12cm AA Rocket with 0 effect

[inqistor]

I wanted to check, if 12cm AA Rockets actually works, with 0 effect.
Simple experiment:
Shinano upgraded to latest model, is modified in a way, that ALL her weapons are actually 12cm AA Rockets. It stays 2 hexes from Wake Island. Its airgroups set to standard training 40%.
Wake Island have large airfield, and additional B-29 unit (together with its organic WILDCATs), set to Naval Attack, at 1000 feets, 30% search. WILDCATs set to Naval Attack at 100 feets.
Date is early 1945.

Results:
During 11 Naval attacks, through several days, NOT ONE plane is reported as damaged, even when only WILDCATs attacks. Shinano uses large amounts of ammunition.


So, I have modified 12cm AA Rockets to have 10 effect. Results:
With similar number of attacks, around 30% also ends with no damages to planes, but rest have, on average, 3 damaged planes.
Only in ONE instance, there are planes lost to FLAK reported, and its only after training ZEROs from Shinano get caught into battle.


Quick research shows, that 12cm AA Rockets have around 80% explosives of 10cm AA Gun (so should have 22+ effect), so it is again modified to have effect 25. Results:
Most of attacks ends with some damaged planes. Still not ONE is reported as lost to FLAK.

Curiosity - original 12cm Rocket mountings (with 84 tubes, and ONE point of ammo) did not shot even once. But they were damaged, and even one of sides completely destroyed, so surely they had some planes within shoting distance.



As a side note - it was pretty rare, that B29 attack did NOT end, with at least 3 bomb hits. Crews were completely green, with 35 exp, and similar statistics in NavB, and LowN.
That clearly shows, that EVERY bomb makes its own attack roll. It seems we have similar problem, as with ASW, where it is number of weapons, what is most important.

I see similar solution, as I proposed for ASW - to change payload of larger bombers, with only FEW devices representing ALL bombs, so if plane carries 10 500lb bombs, it should actually use 2 * "500lb GP bomb (x5)" Devices, or even 1 * "500lb GP bomb (x10)". That way, against ground/naval targets, there should be only ONE hit possibility.

[el cid again]

You probably can get the proper result by defining AA rockets as AA guns - just give them rocket in the device name.
These weapons should indeed not be very effective. But at least then you have it under your control how the software will
treat them.

[GaryChildress]

Hey, welcome back, El Cid! [:)]

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You probably can get the proper result by defining AA rockets as AA guns - just give them rocket in the device name.
These weapons should indeed not be very effective. But at least then you have it under your control how the software will
treat them.

Well, with enough effect, they seem to work quite right. I am wondering if type of weapon makes any difference in combat algorithm (like rockets do not get penetration reduced etc.).

Now, considering weight of this Rocket, it seems, that 30 effect will be closer to truth.
Also, I do not understand why they have only 1 ammo point. They were light enough to get few hundred on-board, and few guys could rearm whole panel, probably under minute.

[el cid again]

1 ammo point is probably my fault. I introduced this in the RHS WITP mod. It is for technical reasons integrating the way the AAR of Japan were used and the way code works (probably). It is a modeling thing - to prevent excessive successes for the rarely successful AAR concept.

[inqistor]

Well, as you can see, my test showed that they are not especially effective, no matter of ammo.
So, this is simple artifact, not some historical reason, and I can easily add more ammo?


As I understand this was mainly problem for air-borne-rockets, as they obviously could not be rearmed?

[el cid again]

If you want them to work use AA guns - and just name the device a rocket. Then you get something that code uses properly

[michaelm75au]

To have an affect, the device needs an 'effect' value.

Also the 'accuracy' is low for this device, which would affect its chance to hit aircraft.

Plus, I see its ceiling is low (5000) which tends to suggest it would be best against low level attacks.

[el cid again]

both sound right to me

the rule is "test, test, test"

try something - and then test it - until you like it

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You probably can get the proper result by defining AA rockets as AA guns - just give them rocket in the device name.
These weapons should indeed not be very effective. But at least then you have it under your control how the software will
treat them.

