I mean, it's fine for level bombers, but can they really be fast enough for tracking an attack aircraft bearing down on you?
If an aircraft is "bearing down on you", there is very little tracking involved. The plane is heading towards you, pointing at you. It is coming closer, but there is almost no deflection. The only good thing about being the target.....
Hm. Unless it's perfectly aligned with the barrels, I guess the fire coordinator will get his palms sweaty nonetheless trying to get new coordinates down to the turret.
Actually I thought it was policy to drop heavy shells, 5in plus,on purpose into the water at a certain distance (presumably at reasonable torp drop range) to dissuade low flyers ie a sort of waterspout curtain barrage rather than aiming at anything?
Attachments
postersig.jpg (31.48 KiB) Viewed 94 times
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry
The 5"/25 cal and 5"/38 cal dual purpose guns were the standard heavy AAA for naval ships in the 40's (and for some, like us poor Coasties, into the 80's). At the beginning of WW2, they fired a semi armor piercing shell known as AA Common with a
manually set time fuze. Essentially this was effective against aircraft flying straight and level (as a barrage) or if it actually hit the plane. It was also the same shell used in surface engagements. In the latter part of 1942 the "VT" proximity-fuzed shell was introduced. This one carried a miniature radar transponder that detonated the shell at it's closest point of approach to its intended target. I'm not sure of this but I believe that there was also some mechanism to direct the majority of the fragments from the shell in the general direction of the target As a result the 5"/38 cal became very deadly against a/c - particularly those attacking your own ship since that is essentially a no deflection shot. In what I believe was it's first use at the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, the South Dakota splashed 25 out of 27 bombers from Junyo even though they weren't even detected until they had begun their attack runs.
Although the VT shell was available to the US Army its use was prohibited over land up until the Battle of the Bulge so that the Germans wouldn't get ahold of it. It was finally employed against attacking infantry on Elsenborn Ridge I believe with devastating results. The shell's VT fuses caused them to explode at 3-5m over the ground.
From what I understand the introduction of the VT shell is NOT modelled in this game or in UV but I guess the Nips have enough handicaps without adding another one. In UV, in 1943, every time I assign a squadron to antiship attack I write the squadron off as expended. Unless the squadron jumps some poor minesweep or LCI all by itself then the squadron is pretty much used up due to the losses from the flak.
BTW the Japanese produced an 18.1" equivalent to AA Common which Yamato and Musashi both used against a/c in their final sorties. I wonder how well they worked?[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]
Minor correction on the VT fuse. I believe the Germans already had one and they used used against the Russians in 43 or 44, I beleive. But the Russians, thru the Swiss embassy, told the Germans to stop using it or they (the Russians) would start using gas. The Germans stopped. I got this from an ex-panzer grendadier who fought in WWII. Whether the German design was similar to the US design I don't know, it may have used air pressure. The US used it in the Bulge to hold the northern shoulder. Without the fuse 6th SS PZ army would have been turned lose instead of having to follow 5th PZ army out.
FYI!
One other minor thing, I beleive the land use of the VT shell caused it to explode at 30 m every time. This was optimum for swatting those infantry guys. It was high enough to cause great dispursion of the fragments, but close enough that it was still plenty powerful. I also beleive that it was only used in guns 105 mm or larger. (4.1") Something to do with teh size of the VT fuse itself.
Never heard of a German "VT" fuze. Would seem that they might have found such a thing useful for the air defense of the Reich Homeland where I'm sure its effectiveness would have been noted. In all that I have read I have heard no mention of it though in either German or Allied sources.
And so the Germans agreed not to use their "VT" fuze (?) and the Russians agreed not to use gas and the war on the Russian Front remained quite civilized. OOOOOOOOOOOOK.
Actually I thought it was policy to drop heavy shells, 5in plus,on purpose into the water at a certain distance (presumably at reasonable torp drop range) to dissuade low flyers ie a sort of waterspout curtain barrage rather than aiming at anything?
It was a common tactic used against torpedo bombers you put up a wall of water using non-AA type guns. The idea being that a torpedo bomber had to make a slow, low approach to it's drop point if it hit the water column it would stall (low and slow) if the splash hit the bomber the pilot would loose control with no altitude to recover. You put the wall just before where you thought the drop point would be, very un-nerving to the pilots too. My dad mentioned doing this with the main guns on the USS Arkansas. Serveral books on torpedo bombers I have read mentioned this tatic. I guess the best ship for this would be the Brooklyn class Light Crusiers 15 6" Guns on rapid fire now that's a wall of water.[:D]
