DesertFox Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 How would you list from Best to Worst as far as shipboard mounted anti-air mounts during World War II? Let me specify a bit better, go by nation not individual gun mounts. I suspect US is first as far as this and Italy is last (Although I have read a book which seem to indicate that the author though that German AA mounts were the best)
Argus Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 There's a lot of things to be accounted for here including user expectations. Between guns, mountings, FC kit and fuses (inc VT), its pretty hard to lump all WWII's specialist AA wepaons into one matrix. Still... LAA Sub 20mm - Scare guns. 20mm - Oerlikon for the win as a single/twin in manual mountings, if only on ubiquity, it mght not have been perfect, but it worked and everybody used it. - Flakverling - the gun wasn't not that great in single or twin form but with four of them it was one big heavy expensive and generally impressive system. Reasonable effective too AFAIK. - 25mm Hotchkiss, a gun that really needed belt feed, generally underrated IMHO. - 20mm Breda, another underated gun that had a lot of fans, given the joy with which captured examples were turned around in the Med. 20-40mm Obviously the Bofors 40mm gets the universal first prize, the real question being in which mount and at which point in the war? For heft the RN Sextuple put out the most fireFor prominence the USN Quad The twins were a nice compromiseThe STAGG was certainly the most advanced and impressive (when it worked)While the singles were both ubiquitous and handy. This is where FC gear starts to come into play, any of the these mountings was better if controled by a director, and then it comes down to which director fitted with which radar. Vickers 40mmNot the best weapon by any means, under powered, occasionally unreliable and generally fitted into excessively heavy mountings - but capable of serious amounts of firepower. MAANot much in this area, the Cw never used the Molins 6pdr in an HA mount at sea, the Germans didn't get the 5cm Flak wet AFAIK and the Bofors 57mm came too late. 6pdr 7cwt for my money, although a 'twin-six' set up for AA would have been impressive.But the Italian 65mm M1939 would have been interesting if it had entered service. HAA5"/38 as an all round package is incontestable. But this field is more about mountings and FC gear than guns per say. The IJN 10cm Type 98 was a very fine weapon and they had arguably the best fuse setting machine of the war. The 4" Mk.XIX, XX and XXIV certainoly got the job done inspite of being hooked up to HAACS. The 10.5cm SK C/33 looks like a good gun on an over ambitious mounting that eneded up being all but useless. I understand the 90mm M1939 was likewise a good gun let down by a mounting that was too complicated. Best or worse? Lets say I'd rather face an Italian AA barrage than a GErman one, a German one in preferance to a Japanese one, any of those rather then an RN effort and the USN gets the prize. But there was a lot more involved than just the guns. shane
Bob B Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 You need to check out the Combined Fleets Web site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm#categories They address this topic, just scroll down the page. Basically its hard to beat the USN's AA on a South Dakota or Iowa class BB. Pretty close to what Shane said with the exception of the Germans and Japanese swapping places.
Tiornu Posted June 23, 2007 Posted June 23, 2007 The Italian 3.5in single mount was brilliantly engineered for service in a laboratory. In reality, it proved overly complex, and I believe it was dumbed down at some point. German mounts were also more complex than useful. I'm guessing that the technology of the time had trouble giving mulitple axes to a seaworthy mount. Even the American 1.1in mount had its slew function disabled.
KingSargent Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 STAAG was deployed long after WW-2 IIRC.It was fitted to Battle DDs, a few of which completed before the end of WW2. Apparently the first ones did not have STAAG, so it is likely none were in service during the war, but deploying in 1946-7 is not, IMHO, "long after WW-2".
Scott Cunningham Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 The worst would have been the German 5.9" guns. They had no AA capability, at all. Thats why the German battleships carried secondary armament and AA armament. Bad design choice. I have read a few different places that the Brit 5.5" wasn't all that great.
