Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: obvert

I would say Pax that there were some other factors. As with many other facets of the IJ 'war plan' often the best solution was not followed extensively or efficiently. It wasn't just numbers, although that is true. It was also models that were emphasized, tactics and procedure, logistics and many other factors that kept AA from being a top notch tool for the IJ, on land or on ship.

As I mentioned, if you stack a bunch of units you get a decent effect in game, but then you've hung a few other bases out to dry completely. So it is scale, but on ship it's really the complete lack of a 40mm or other medium AA gun that kept them much farther back.

Erik,

100% agree, there were other factors and no medium AA is a huge hole. Still, for me, it all about the economy ... even if they had had the Bofors designed and tooled up, they couldn't have built enough of them and gotten them installed soon enough to have mattered without some other big things not getting done. I mean they would had to have NOT built some DD's or a few hundred planes or .... and each one of those "ors" was in huge demand.

ORIGINAL: Yaab
Thread resurrection.

Guys, do you ever see capitals ship (DD/CL/CA/BB/CV) use they smallest AA ammo (1.1 inch, 20mm, 0.303 MG, 40mm) at all? I only see used ammo in heavy DP category, while the smallest AA ammo remains untouched after every AA action and stands at 36 (36), which is full ammo compliment on the ship info screen.

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

Ok sorry, LoBaron had already written it before, so why your question Yaab?

ORIGINAL: PetrOs

Actually, in the real history, US Navy decided to move away from 20mm and 40mm to 3" automatic AA by 45. The problem was that 20mm was found to lack range and stopping power to stop a kamikaze, and 40mm also. While most 40mm hits would have prevented the plane to return to base, the damaged plane was often still controllable and needed more hits. 40mm was also too small for proximity fuse action. 3" automatic gun with proximity fuse was found to be the best compromise, having the high range, high ROF and the effect to kill-stop any incoming plane.

Also, in reality, the difference was HUGE between proximity-fuse and no proximity-fuse in the same gun.

Official US Navy statistics said for WW2 RPB rate (rounds per bird, per http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep ... index.html)
5" Common - 654
5" VT Proximity - 340
3"/50 - 338
40mm - 1713
1.1" - 1932
20mm - 5287
50cal - 11143
30cal - 28127

The RPB rate per weapon actually got worse during the war except in 45, where it was better, but it was mainly due to the huge expansion of the navy and thus the inrush of not experienced gunners. Sometimes it was extreme - in 1942 the 5" commons had the RPB of 252, while in 1944 of 1157, efficiency down by 4.5 times....

Also very much depended on the evasion patterns. Just as an example -
In early war USN Avengers rolled from side to side agressively, making what they assumed violent turns to avoid the AA. Losses to AA were still high. Once, during excercise, one of the VT group commanders who was ill and not flying stood behind a 20mm gunner and noticed that the gunner easily followed the manover - violent rolls made nearly no changes on the aircraft course or height. He had an idea, and asked the pilots in the next attack to use elevator only, flying an extreme wave pattern in vertical plane. No 20mm gunner could follow such aircraft, as the plane's angular movement through gunsights was much more rapid. This was evaluated a few more times, and then applied on combat runs, losses per attack were MUCH less. That guy was however nearly lynched by rear gunners - they were affected by extreme G-forces going from negative to positive, and in the first test run ALL gunners left their lunch in the cockpit...

IJN lacked the effective gun between the good 100 and 127mm guns, and also a good VT fuse. 25mm were too short range, and 25 round magazines meant frequent stops for changing... They tried to replicate the british army model 40mm AA Bofors but not very successfully, and they discontinued the Pom Pom usage which was however too low velocity anyways. An effective automatic weapon of 37-65mm caliber would have increased their AA enormously.

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Finally!

Small AA ammo used off Rangoon against AI's Nells.

ORIGINAL: PetrOs
IJN lacked the effective gun between the good 100 and 127mm guns, and also a good VT fuse. 25mm were too short range, and 25 round magazines meant frequent stops for changing... They tried to replicate the british army model 40mm AA Bofors but not very successfully, and they discontinued the Pom Pom usage which was however too low velocity anyways. An effective automatic weapon of 37-65mm caliber would have increased their AA enormously.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: PetrOs
IJN lacked the effective gun between the good 100 and 127mm guns, and also a good VT fuse. 25mm were too short range, and 25 round magazines meant frequent stops for changing... They tried to replicate the british army model 40mm AA Bofors but not very successfully, and they discontinued the Pom Pom usage which was however too low velocity anyways. An effective automatic weapon of 37-65mm caliber would have increased their AA enormously.

Agreed. As has been discussed here many times, even with a bigger gun than the 25mm, the IJ would have been stymied.
They were still missing two critical pieces:
1. Directors (as Zorch noted)
2. hydraulic turrets


They had the know how for both, the issue is that they didn't have enough those 'know how' bodies to produce enough of everything they needed.

Then, the killer, they had a core leadership/belief that they weren't needed. So what 'know how' they did have didn't get used efficiently.

ORIGINAL: adarbrauner

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Finally!

Small AA ammo used off Rangoon against AI's Nells.

N
what altitude.

Was that the ship attacked?