Japanese shipborne flak

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.php

Probably the reason is this:

The magazines for the Type 96 held only 15 rounds, so frequent stoppages for change outs were required.

Why the land-based is better is beyond me.

This is just a guess but it probably is because there might be more ready ammo available instead of having to get some from a Magazine in the Bowels of the Shop. There would also be a more stable mount hence the higher accuracy.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Actually, upped Effect/Accuracy should apply to all multi-gun flak mounts on all ships, shouldn't it?

No.

Mountings are considered as well, hence why there are multiple different iterations of the same gun with variations in stats depending on the mountings. c.f 20mm and 40mm Allied AA weapons.

Perfectly logical to have a situation where you add an additional barrel to a system and become overall less effective due to challenges in operating the system.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


Why the land-based is better is beyond me.

Perhaps simply firing from a stable mount, i.e. the ground, would make it more effective than a moving, shipboard platform,?

Haven't really compared this at all. I bet there might be some other guns could also compare to see if the land based versions are more effective?

Not DP guns or CD guns...probably just AA guns?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


Why the land-based is better is beyond me.

Perhaps simply firing from a stable mount, i.e. the ground, would make it more effective than a moving, shipboard platform,?

Haven't really compared this at all. I bet there might be some other guns could also compare to see if the land based versions are more effective?

Not DP guns or CD guns...probably just AA guns?

A more stable mount is a big thing for accuracy. The gun position itself not moving should be a big thing as well. Also important is the extra space for the gun, crew, ammo, and equipment needed. No need to cram things in, plenty of space for ammo right at or very near the gun instead of having to get more from a magazine.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


Why the land-based is better is beyond me.

Perhaps simply firing from a stable mount, i.e. the ground, would make it more effective than a moving, shipboard platform,?

Haven't really compared this at all. I bet there might be some other guns could also compare to see if the land based versions are more effective?

Not DP guns or CD guns...probably just AA guns?

A more stable mount is a big thing for accuracy. The gun position itself not moving should be a big thing as well. Also important is the extra space for the gun, crew, ammo, and equipment needed. No need to cram things in, plenty of space for ammo right at or very near the gun instead of having to get more from a magazine.

I thought along those lines, but the OP was comparing twin mounted at-sea results to triple mounted at-sea results, so the stability of the platform would be the same. The ability of the mount to track targets and the interference from muzzle blast might have been part of the accuracy issue.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Lowpe



Perhaps simply firing from a stable mount, i.e. the ground, would make it more effective than a moving, shipboard platform,?

Haven't really compared this at all. I bet there might be some other guns could also compare to see if the land based versions are more effective?

Not DP guns or CD guns...probably just AA guns?

A more stable mount is a big thing for accuracy. The gun position itself not moving should be a big thing as well. Also important is the extra space for the gun, crew, ammo, and equipment needed. No need to cram things in, plenty of space for ammo right at or very near the gun instead of having to get more from a magazine.

I thought along those lines, but the OP was comparing twin mounted at-sea results to triple mounted at-sea results, so the stability of the platform would be the same. The ability of the mount to track targets and the interference from muzzle blast might have been part of the accuracy issue.

Well, putting three guns where there were two guns can lead to a crowding issue where the operation of all guns would be affected - especially with only 15 rounds in a magazine which would need to be frequently changed. I guess that belted ammo or large ammo containers would be useful.

[Sardaukar]

AFAIK, IJN often fired with only one barrel at time with their 25mm, due to need to change those 15 rnd magazines. That was the only way to have continuous fire.

[Yaab]

Just a short info.

Allies, scen001v5, Dec 1941

My Catalina unit is flying NIGHTLY Nav Search missions from Manila. Last turn one Catalina got destroyed by FLAK from Jap ships in Vigan/Lingayen area.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Just a short info.

Allies, scen001v5, Dec 1941

My Catalina unit is flying NIGHTLY Nav Search missions from Manila. Last turn one Catalina got destroyed by FLAK from Jap ships in Vigan/Lingayen area.

