other with dozens of 40mm shells, and that could do severe damage to an unarmoured ship, like a a destroyer.

 

[Juha]

Hello RCAFson
I'm getting a bit bored, if you can give a concrete examples of RN superior achievements, please give them. I already know what you think, so repeating it is not very producive. And of concrete achievements I mean real ones, not wartime claims.

If you have had read more on the Pacific war, you might know that Buckmaster wasn't Yorktown's gunnery office.

And what the captain of Enterprice said was that 5" fire was most effective when directed against dive-bombers before they reached their push over point and for that one needed HA guns-

Quote:"Imagine a TB flying low between two ships armed with bofors or pom-poms, if each engaged the TB, they could easily hit each other with dozens of 40mm shells, and that could do severe damage to an unarmoured ship, like a a destroyer. "

If the outer screen was 6000y out the VT must flew between screening ships in order to reach the launching point for attack on the escorted vessels. And anyway, screen should have been really far out if one wanted it to be out of range of the heavy AA of excorted vessels. 4"-5" shell would have hurt even more, and there were friently fire cases during air attacks.

Juha

 

[Glider]

They were very impressed that they got the equipment for free, but they might have had a different opinion if they actually had to pay for it.

They did pay for it and guess what, they would have had to pay for the other 60.

British 4"/45 (10.2 cm) QF HA Marks XVI, XVII, XVIII and XXI

How many planes did Delhi shoot down?

No idea but I have always been of the opinion that the RN twin 4in was a very capable gun, something that you have just confirmed

The other factor is that we have the USN making really inflated claims of AA kills with their 5in guns, and that must have swayed RN opinion.

You can of course support that statement.

 

[RCAFson]

They did pay for it and guess what, they would have had to pay for the other 60.


No idea but I have always been of the opinion that the RN twin 4in was a very capable gun, something that you have just confirmed


You can of course support that statement.

Lend Lease was in effect at that time, so the gear was effectively free.

 

[Juha]

Hello RCAFson
from the Eastern Salomon report you gave a link.

on those "useless 5" "

"The 5-inch bursts from this ship appeared to be under the bursts of other ships firing and generally well in line and ahead of the planes. Several planes were noticed attempting to pull away from bursts and others were seen to emerge from bursts on fire, while three planes were reported to have disintegrated as though directly hit. (The use of influence fuzes on 5-inch projectiles would make them devastating against a dive bombing attack). "

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

Hello RCAFson
I'm getting a bit bored, if you can give a concrete examples of RN superior achievements, please give them. I already know what you think, so repeating it is not very producive. And of concrete achievements I mean real ones, not wartime claims.

If you have had read more on the Pacific war, you might know that Buckmaster wasn't Yorktown's gunnery office.

And what the captain of Enterprice said was that 5" fire was most effective when directed against dive-bombers before they reached their push over point and for that one needed HA guns-

Quote:"Imagine a TB flying low between two ships armed with bofors or pom-poms, if each engaged the TB, they could easily hit each other with dozens of 40mm shells, and that could do severe damage to an unarmoured ship, like a a destroyer. "

If the outer screen was 6000y out the VT must flew between screening ships in order to reach the launching point for attack on the escorted vessels. And anyway, screen should have been really far out if one wanted it to be out of range of the heavy AA of excorted vessels. 4"-5" shell would have hurt even more, and there were friently fire cases during air attacks.

