Ship defenses.

[parsifal]

Aircraft losses in Europe.
Army Air Forces in World War II
1943.
.....877 Enemy aircraft.
.....252 AA fire.
.....132 Other causes.
1,261 total.

1944.
.....2,902 Enemy aircaft.
.....3,501 AA fire.
.....1,346 Other causes.
7,749 total.

1945 (Jan to May).
.....446 Enemy aircraft.
.....1,627 AA fire.
.....549 Other causes.
2,622 total.

It's readily apparent that German fighter aircraft became less effective but German flak was good and getting better right up to May 1945.

No it isnt. its a measure of how many USAAC aircraft were over enemy territory in 1943, 44 and '45. A small presence in 1943, a much larger presence in 1944-5. You cannot draw any conclusions about efficiency from that

To do this properly, you need to look at the number of guns deployed, the number of shells expended and the number of shoot downs achieved from that effort. Westermann has already done that and arrived at efficiency rates for us. He uses and comments on the US Army's statistical information incidentally, and points out its shortcomings.

For the record the german flak park (Hvy/Lt/ Total) altered as follows during the war. To a degree, it shows why the total number of shoot downs went up. It does not tell the whole story however, To do that we need to also look at ammunition expenditures which unfortunately I have at home

These figures are taken from a mid year date, I forget the exact date however.

1939: 2600/6700/9300
1940: 3161/8290/11454
1941: 3880/9020/12900
1942: 4772/10700/15472
1943: 8520/17500/26020
1944: 10600/19360/29960

 

[parsifal]

Hey Dave.... those are interesting statistics, but what does it have to do with "Ship Defenses", which was the subject of this thread ?

Charles

Sorry Charles, I didnt see this before my last post. Will get back OT.

 

[stona]

Aircraft losses in Europe.
Army Air Forces in World War II
1943.
.....877 Enemy aircraft.
.....252 AA fire.
.....132 Other causes.
1,261 total.

1944.
.....2,902 Enemy aircaft.
.....3,501 AA fire.
.....1,346 Other causes.
7,749 total.

1945 (Jan to May).
.....446 Enemy aircraft.
.....1,627 AA fire.
.....549 Other causes.
2,622 total.

It's readily apparent that German fighter aircraft became less effective but German flak was good and getting better right up to May 1945.

Statistics are only meaningful when given context. These are out of context.

Steve

 

[starling]

Hey guys,what about that fateful day that Yamato was sunk,did it shoot down many,if any allied aircraft,or are there any records .?cheers,Starling.

 

[parsifal]

USN lost 10 aircraft from more than 600 strike sorties. There was no aircover provided, it took about three and half hours and three strikes to sink the great ship. The lack of aircover allowed the Americans to form their attakcs up just outside AA range and attack from directions where the most damage and the least AA could be expected

 

[Juha]

On Yamato
it was not alone when it was sunk, it was escorted by one CL and 8 DDs and besides Yamato USN planes sunk the CL and 4 out of 8 DDs and a few of the 4 surviving DDs were badly damaged. Maybe a few of the 10 lost USN planes were shot down by the escorts.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Of course, and further, the escorts were not really attacked until after the tomato was well and truly squashed. OTOH the IJN defenders were spaced at 1500 yards, which meant ther had to be gaps between the overlapping defence zones. The main light AA weapons were 25mm guns, which had an effective range of around 500-600 yards frokm memory. That means that from any given angle of attack, you might have the Tomato firing plus two of her consorts. Roghly speaking, I would say that Tomato was contributing about 80-90% of the defensive fire for most of the engagement

In addition, the attacking planes spent a lot of time milling around outside the kill zone, where only the Tomatos san shiki guns had any chance of an effect.

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
IIRC the CL Yahagi and one of the DDs were sunk by the first wave, so from the beginning some of the planes attacked the escort. And the 5" guns of the DDs were capable to engage at least VTs. Older IJN fleet DDs had 75deg elevation for their 5" guns, newer ones had 55deg elevation.

Juha

 

[Capt. Vick]

A brilliant analysis of IJN AAA in use during the battle of Midway can be found in "Shattered Sword". It seems (if I remember correctly) the Japanese quad 25mm was not the best gun for the job, ballistics wise. If that was still part of the AAA compliment on latter IJN ships I would think they would be fighting at a bit of a disadvantage and so might be taken out of the running...

 

[parsifal]

The 25mm was still in service. it had its shortcomings, but wahtever shattered sword has to say, it was an adequate weapon. the japanese were generally very happy with it. its chief shortcomings were the slow training rate of the quad mount, insufficient shell weight, hand loaded magazines and inadequate sighting

Japan 25 mm/60 (1") Type 96

 

[parsifal]

This is reportedly footage of aircraft attacking the yamato


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY06OsGOV1Y

 

[parsifal]

And this is a Japanese dramatisation of the great ships final hours


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0VH0W0Tz-o

 

[Juha]

Hello
there was no quad 25mm, only triple, twin and single mounts. The USN 1.1" (28mm) was quad mounted.

Juha

 

[R Pope]

Did Yamato ever use her big gun AA rounds that contained 2000 steel balls? I would hate to get in the way of one of those!

 

[parsifal]

Did Yamato ever use her big gun AA rounds that contained 2000 steel balls? I would hate to get in the way of one of those!

Yes. She used them in the last battle. I also believe they were used the preceding October as part of the Leyte operation.

These guns were not that effective. Neither were their rockets

 

[Capt. Vick]

Hello
there was no quad 25mm, only triple, twin and single mounts. The USN 1.1" (28mm) was quad mounted.

Juha

I stand corrected.