Heavy AAA: was it worth it

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

British batteries could have done little else with the fire control equipment available at the beginning of WW2

It is true though, civilian morale can be improved by providing air defence, even if it is totally ineffective. The fighter patrols mounted against the Zeppelins in WWI, and the provision of early AAA defences around London are cases in point.
 
British accuracy improved dramatically during the war. Under the inspired leadership of General Pile, the average ammunition expenditure per shoot down was under 3000 rounds per kill by wars endOnly the USN against the Kamikazes exceeeded this, at around 1500 rounds per kill, with some sources claiming as few as 500 rounds per kill
 
parsifal said:
...Only the USN against the Kamikazes exceeded this, at around 1500 rounds per kill, with some sources claiming as few as 500rounds per kill
Click to expand...
Could it be argued
that the USN's lower rounds per kill ratio was facilitated by the fact that their artillery was configured and concentrated for point defence ie a ship? My point is that enemy planes can fly around your ship(s) all day but sooner or later, if they want to strike you, they've got to fly down the throat of your flak batteries.
I'm not suggesting that planes overflying land-based targets had it easy but they had to sweep across the target in much greater numbers (enhancing their statistical chances of survivial) and usually at a greater altitude to lay a carpet down rather than fly down a cone to near-point blank range of the defensive flak.
 


It certainly did, I was thinking more about the equipment in use in the first few years of the war, which on land was little advanced from the 1917 bombing raids on London. The Royal Navy also laboured under the handicap of the truly poor HACS system for a large part of the war, which did little to enhance the odds of RN vessels surviving air attack.
 
The flak from the thousands of guns surrounding the synthetic oil plants and storages in Germany in 1945 was so heavy it would literally block out the sun.
 


short answer is yes, also the generally low level attack enabled Light flak to take effect, which at close range was quite effective (esp the 40mm batteries)
 
You know, it's a shame they didn't dust off the Gatling Gun + external power until vietnam. The technology was old enough, it was never a new idea


With (possibly twin) .50 BMG miniguns developing 3000 shots per minute each (and overheating less than a macine gun) wouldn't Kamikaze attacks be nearly impossible?
 
I think so. Modern equivalents of gatling guns are the "Vulcan Gun" CIW which are intended to defeat the cruise missile, essentially the pilotless successor to the Kamikaze.

I forget the accuracy stats of these babies, but they are pretty good.

From memory the Brits use a missile for the same purpose....IIRC its Seawolf???
 
The British CIWS of choice is the 30mm 'Goalkeeper' system, Dutch designed IIRC. Sea Wolf and Sea Dart both offer anti-missile capability, and in theory Sea Wolf can engage six targets simultaneously from a single six-box launcher, although the only time it was called upon to do this in combat (during the Falklands), it failed. I am surprised that the Navy hasn't tried to adopt the Rapier missile system used by the Army, it was one of the most deadly short-rage SAMs in existence I believe.
 
IIRC the Broadswords mount(ed) 2 radars derived from ground Blindfire radars that were used to guide Rapier missiles. So, it's unlikely that 6 targets could be engaged in he same time.
As for Rapier used for anti-missile job, it would've been a more cost-effective tool (being COTS), yet the warhead lacks proximity fuse to be really effective against small targets.
However, I doubt that Rapier was that deadly (5 destroyed Argentinian planes according to Wiki), while one frigate managed to bring down 2 Skyhawks during an attack with Sea Wolf (same source).
 
The Seawolf has been since the late 70's the most accurate Anti aircraft missile (and still may be). A number of times it has proven this by shooting down a cannon shelll in mid flight.
 
No doubt about it's accuracy mate, I think the flaw in the system is in it's engagement of multiple targets... or inability to do so.

Tomo, I'm 99.99% positive Sea Wolf can engage more than two targets at a time, I will try to get a ref for you.
 
Glider said:
The Seawolf has been since the late 70's the most accurate Anti aircraft missile (and still may be). A number of times it has proven this by shooting down a cannon shelll in mid flight.
Click to expand...

It got bad press during the Falklands war, as I recall. No doubt this bad press was not justified.....
 
That bad press was due to the loss of HMS Coventry and severe damage to HMS Glasgow while operating with HMS Broadsword on air defence duties. HMS Coventry was partly to blame in her case, as she fouled Broadsword's range and broke her missile lock, but the Sea Wolf system did not perform as expected, losing very low flying targets against sea clutter and struggling with engagement of multiple and crossing targets. There were also system failures, one of which allowed a flight of Argentine aircraft to attack and cripple HMS Glasgow. All in all, the system was not an unqualified success during the Falklands conflict.
 

I have to admit that my understanding is a little different. There was a problem when the two A4's crossed whilst trying to avoid the inevitable missiles. For some reason this hadn't been tested and the system shut down. Years later I worked with the system engineer on board who described it as the lonliest seconds of his life as he tried to get it back up. He could feel everyone looking at him and all he could hear was the plotter saying seven miles and closing, five miles and closing, three miles and closing while he hit the keys to get it started.

The Coventry also did cross the missile shot as she tried to avoid the incoming Argentine aircraft but I am not aware of any problems with losing the target plots due to sea clutter. The main reason for developing the Seawolf was to defend against sea skimming missiles and that problem had I thought been cracked.
 
I believe it was cracked by the substitution of Type 911 tracker for the Type 910, which had lost targets in sea clutter during the Falklands. I do not wish to do Sea Wolf down completely - it was a damn sight better than Sea Cat and much more consistent than Sea Dart, but it also had it's problems and it seems that there were times when all the Task Force had for point defence was 30mm cannon and Mk1 eyeballs...
 
Colin1 said:
And here's the piloted version, a V1 with a view...
Click to expand...
I always thought an Ohka would be a terrifying weapon against strategic bombers. I'd have put in an ejector seat though and give the pilot a chance to punch out at the last minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Nazi Germany, logistics, Allies advance (and the lack of it) etc
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Shortround6
S
A
Interwar examples where a heavy presence might have made a difference?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
J
What's an original 48th Fighter (Pursuit) Squadron Patch Worth?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Gary Cain
The "Ulithi Murderers Row" Photograph. A new take on it.
Replies
6
Views
2K
Wurger
How did they know what it was called?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
nuuumannn
Menu
Log in
Register