Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Hello RCAFson
I have no opinion on Coral Sea and on Midway (not time to check comparable real results) but Lundstrom's The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaing says that at Santa Cruz USN AA shot down 25 japanese planes and USN a/c 29. IMHO at that time US AA was more effective than RN AA
Juha
The RN states 5.25 ROF of 10-12 and a first hand account from an RN gunner states 10 rounds/minute. Navweaps states 12 RPM for 4.5in. Maybe Navweaps data is out of date?
Your figures for attacks seem to match mine pretty closely and I edited my post to include the numbers of attacks, and the total for all 3 actions was about 145.
I think that you are being a little selective over your quotes from Navweapons. On the 5.25 it also states:-
1) Unfortunately, the design of the gunhouse was cramped and the heavy projectile and cartridge cases resulted in a lower rate of fire than expected. In addition, the slow elevating and training speeds of the mounts were found to be inadequate for engaging modern high-speed aircraft.
2)1) As designed, the expected rate of fire for these guns was 10 - 12 rpm. However, the heavy weight of the projectile and cartridge case plus the semi-automated fuze setting mechanism meant that this round required much crew handling before it could be rammed into the breach. The tight design of the gunhouse also interfered with the smooth crew operation necessary to achieve high rates of fire.
3)The mountings used on the King George V and Dido classes were very cramped and difficult to maintain. They were also difficult to train in the non-powered mode using the hand mechanisms. Their rather slow training speeds meant that they could not track fast-moving aircraft. These last two problems were highlighted during the Japanese attacks on HMS Prince of Wales. When she took up a 10-11 degree list as a result of damage received, it was found that some of the mounts could not be trained to engage the succeeding attacks
Remember my comments on the ability to switch targets being critical?
4)On training speeds the question that should be asked is 'If 10 deg/sec is sufficient why did the RN modify the 4.5in mounts to increase change rates from 10 to 20 deg/sec
5) Also I don't understand your comparison figures in the previous posting. Can you tell me how you calculated them.
Thanks
1) As I said previously, the RN and an RN 5.25iin gunner states that the 5.25in ROF is 10-12 rounds/minute/gun:
QF 5.25 inch Mark I naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Navweaps or the RN...guess who I believe more?
2)The 5.25 round weighed 80 lbs and used the same fuse setters as the 4.5 and 4" guns. The 4.5 twin (also a very cramped turret by the look of it) had a ROF of 12 r/m and the 4in 15-20 r/m. Who ever wrote the navweaps article is being illogical, as the crew handling is really no different than other RN DP weapons. The shell is placed in a fuze setter and then into the loading tray, exactly the same as the 4.7in and 4.5 twin turrets.
5) The USN had 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 3 heavy cruisers. 3 AA cruisers and 14 destroyers at Santa Cruz. I calculated the number of guns of each calibre for these ships and for an equal number of equivalent RN ships from the same time frame (Oct 1942).
I think shorthounds posting covers this point.1) As I said previously, the RN and an RN 5.25iin gunner states that the 5.25in ROF is 10-12 rounds/minute/gun:
QF 5.25 inch Mark I naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Navweaps or the RN...guess who I believe more?
Something I have never disagreed with. What I have said is that switching from one target to another is critical. A point you have not adressed10deg/sec training rate is sufficient to track WW2 era aircraft. This is a simple fact and easy to verify with a protractor and some paper. The 5.25 is a long range AA gun and at 5000 yards, a 270 knot target will have maximum rate of bearing change of 1.7 degs/sec.
Now I must ask who do I prefer to believe. An article written by an organisation that specialises in this topic, or yourself who has written the article off as being illogical without any evidence. Who would you prefer?2)The 5.25 round weighed 80 lbs and used the same fuse setters as the 4.5 and 4" guns. The 4.5 twin (also a very cramped turret by the look of it) had a ROF of 12 r/m and the 4in 15-20 r/m. Who ever wrote the navweaps article is being illogical, as the crew handling is really no different than other RN DP weapons. The shell is placed in a fuze setter and then into the loading tray, exactly the same as the 4.7in and 4.5 twin turrets.
Because ships get damaged and power can fail in combat.3) The ability of the 5.25 turret to operate without power and with a 10-11 degree list is not relevant. Would any turret operate under such conditions?
I didn't ask if higher is better, I asked WHY would they make the change. After all it would involve slowing production, taking design experts from other areas of development. You don;t do this in a war without a very good reason. The questions stands Why did the RN make the change.4) Sure higher is better, but for the vast majority of cases 10 degs/sec is sufficient. If it wasn't sufficient then I guess no Axis navy had any DP AA capability. Think about that for second. Also with VT ammo 20degs/sec might prove useful for very high speed, close range targets that didn't exist in 1940.
5) The USN had 1 battleship, 2 carriers, 3 heavy cruisers. 3 AA cruisers and 14 destroyers at Santa Cruz. I calculated the number of guns of each calibre for these ships and for an equal number of equivalent RN ships from the same time frame (Oct 1942).