Well, with enough effect, they seem to work quite right. I am wondering if type of weapon makes any difference in combat algorithm (like rockets do not get penetration reduced etc.).

Now, considering weight of this Rocket, it seems, that 30 effect will be closer to truth.
Also, I do not understand why they have only 1 ammo point. They were light enough to get few hundred on-board, and few guys could rearm whole panel, probably under minute.

Does anyone have a picture of one of these launchers? If it's one of those 28-barrel launchers, I'd imagine it was difficult to hand reload and hand fuse 28 rockets. How far was the ammunition hoist from the firing system? Iirc the crews had to wear special gear and take cover while it was firing.

It would be interesting to know how many reloads were carried.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To have an affect, the device needs an 'effect' value.

Also the 'accuracy' is low for this device, which would affect its chance to hit aircraft.

Plus, I see its ceiling is low (5000) which tends to suggest it would be best against low level attacks.

Isn't it the Range that is 5000 (5) and the Ceiling is only 1800? Would you have a guess on the value for the Effect? Thank you.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: michaelm

To have an affect, the device needs an 'effect' value.

Also the 'accuracy' is low for this device, which would affect its chance to hit aircraft.

Plus, I see its ceiling is low (5000) which tends to suggest it would be best against low level attacks.

Isn't it the Range that is 5000 (5) and the Ceiling is only 1800? Would you have a guess on the value for the Effect? Thank you.

I put our device panel on your other thread. Ceiling is 1800 in-game, but it wasn't even that. They were a simple barrage weapon, with only 2 time-fuse settings, 1000 feet, 1500 feet. Over 1500 feet you were quite safe; under 1000 feet you were quite safe; they were quite useless.

[inqistor]

So, they also supposed to have penetration?
Another experiment. 14 penetration, 30 effect. In over 20 attacks, results are 1 B29 operational lose, 1 WILDCAT Flak lose (WOOOHOOO!). Some attacks without hits on one, or the other side. Not much planes set under repair, and all airframes reported less than 20 damages.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Does anyone have a picture of one of these launchers? If it's one of those 28-barrel launchers, I'd imagine it was difficult to hand reload and hand fuse 28 rockets. How far was the ammunition hoist from the firing system? Iirc the crews had to wear special gear and take cover while it was firing.

It would be interesting to know how many reloads were carried.

Well, description says, that they were fired either in sequence of 14 (so that would suggest, there were 2 rows, for 28-"barrels"), or TWO rockets (that would suggest two rows, for this 14). So overall, at least, 4x7 pattern.
Also, I think it was pretty automatic device, as it was based at automatic 25mm foundation, and fired by electrical primer.

ORIGINAL: JWE
I put our device panel on your other thread. Ceiling is 1800 in-game, but it wasn't even that. They were a simple barrage weapon, with only 2 time-fuse settings, 1000 feet, 1500 feet. Over 1500 feet you were quite safe; under 1000 feet you were quite safe;

Any sources for those data? Especially about "being safe"? Setting is similar to DC, so that would suggest expected 250 killing radius.

they were quite useless.

Any statistical accounts of their use, or are you just guessing?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You probably can get the proper result by defining AA rockets as AA guns - just give them rocket in the device name.
These weapons should indeed not be very effective. But at least then you have it under your control how the software will
treat them.

Well, with enough effect, they seem to work quite right. I am wondering if type of weapon makes any difference in combat algorithm (like rockets do not get penetration reduced etc.).

Now, considering weight of this Rocket, it seems, that 30 effect will be closer to truth.
Also, I do not understand why they have only 1 ammo point. They were light enough to get few hundred on-board, and few guys could rearm whole panel, probably under minute.

Does anyone have a picture of one of these launchers? If it's one of those 28-barrel launchers, I'd imagine it was difficult to hand reload and hand fuse 28 rockets. How far was the ammunition hoist from the firing system? Iirc the crews had to wear special gear and take cover while it was firing.