Juha

I provided solid data showing 35+ AA kills for PQ-18

The problem is that you think, that somehow, mysteriously, that the USN could achieve better results with inferior equipment...and that just doesn't make sense. You would have to prove that the 5" guns made a major contribution to the defence, and we know that they didn't. In fact here the South Dakota's Captain's opinion:

South Dakota fired 890 rounds of 5 inch, 4000 rounds of 40mm, 3000 rounds of 1.1 inch and 52000 rounds of 20mm ammunition during the action. Captain Gatch made the following assessment of the relative effectiveness of each weapon type in bringing down enemy aircraft during the action: 5 inch; 5%, 40mm and 1.1 inch; 30% and 20mm; 65%.[3]
(3) United States Navy, AntiAircraft Action Summary, July 1942 to Dec 1942 (Information Bulletin No. 22), p111

USS South Dakota (BB-57) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't need 85 degree elevation (on the screening destroyers) to engage the DBs before they dive. although in some cases higher than 40 degs would be better, but this wasn't always the case. In any event it doesn't matter because DP guns just weren't very effective.

 

[RCAFson]

Hello RCAFson
from the Eastern Salomon report you gave a link.

on those "useless 5" "

"The 5-inch bursts from this ship appeared to be under the bursts of other ships firing and generally well in line and ahead of the planes. Several planes were noticed attempting to pull away from bursts and others were seen to emerge from bursts on fire, while three planes were reported to have disintegrated as though directly hit. (The use of influence fuzes on 5-inch projectiles would make them devastating against a dive bombing attack). "

Juha

Please, it was notoriously difficult to determine AA kills at long range, and if it wasn't the USN would not have been making such inflated claims:

Assigning credit to ships for shooting down enemy aircraft proved difficult. Enterprise claimed 15, North Carolina 7, Portland 1, Atlanta none (this despite the excellent 5-inch barrage she maintained over the carrier), Balch 2, Benham none, Monssen 1, Ellet none, and Grayson 1. Undoubtedly overlapping existed in these claims, because all ships, except the North Carolina, which became separated, made it clear that more often than not planes at which they fired also were under fire of other ships of the formation. On the other hand, no "probables" or "possibles" were included in these claims.

HyperWar: The Battle of the Eastern Solomons [ONI Combat Narrative]

I count 27 kill claims. Note that Atlanta claimed none, despite her massive 5" battery.

Of course VT ammo would have made a huge difference.

 

[Juha]

First of all, I had already given the figure 28-31 for LW PQ-18 losses

And what you gave, I bothered only check the recon plane, because I know LW loss figures, and as I guessed, you simply didn't understand the table. And even from your list, you have 30-31 plus some possibles, that doesn't necessary mean 35+ for anyone looking it objectively, especially if you have counted those bombers marked as ?% as lost.

Quote:" Please, it was notoriously difficult to determine AA kills at long range…"

dear, dear, the dive-bombers were in their dives, so not so long-range targets. And if you think that I don't know that many, probably most wartime claims were inflated, I can assure you that I have been aware on that since mid 60s

And of inferiority of US equipment is only your opinion, sorry. The USN AA achievements which Nikademus and I have given were not claims but real results checked against known Japanese losses.

And again I'm little boring on your cherry-picking and strawman tactics

 

[RCAFson]

Hello RCAFson
...see my Indomitable case on 12 Aug. 42, RN AA succeeded to shoot down max one out of 12 Dive-bombers in similar circumstances. How that shows that RN automatic AA was better than that of USN?

Yes, and as you explained the entire convoy was under attack and the aircraft were not spotted until they started their dives, so no AA support from other ships, whereas the USN carriers were the central focus of each attack and had about a dozen ships ready and waiting to open fire in support.

49. The first attack commenced at 1835 and
comprised at least 13 torpedo bombers; simultaneously
an unknown number of high level
aircraft attacked. An emergency turn was made
to avoid the mines and torpedoes which had
been dropped outside the starboard screen.
Very soon after this 40 torpedo bombers were
reported ahead, followed immediately by a
Stuka attack on INDOMITABLE who became
obscured by splashes and smoke.
The net result of these series of severe
attacks was FORESIGHT torpedoed aft,
INDOMITABLE 3 hits by large bombs and
several near misses, causing two large fires and
putting the flight deck out of action. There
were many near misses elsewhere in the force
but no other ships suffered damage. .
The casualties to enemy aircraft are uncertain
but INDOMITABLE's fighters shot down 9
certain, 2 probable and I damaged, for the loss
of 2 fighters, i pilot being saved. One JU.87
was probably shot down by ships' gunfire.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/LondonGazette/38377.pdf

Note the lack of AA overclaiming.