BansheeOne Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 The 5.25" points out the problems with many dual-purpose designs: having shells that are too light for good effect against surface targets, but too heavy to be fired rapidly enough for AA use, especially at high elevations in the absence . In that regard the German approach of having a dedicated gun for each purpose was really superior to the British or the French (who tried 13 cm DP guns on the Dunkerques but, running into much the same problems as the British, returned to a mix of 15.2 cm medium artillery and 10 cm AA with the Richelieus). It seems good DP guns were not easy to arrive at. The only fleets who really got lucky there were the USN and IJN (and the latter still went with a 6"/5" AA combo on the Yamatos). Only the British and Swedish came up with good designs yet before the end of WW II, while the Germans never managed - which is a failure, but of a technical rather than a design choice sort. The 15 cm was never meant to have an AA capability.
philgollin Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 The 5.25" points out the problems with many dual-purpose designs: having shells that are too light for good effect against surface targets, but too heavy to be fired rapidly enough for AA use, especially at high elevations in the absence . In that regard the German approach of having a dedicated gun for each purpose was really superior to the British or the French (who tried 13 cm DP guns on the Dunkerques but, running into much the same problems as the British, returned to a mix of 15.2 cm medium artillery and 10 cm AA with the Richelieus). It seems good DP guns were not easy to arrive at. The only fleets who really got lucky there were the USN and IJN (and the latter still went with a 6"/5" AA combo on the Yamatos). Only the British and Swedish came up with good designs yet before the end of WW II, while the Germans never managed - which is a failure, but of a technical rather than a design choice sort. The 15 cm was never meant to have an AA capability. On medium guns, certainly you have a point. Thr RN regarded the US plus Mark 37 as an excellent AA gun system, but as with their own 4.5-inch gun not really "dual-purpose" - more an AA gun with limited surface fire utility. On the 40mm front, I would point out the Dutch Haezmeyer mount from the mid-1930s which was assessed by both the USN and RN as being as good as late war USN mountings, merely infinity more complicated (which must have been why the RN went to the bother to build them post-war - they had to have something to keep their artificers busy)
philgollin Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 It was fitted to Battle DDs, a few of which completed before the end of WW2. Apparently the first ones did not have STAAG, so it is likely none were in service during the war, but deploying in 1946-7 is not, IMHO, "long after WW-2". "Development" was basically complete by late-1944 (arguable) - the main reason being lack of priority up to 1943 as JUST producing oerlikons and bofors was seen as much more important - due to difficulty in getting the original numbers from the US as ordered under Lend-lease.
Chris Werb Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 It was fitted to Battle DDs, a few of which completed before the end of WW2. Apparently the first ones did not have STAAG, so it is likely none were in service during the war, but deploying in 1946-7 is not, IMHO, "long after WW-2". I haven't been able to find any pics of Battles with STAAG in that timefreame. I think 1949/50 is more likely.
KingSargent Posted June 24, 2007 Posted June 24, 2007 It seems good DP guns were not easy to arrive at. The only fleets who really got lucky there were the USN and IJN (and the latter still went with a 6"/5" AA combo on the Yamatos). Only the British and Swedish came up with good designs yet before the end of WW II, while the Germans never managed - which is a failure, but of a technical rather than a design choice sort. The 15 cm was never meant to have an AA capability.The USN was the only one with a widespread DP capability. The IJN's 5"/50 DD mounts are described as DP, but while they had a high elevation, they had to drop down to 40(o) or so to reload - also the DDs had nil DP fire control, at least in comparison with the US Mk37. The IJN's 5"/40 was intended for AA, not DP work. I suspect the Yamato's use of 6.1" turrets was due to a desire to use up the turrets removed from Mogamis when they went to 10x8". The Germans did have a 15cm AA gun design for land FlaK use, but not for naval use.
Scott Cunningham Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 By the end of the war the US was going to a 5" 54cal, and a 3" instead of 40mm. I think the US 1.1" was the worst AA weapon the US had, and it didn't last much past 1942. The US fire direction systems, combined with proximity fuses made US AA guns highly effective. In addition, the US ships were stacked with AA mountings (5", 40mm, 20mm). I don't think any other nation got close to the US AA capability.