What altitude were you using? 3K is normally high enough to avoid machine gun fire, but a bad die roll can mean a loss no matter how high you fly.

[Yaab]

Flew at 7k feet.

HOWEVER, I went to the Catalina unit in question and that loss was actually attributed to A2A(air-to-air). Thus, the game message was FOW ,which sucks, because I thought I have found an example of Jap shipborne flak destroying aircraft at night.

[Norm49]

it been mention that higher calibre can be use for mutual defence. But what are the requirement, form what range/altitude can a AA weapon be use for fleet mutual defence?.

[Chris21wen]

it been mention that higher calibre can be use for mutual defence. But what are the requirement, form what range/altitude can a AA weapon be use for fleet mutual defence?.

Extract from Air War Guide https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3&t=396274 but thehere's more.

For attacks against bases and ground units the only criteria for effective firing is height. Individual ships are never targetted directly as a mission, only TFs, When a raid attacks one ship is randomly selected
as a target from the TF. This leads to three separate flak phases.

1. All the guns in the TF can fire at the raid using the flak guns height criteria and raid approach height.
2. The targetted ship only dependent on the direction of the attack and mission profile. I.e. If it’s coming from
port the starboard guns, if it’s a torpedo or DB attack. Because of the lower height it;s the lighter guns doing
most of it.
3. When the raid egresses all ships can again fire.

Under no circumstances will another TF in the same hex ever use its flak to assist another TF.

[PaxMondo]

The 25mm Type 96 is as good as an example of the issues that IJ faced during the war as any.

The 25mm Type 96 was derived from a French Hotchkiss design, in and of itself a perfectly good design for the era. The IJ had several issues with the gun, in priority here is the beginning of the list (the entire list was quite long):
1. Ammo feed
2. Aim
3. Director
4. Fusing

Ammo Feed
The IJ struggled with belt feed due to the clips needing to be fairly high quality spring steel. IJ steel output was, well, generally run with quantity over quality focus. The result was that most machine guns for the IJ were cannister fed, with the resulting RPM (rounds/min) penalty being felt. The Type 96 could fire 200 rpm, but only for the first 18 shots, then the canister had to be changed. The reality is that they shot 36 - 54 rpm, but worse is that often they were changing cannisters when they had the best shot available ...

Aim
The IJ just did not have the industrial base to support hydraulic servers on guns of this size; it represented too many hydraulic system installs. So, these were all MANUAL. While the 2 and 3 guns platforms would seem to partly address the first problem, they greatly increased the difficulty in aiming the gun.

Director
This gun did not have one. At the war start, only 125mm and above ship guns had directors. This had a simple bore sight and tracer rounds.

Fusing
Was done on the shell before loading into the cannister. Upon battle start, each gun likely had several pre-filled cannisters with varying fuse ranges set. In the heat of battle, getting the right one into the gun at the right time would have been a challenge in and of itself. Filling and fusing subsequent cannisters as the battle wore on would have further complicated the issue.

So, bottom line, the gun was of sufficient design and production quality to be effective in this era. However, the rest of the supporting hardware required for a successful AA gun mount were mostly missing. As implemented in game, I have always considered this to be a huge Easter Egg for the IJ; the reality was that this gun was largely ineffective in its intended role.

Extrapolating from these issues, you can see why IJ never had a 40mm AA gun: it simply exacerbated all of the above issues. At 40mm, they gun platform is too heavy to be moved manually by a crew; so it was a non-starter for them.

ED: I know many will think that a 25mm doesn't need much, it could (and was) used as the USN used a 50 cal MG and the 1.1" pom-poms. The problem is that since they didn't have any ability to get a 40mm in action like the USN, they needed to get the 25mm to be FAR more effective. And they didn't/couldn't. Hence, all they had were 125mm AA which were fine, but nothing for close in and the USN DB's simply were able to shred them.

[BBfanboy]

That is a marvelous detailed explanation Pax! Beaucoup Merçis!