The fact that the convoy was also a vital target, greatly diluted the focus of RN AA. In fact Malta may have been lost if the Stukas had sunk the Ohio instead of attacking an armoured carrier!

 

[RCAFson]

First of all, I had already given the figure 28-31 for LW PQ-18 losses

And what you gave, I bothered only check the recon plane, because I know LW loss figures, and as I guessed, you simply didn't understand the table. And even from your list, you have 30-31 plus some possibles, that doesn't necessary mean 35+ for anyone looking it objectively, especially if you have counted those bombers marked as ?% as lost.

Quote:" Please, it was notoriously difficult to determine AA kills at long range…"

dear, dear, the dive-bombers were in their dives, so not so long-range targets. And if you think that I don't know that many, probably most wartime claims were inflated, I can assure you that I have been aware on that since mid 60s

And of inferiority of US equipment is only your opinion, sorry. The USN AA achievements which Nikademus and I have given were not claims but real results checked against known Japanese losses.

And again I'm little boring on your cherry-picking and strawman tactics

OK, so the RN claimed 40 and got say 32, while the USN is claiming 27 over Eastern Solomons and getting 4 or 5 with a FF kill, and BTW there was a number of FF kills over PQ-18 as well.

Are you claiming that the quad 1.1" was better than the pom-pom? Because that is what you would have to prove! Even the captain of the South Dakota didn't think the 5" was very effective.

 

[Juha]

Hello RCAFson
Quote:" and as you explained the entire convoy was under attack and the aircraft were not spotted until they started their dives, so no AA support from other ships, whereas the USN carriers were the central focus of each attack and had about a dozen ships ready and waiting to open fire in support."

As were in Enterprise cases according to the action reports and are you claiming that the HMS Kenya and HMS Charybdis joint claim was bogus one and RN AA got none of the Stukas or what? If you don't know Charybdis was a Dido Class AA cruiser, as was Phoebe, which sailed behind Indomitable but was distracted by Italian torpedo planes, which it probably thought being a thread to Indo. After all it was a standard tactic to co-ordinate dive-bomber and torpedo-bomber attacks just to confuse AA.


If you reread your own message #228, you see that at least captain Gatch seemed to have high regard on 20mm and maybe even on 1.1", at least 40mm and 1.1" together, and US ships tended to have more 20mm at that time than RN ships. So USN had more Bofors and 20mm, in that they were better, and would haven't been surprised if 2 single .5" Brownings were more effective AA weaponry than a RN quad .5". I have no firm opinion on quad 1.1" because its bad reputation might be partly caused by the fact that it was replaced by excellent Bofors and USN Bofors mounts were clearly more reliable than RN Hazemayers, of course also less sophisticated.

What was effective depended on who made the valuation, read the action reports you gave links to.

Juha

 

[RCAFson]

Hello RCAFson
Quote:" and as you explained the entire convoy was under attack and the aircraft were not spotted until they started their dives, so no AA support from other ships, whereas the USN carriers were the central focus of each attack and had about a dozen ships ready and waiting to open fire in support."

As were in Enterprise cases according to the action reports and are you claiming that the HMS Kenya and HMS Charybdis joint claim was bogus one and RN AA got none of the Stukas or what? If you don't know Charybdis was a Dido Class AA cruiser, as was Phoebe, which sailed behind Indomitable but was distracted by Italian torpedo planes, which it probably thought being a thread to Indo. After all it was a standard tactic to co-ordinate dive-bomber and torpedo-bomber attacks just to confuse AA.