Hello
checked from Lundstrom, at Midway one of Hiryu's 10 VTs was shot down before AA opened fire, 2 F4Fs were shot down inside the escort screen, one by a Zero and one was claimed by a Kate gunner but the US pilot thought that he was shot down by naval AA, and F4Fs got 11 Vals before they dived according to Lunstrom, my old source says 10.
Hello RCAFson
on 4.5" on NavWeaps.com, Mk III UP might well had higher ROF than that of Mk II BD because being with openbacked shield there should have had a bit more room for the crew to work.
On Force Z, IMHO 5.25" didn't do especially well, they didn't succeed broke the tight formations of IJNAF level bombers which got one hit on Repulse during the first attack and didn't hinder IJNAF torpedo bombers, which got 1-2 hits on PoW during their first attack, after which part of 5.25" were knocked out and PoW was practically out of fight, waiting for coup de grace. IIRC IJNAF lost only 3 planes during the attacks, 2 of which were allocated to pom-pom on the B-turret of Repulse during the last attack. Now AA of one BB + One BC + 3 DDs shoot down 3 planes and the planes got some 9-11 torpedo hits and 2 bomb hits on 2 RN capital ships.
Compare to on 9 March 1942 Tirpitz was attacked by the strike force of 12 torpedo-carrying Albacores under the command of Lieutenant-Commander W. J. Lucas from the aircraft carrier Victorious. The attack failed and 2 Albacores was shot down. Tirpitz was escorted by 4 DDs. Now Albacore was a different plane than Nell or Betty and numbers are different and Tirpitz had aircover by one of its Ar 196 float planes but after all one of Repulse's Walrus was also around Force Z but didn't try to interfere like the Arado crew did. Apples and oranges but still IMHO German naval AA did better than that of Force Z. Only conclusion one can draw on those 2 combats IMHO is that KM's AA wasn't hopeless.
On your comparison on AA, first of all, USN carrier defence was based on fighters, RN's originally on AA. So US carriers carried more fighters, RN carriers more AA and newest one had armoured flight decks. So it rather odd to give heavy weight to carriers AA and leave fighters off, unless one wants to give some advantage to RN and to the idea that carrier's best defence is its AA not its planes.
On heavy cruisers, standard USN treaty cruiser AA suit was at the beginning of the Pacific War 8 single 5"/25s, Pensacolas and Northamptons had had the number of their 5"s increased to 8 in late 30s. All New Orleans, Pensacolas and Portlands had 4 quad 1.1" plus up to 12 20mm already in Aug 42. Also Northamptons had some quad 1.1"s and some 20mm.
And after all even RN thought than twin Bofors was better than quad pom-pom, now obviously USN thought that twin Bofors was better than quad 1.1" but how to compare quad pom-pom to quad 1.1", especially when opinions differed widely on quad 1.1", but generally it wasn't liked.
And on heavy AA, here the quality of predictors was crucial, so counting the barrels is rather meaningless.
QF 4.5 inch Mk I ? V naval gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia# QF Mark III: same as Mark I, except for firing mechanism. Was fitted in twin mountings BD Mark II, BD Mark II** and BD Mark IV. HMS Illustrious fired about 3000 rounds of 4.5" ammunition, at an average of 12 rounds per gun per minute, during one prolonged action in January 1941.[3]
(3)Naval Weapons of WW2, Campbell, p17
Hi Juha,
Here's what i garnered from Lundstrom:
Ok. here's the AA breakdown:
Coral Sea
Over Shoho:
none
Over Shok and Zuik
1 x SBD
Failed Dusk attack near USN TF 5/7/42
1 x D3A
Over Lex and York
2 x B5N
1 x D3A
Over Neosho and Simms
1 x D3A
Midway
Over Kido Butai
1 x A6M (friendly fire)
possibly 1 x B-26
1 x SBD
Over Tanikaze
1 x SBD
Over Mikuma/Mogami
2 x SBD
Over Yorktown
2 x D3A
2 x B5N
Eastern Solomons
Over Ryujo
zip
Over Enterprise
1 x F4F (friendly fire)
4 x D3A
(no B5N's attacked)
Santa Cruz
Over Shok and Chukuma
possibly 1 x SBD (Lundstrom is unclear here)
Over USN TF's
14 x D3A
11 x B5N
These figures represent immediate losses directly attributed to AA. They do not include damaged planes that ditched or were written off. It should also be noted that AA may have contributed in the loss of some Japanese bombers scored by USN fighters.
As mentioned, prior to Santa Cruz, USN AA was really more effective vs. aircraft than the typical RN experience. The differential begins at Santa Cruz and can be directly attributable to the upgrading to large numbers of 20/40mm mounts. King Board AA upgrades helped but war experience showed way more and better AA was needed.
The Force Z experience must take into account the early crippling of PoW by a hit in the worst place imaginable which also took out the majority of her powered AA and imparied her speed and maneuverability. The biggest lesson the RN drew from the experience (besides the confirmation that aircraft were not the dominant weapon...capable of sinking even a modern capital ship...manned and at sea, ready for attack), was the need for redundant power and auxillery power backup.