It would be interesting to know how many reloads were carried.

The launcher was adapted from the triple 25mm mount, and consisted of a box with four rows of seven rockets. Pretty simple and pretty useless.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Does anyone have a picture of one of these launchers?

Here ya be Anarchy. USTMJ p.15.

NavSource follows Lengerer who says 4x7. This one (stamped Kobe Naval Arsenal 1945) is 3x6 and 2x5. Arranged like this, looking back to front:
______________
|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|
|__|__|__|__|__|

Manual traverse, and elevation; sights were peep and post (woof!); very asymmetrical firing order to keep pairs apart and sequential pairs in different regions of the launcher, otherwise local heat would cook off proximal rounds (cheap and unstable explosive in the warheads). Firing switch had two positions, armed and off. Fired all 28, or fired none, no other options. Sequence was like this (numbers are for which cell got triggered per pair).

12-05-02-07-03-06
09-13-10-14-11-08
06-01-04-08-04-13
09-14-10-01-11
12-05-02-07-03

[el cid again]

Missing from the above - totally correct - description is that the firing was automatic - automated. Not just that they fired in a certain
sequence, but that they fired when an optical sensor said to fire - provided the switch was set to fire. It is also not quite right to think
in terms of the distance settings as "altitude." They would be better translated as "slant range." It was not quite a useless concept -
and it was well enough thought of all the carriers either got them or were planned to get them. It was probably less useless than the
use of big guns for AAA - something IJN did more than others - but it was also done by RN (with 8 inch) and RNN (with six inch).

[DuckofTindalos]

The concept of a weapon solely designed to combat dive bombers and having a range shorter than the release altitude used by said dive bombers is useless.

[el cid again]

I do not disagree. But that does not mean the weapon would be useless against other aircraft targets. Still - I would not buy this weapon -
and I would buy any sort of high performance gun. [Japan had low performance guns I would not buy either - "short guns"]

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Missing from the above - totally correct - description is that the firing was automatic - automated. Not just that they fired in a certain
sequence, but that they fired when an optical sensor said to fire - provided the switch was set to fire. It is also not quite right to think
in terms of the distance settings as "altitude." They would be better translated as "slant range." It was not quite a useless concept -
and it was well enough thought of all the carriers either got them or were planned to get them. It was probably less useless than the
use of big guns for AAA - something IJN did more than others - but it was also done by RN (with 8 inch) and RNN (with six inch).

I am sorry, but you are not correct. From the materials in our collection and the notes of the examining officers on all weapons examined, firing was manual by the gunner pressing a foot switch. This started the electrical ignition sequence.

There was no optical sensor. As JWE says, the sights were iron peep and post. Two rear peep sights side by side for the two ranges and a front post. The outside peep for leading the 8 second fuse, the inside for the 5 second fuse. The examining officers notes make a point of noting how crude these weapons were.

[inqistor]

Welcome to wonderful world of freedom of informations.
First evaluation of KATSURAGIs launchers. Probably only crude, as 4 were send to USA for further examination.
What is interesting, it is only RESTRICTED, not secret document, so should be available for researchers before 1996.

Explosive is only 44lbs.
No, it is not in 4x7 pattern.
Crews are at cabinets right at the sides of launcher.
Reloading seems very simple, you just put rocket into rails, until you hear the click.
Control is either manual, or electrical. There is secondary battery.
There is something described as No.3 Mount, and No.5 mount. If this is simple binary delay setting, it could mean 5, for No.5 seconds delay, both No.3, and No.5 (5+3) for 8 seconds delay. But what happen, when you set only No.3? Or, when you set no delay?
There is Rotary Firing Switch, not pedal.
Targeting is made at Director position, not launcher.
From last drawing, nothing indicates, that there is possibility to launch only 14, or 2 rockets. However it seems possible, to launch 5 rockets every time.