If you reread your own message #228, you see that at least captain Gatch seemed to have high regard on 20mm and maybe even on 1.1", at least 40mm and 1.1" together, and US ships tended to have more 20mm at that time than RN ships. So USN had more Bofors and 20mm, in that they were better, and would haven't been surprised if 2 single .5" Brownings were more effective AA weaponry than a RN quad ,5". I have no firm opinion on quad 1.1" because its bad reputation might be partly caused by the fact that it was replaced by excellent Bofors and USN Bofors mounts were clearly more reliable than RN Hazemayers, of course also less sophisticated.

What was effective depended who made the valuation, read the action reports you gave links to.

Juha

I don't know where you get claims for Kenya and Charybdis from, perhaps you can state your source?

It is a fact that over eastern Solomons there were no TB attacks while over Santa Cruz there was coordinated attacks but of course the carrier was the central focus of these attacks, whereas in Pedestal each merchant ship had the same strategic value of a carrier and had equal claim to AA protection.

So now you are claiming that 20mm guns are better than pom-poms?

This is very simple:

5in guns are infective, and the data proved this.
1.1in guns were ineffective prior to Santa Cruz and the data proves this, so it is unlikely that they were suddenly effective at Santa Cruz, and the USN discarded them ASAP.
20mm are somewhat effective in sufficient numbers and the data proves this.
40mm guns are new to Santa Cruz and prove to be very effective and Santa Cruz is the best showing for USN AA.

Against TBs pom-poms are 1/2 as effective as bofors but little different against DBs according to Campbell. The RN has 8 X more 40mm pom-pom than the USN has bofors in the same time frame as Santa Cruz, therefore you are arguing that the 1.1" and 20mm must be superior to pom-pom! This is nonsense and the neither the USN or RN believed that.

 

[Juha]

Quote:" I don't know where you get claims for Kenya and Charybdis from, perhaps you can state your source?"

Already given, but again, Shores' Malta: The Spitfire Year.

Quote:" in Pedestal each merchant ship had the same strategic value of a carrier and had equal claim to AA protection.,"

Even if in 39 RN didn't value fighters very highly, in 42 it understood that they were critical for air defence, so your guess is wrong, so long as carriers were inside the general screen, they had one modern AA cruiser and one DD as their personal bodyguards, if they manoeuvred outside the general screen 2 nearest DDs joined them as extras. And the normal position of the carriers was just behind Nelsons and Kenya, so they were given best AA support available.

Quote:" 5in guns are infective, and the data proved this."

Oh, what data, different captains had different opinions and I have not seen reliable info what AA shot down what. If you took Gatch opinion as a base, he seems to value also 1.1" rather highly but IMHO I would be rather careful with his opinion, which was probably partly clouded with inflated claims made by SD. On USN AA at Eastern Salomons, how effective it was depended somewhat on the source one is looking.

On 1,1" and 20mm, modern US cruisers had 4 quad 1.1" and up to 12 20mm already in Aug 42. IIRC in early 42 RN modern cruisers had as automatic AA usually 2 quad (some had 2 octuple) 2pdr mounts and had probably got some 20mm in lieu of quad .5"s. Difference wasn,t very dramatic and 4 mounts is better than 2 if there were multiple targets. US began Bofors installations during summer 42. And one must remember that in June 42 Yorktown and her escorts did nearly as well as Enterprise and her escort in Oct 42 against appr. 8 Vals. One cannot shoot down 25 out of 16-17, so there was no chance to got as many AA kills at Midway as at Santa Cruz in no circumstances.

 

[Glider]

Lend Lease was in effect at that time, so the gear was effectively free.

Lend lease wasn't free it was more a long term credit without payment up front.

Still waiting for you to support your statement.