Lets see, the HMS Euryalus manages to demonstrate 10rpm while firing with zero change in elevation,zero change in training and zero change in range when fresh out of harbor and in calm seas in view of shore.
What happened to the 12 rounds per minute?
What happens when the turret is moving in train, the guns are changing elevation, the fuse settings keep changing and the deck is rolling and pitching? rate of fire speeds up
the round did not weigh 80lbs, the projectile weighed 80lbs. + the 41lbs of charge and cartridge case.
the 4.5 weighed 55lbs plus 38.5lbs of charge and cartridge case. the early mountings used a fixed round that combined both weights together. By the way the early twin mounts in the big ships did not have ammunition hoists that came into the mounts. the ammunition hoists/conveyors were outside the mounts and crew men took the rounds from the hoists/conveyors and placed them in two scuttles on the rear of the mount. distance the rounds had to moved from the hoist to the scuttles changed as the mount rotated.
the 4" used only a fixed round that weighed 63.5lbs.
Except you made a few mistakes and/or fudged a few things.
you left out the South Dakotas 20 5in guns or only counted them as 8 guns?
Hornet CV 8the one at Santa Cruz had eight 5 in guns.
Enterprise had eight also.
total is 36 not 24.
Both US cruisers had had their 5"/25s (not really dual purpose but dedicated AA guns) doubled to 8 per ship after being built but pre war.
16 guns instead of 8.
so US total for heavy cruisers is 24, same as the British.
As for the 76 DP guns on the British destroyers, I think you are being more than a bit optimistic.
The twin 4.7 had the elevation problem of 40 degrees, why don't you get out your pencil and paper and protractor or better yet some trig tables.
of from the Wiki page on the 5.25" gun.
" Hodges, Tribal Class Destroyers, p32: Diagram of High Level Bomber Attack: A 240mph target, at 12 thousand feet altitude could expect to be under for fire about 75 seconds, from the time it enters the effective range of the HACS until it flies to within the minimum range of a 5.25 gun elevated to 70 degrees. A Tribal class destroyer would be able to engage the same target for about 37 seconds."
Please note that the minimum range for the 4.7 would be at a much longer distance than the 5.25". In fact (if I have done the math right) the 240mph target at 12,000ft would be safe from a 4.7in armed destroyer once it got within 4768yds of it.
The J class (and follow ups) had inferior AA fire control to the Tribals for the 4.7s.
As for the 4in gun that replace the bank of torpedo tubes, it wasn't connected to anything. It depended on the gun captain's squinty eye for range, speed , altitude and course. It also depended on his wetted finger held up for atmospheric conditions data (doesn't work to well on a moving destroyer). And depended on the aimer and trainers cartwheel sights for final aiming.
The 4.7s on the Os and Ps (those that had them) were hand worked and not power worked.
The were fitted with 4 single 20m as completed and were later changed (in most) to 2 singles and 2 twins for 6 barrels.
The Q and R classes did get the better "tribal" AA director set up but the guns were essentially unchanged from the H class if not earlier.
Of course if your really want to disagree with my assessment of the 4.7" guns as dual purpose you could always claim that the the 8" guns on the British cruisers were dual purpose because of their 70 degree elevation, of course they have that fixed loading angle down at 10 degrees that you complain about with the Japanese ships.
The Japanese also provided AA shells even for battleship guns but that doesn't really make them true AA guns or dual purpose does it?
The Auto Barrage Unit or ABU, was a specialized gunnery computer and radar ranging system that used Type 283 radar. It was developed to provide computer prediction and radar anti-aircraft fire control to main and secondary armament guns that did not have inherent anti-aircraft capability. The ABU was designed to allow the guns to be pre-loaded with time fused ammunition, and it then tracked incoming enemy aircraft, aimed the guns continuously to track the aircraft, and then fired the guns automatically when the predicted aircraft position reached the preset fuse range of the previously loaded shells.[32] The ABU was also used with guns that were nominally controlled by the HACS to provide a limited blind fire capability.[33]
Something I have never disagreed with. What I have said is that switching from one target to another is critical. A point you have not adressed
Now I must ask who do I prefer to believe. An article written by an organisation that specialises in this topic, or yourself who has written the article off as being illogical without any evidence. Who would you prefer?
Because ships get damaged and power can fail in combat.
I didn't ask if higher is better, I asked WHY would they make the change. After all it would involve slowing production, taking design experts from other areas of development. You don;t do this in a war without a very good reason. The questions stands Why did the RN make the change.
Of course the Japanese had DP guns no one is saying they didn't and the comment about close range targets didn't exist in 1940 I take to be a joke, you are kidding right?
Thanks for the AA totals but how did you conclude that RN AA was less effective? .
Post # 117. Nik I stronly question the tonnage numbers. It shows the US sank in surface battles 33900 tons. The Kirishima was around that tonnage figure and sunk at Guadalcanal. The Furutaka was at least 7500 tons and the IJN DDs at Guadalcanal had substantial losses. I am doing this from memory but that 33900 figure looks fishy to me. Pun intended.