 

[Shortround6]

Everyone keeps saying how the 5"/38 is such a great gun, but where are the kills to prove it? The experience of the USN was that DP weapons could not protect the fleet, and that the real threat to aircraft was automatic AA,


B. Gunnery

1. The following listed alterations should be installed.

(a) A workable hand-powered ammunition supply for 5"38 caliber guns.
(b) A hand-operated cooling system, as an auxiliary, for the water-cooled automatic guns.
(c) Automatic fuse setters for 5"38 caliber guns not already so equipped.
(d) Automatic parallax control for 5"38 caliber fire control installations not already so equipped.
(e) Replacement of 5"38 caliber guns, 1.1" guns and 50 caliber machine guns, by a large number of 40mm automatic guns. While smaller caliber automatic guns have proven effective at short ranges, their range is too short to offer effective opposition to attacking planes prior to delivery of their attack. 5"38 caliber guns are very effective at long ranges and should be retained in ships which are used as anti-aircraft screening vessels.

The USN would have been better off by staying with LA 5" guns and devoting the weight saved to more AAA and the gunnery report from Yorktown at Midway states exactly that:

Why don't you get it straight?

The aircraft carrier guns were the MK 21 pedestal mounted model WITHOUT integral ammunition hoists.
Rate of fire 12=15rpm (in good conditions) why they didn't have automatic fuse setters I don't know but this mount/fuse setter arrangement is quite different than was used on destroyers after hull number 380. The mark 25 and 30 ring mounts with the hoists also had automatic fuse setters in the hoists.The Cruiser Wichita managed to have 4 of each, I wonder what that ships gunnery officer would have to say about the 5"/38?

We all know the British twin 4" was a good gun mount. Want us to look up action reports from those cruisers were the gun mounts were up to 120 feet from the ammunition hoists to see what happened to the rate of fire once the ready locker ammunition ran out?

Seems like you are picking and choosing your data?

 

[Nikademus]

Hello Nikademus
on bombers, I counted also 3 Ju 88A-4s from KG 30, one written off after undercarriage failure during landing, maybe mechanical failure or after effect of battle damage, one missing at Spitsberger and one missing at a square, exact place of which I have not bothered to check. On KG 26 losses there are also few cases in which I have given the benefit of doubt to RN.
I can find only 3 Bf 109 losses between 13 and 18 Sept, none had anything to do with PQ-18 and one on 19 Sept, shot down in air combat over Murmansk, so most probably by Soviets.

Juha

Hi J,

I made an error regarding this. Total 2E bombers lost per Bergstrom were 19 bombers (KG-26) and 2 bombers from KG-30 along with the 5 x HE-115's. (total 26 planes). 2 of the 115 losses and 5 HE-111/Ju-88's were claimed by Sea Hurricanes while losing 3 SH to friendly AA. The 109 claims were Soviet and involved related operations during PQ-18. Only one verified [Scharf of 6.JG-5] Apologies for the confusion....should have made it clearer that the fighter claims losses were not directly over PQ-18

Germans made their most effective attack on Sept 13. The Ju-88's made an unsuccessful dive bombing attack followed by 24 x HE-111's with torpedoes and more Ju-88's of KG-26. The original plan was to attack the CVE Avenger, but they were unable to locate her so the 40 merchants of the convoy were attacked instead. In 8 minutes 7 x merchants were sunk.

The Sept 14 attack this time found the Avenger but were disrupted by a combination of AA and CAP (This is where the Sea Hurricanes made the 5 claims and lost 3 of their own number to their own flak) 14 of the Luftwaffe bomber losses occured on this date. Another attack by KG-30 Ju-88's sank another AK.

Thick cloud cover paused combat till Sept 18 which led to two more AK's being sunk (total 10 x AK)
Luftwaffe losses this day 4 bombers of KG-26/30 and the 2 claimed HE-115's by SH's.

Effective defense during the 14th and 18th largely thwarted Luftwaffe efforts, making them unable to repeat the success of the smothering attack of 13th.

 

[Nikademus]

For continued giggles, here's what i had recorded for AA out of the Pedestal operation (including pre-attack period) via Shores;

8/9

1 x Sunderland

8/11

1 x Ju-88

8/12

2 of 7 lost Ju-88's claimed by AA
1 x Sea Hurricane

Evening attack
1 x Ju-88

Convoy scattered by attacks but only has lost 3 merchants. Night attacks will cause further loss and dispersion. (4)

8/13 attacks on convoy elements

1 x Ju-87 (ita)
2 x Spitfire
3 x S.79

Total estimated AA kill (including friendlies) = 12


AA fire was particularily effective on 8/11 during the morning and afternoon, thwarting the torpedo attack by KG-26 from being pressed home. Coupled with Fighter defense, expertly directed via radar assisted FDO Shores noted that no AK's were lost in the face of large string of attacks by both RA and Luftwaffe to be a good achievement. Unfortunately, the dusk attack by 42 planes (30 x Ju-88, 7 x He-111 escorted by 6 x Bf-110) scored sinking 3 AK's and damaging a Destroyer and two more AK's. This effective attack also had the unfortunate effect of scattering the convoy elements over many miles, setting up the favorable conditions for the night surface MTB and sub attacks that evening.

 

[RCAFson]

The USN claimed over 200 kills for 1942, including 60 by 5in:

HyperWar: Antiaircraft Action Summary--World War II

for 250 rounds expended per kill, which is better than they could achieve later in the war with VT ammo!!!

Yet as we've seen, USN action reports and Captain's observations, dramatically call this into question.

For example:

Admiral Smith also expressed satisfaction with the personnel performance of the Astoria, as well as that of the two other ships of his command, the Portland and Chester. The Admiral, however, was disappointed with the antiaircraft gunfire. The performance of the 5-inch batteries, he said, was "uniformly poor," with "much wild shooting." The 1.1's and 20-mm. guns, "although extremely wild, were more effective."

USN Combat Narrative: The Battle of the Coral Sea (p31)

The performance of the 5" A.A. batteries was uniformly poor. There was much wild shooting with no indication of control other than local. Bursts were in most cases short and ineffective. Other than noise effect on morale it may be assumed that this battery was useless for close range melee.The automatic weapons, 1.1 and 20 m.m. although extremely wild were more effective. At least 85% of the fire observed from these weapons was low and trailing. Failure to lead sufficiently and following the tangent of the tracer trajectory were all too apparent. The only solution is believed to be more practice firing from all angles at high speed towed sleeves. Pointers for 20 m.m. guns should be able-bodied, intelligent, marines, trained in "Duck Shooting."

HyperWar: Battle of Coral Sea--Task Unit 17.2.2 Action Report

The total AA kills for Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz equals about 40, yet the USN claimed 93 at ES and SC alone:

Admiral Kinkaid estimated that 170 to 180 enemy planes took part in the attacks on the Hornet and the Enterprise, and that approximately 133 came within striking range of the 2 carriers. He concluded that the Hornet had been assaulted by 49 planes, antiaircraft knocking out 23, and the Enterprise by 84, of which 33 were destroyed by antiaircraft fire. The Enterprise thus was attacked by almost twice as many planes as the Hornet and, together with her supporting ships, shot down 10 more. Her damage was much less severe, because, unlike the Hornet, she did not have the ill-fortune to receive torpedo hits in her vital engineering spaces at the very outset of the battle.

The total of 246 for the year, means that really huge claims were made elsewhere and yet the only possibility for any large numbers were during a couple large IJNAF raids on Guadalcanal shipping, yet it seems unlikely that naval AA could have bagged more than 25 or so, there. That brings us to something like 65-75 actual kills for the year, and probably only 5 - 10% could have been 5in kills, based upon various expert witnesses, so the USN probably overclaimed 5in kills by a factor 8 or 12 to 1! No wonder the 5in has a reputation as some kind of wundergun...unfortunately it was completely bogus, at least in 1942.