Ken Estes Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Almost everything will have to give way to the exceptional experience of the USN and the longevity of its AAW experiences: far exceeding the RN, which effectively vacated the Pacific 42-44, the French Navy, absent anywhere 40-43 and the Germans and Italians, which ceased most major ship ops after mid-1943. What I am grappling with is that most of these navies only operated their pre-war systems, without having much time, opportunity, experience or even materiel to effect any but the most marginal changes. The USN, on the other hand, rearmed almost entirely with new medium and light AA batteries, installed radar detection and director controls, even relatively sophisticated lead calculating pointing devices for the lowly single 20mm Oerlikon, not to mention as a local pointer for the 40mm twin/quad. Did I mention the proximity fuze? Note how many UK/CW, Fr and It warships receive their new AA batteries via refits in US shipyards after 1943.... The relevant technology soared after 1938 and the dawning of one of the few true lessons of the Sp Civil War, that light AA and director controlled medium AA worked and everybody had to get into it. So, to be fair - and relevant - wouldn't we have to cite the year in question before making comparisons?
Ivanhoe Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Something that's always bothered me about the Bofors 40mm mounts used by the USN is the clip feed. Given the massive scale of naval and air operations by the end of the war, it always seemed clunky to me to not have a continuous feed system. I find it surprising that the clip system wasn't replaced by late 1945.
irregularmedic Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Something that's always bothered me about the Bofors 40mm mounts used by the USN is the clip feed. Given the massive scale of naval and air operations by the end of the war, it always seemed clunky to me to not have a continuous feed system. I find it surprising that the clip system wasn't replaced by late 1945. But you can continously top off the Bofors with that system right? Anything else would mean a halt in firing for magazines or belts to be changed.
Tiornu Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 the French (who tried 13 cm DP guns on the Dunkerques but, running into much the same problems as the British, returned to a mix of 15.2 cm medium artillery and 10 cm AA with the Richelieus).The Richelieu 6in guns were intended to give DP performance. It was late in the game that the large gun was found to be useless against aircraft, so some mounts were replaced by 3.9in guns. I think the US 1.1" was the worst AA weapon the US had, and it didn't last much past 1942.Actually the 1.1in gun continued in fleet service through the end of the war. they had to drop down to 40(o) or so to reloadIt's even worse than that. Loading was possible up to 10deg only, in both the 55deg and 75deg mounts. Turret training matched that in the American 16in triple mount--no kidding.
whyhow Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 The 5.25" points out the problems with many dual-purpose designs: having shells that are too light for good effect against surface targets, but too heavy to be fired rapidly enough for AA use, especially at high elevations in the absence . In that regard the German approach of having a dedicated gun for each purpose was really superior to the British or the French (who tried 13 cm DP guns on the Dunkerques but, running into much the same problems as the British, returned to a mix of 15.2 cm medium artillery and 10 cm AA with the Richelieus). It seems good DP guns were not easy to arrive at. The only fleets who really got lucky there were the USN and IJN (and the latter still went with a 6"/5" AA combo on the Yamatos). Only the British and Swedish came up with good designs yet before the end of WW II, while the Germans never managed - which is a failure, but of a technical rather than a design choice sort. The 15 cm was never meant to have an AA capability. I don't think it was luck that gave USN and IJN the best DP guns. These two navies were the leaders in naval aviation, and better appreciated the importance of AA than the others. Most navies were still reluctant to trade anti-ship capabilities for AA capability. By the time they realized it, it was too late to change production in the middle of the war. USN sacrifice MV with the 5"/38, while the IJN sacrificed shell weight in the 100mm/65. Both had adequate anti-ship capability as DD weapons. Why wasn't the 100mm more widespread as secondary weapon on IJN capital ships?
KingSargent Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 USN sacrifice MV with the 5"/38, while the IJN sacrificed shell weight in the 100mm/65. Both had adequate anti-ship capability as DD weapons. Why wasn't the 100mm more widespread as secondary weapon on IJN capital ships?It would have been, if the IJN had been able to complete a lot of their building programs. No new ships = no new guns deployed. Taiho had 3.9" guns, but unfortunately they had no underwater capability.
KingSargent Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 But you can continously top off the Bofors with that system right? Anything else would mean a halt in firing for magazines or belts to be changed.Not to mention what the (presumably larger) magazines or belts would weigh. The guns would need power feed (I doubt the Bofors had the recoil power to index a belt) and power was scarce and used topweight. And you're right, the Bofors clip feed was simple, the ammo was easy to move to the gun mount, and it worked.
philgollin Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 Almost everything will have to give way to the exceptional experience of the USN and the longevity of its AAW experiences: far exceeding the RN, which effectively vacated the Pacific 42-44, the French Navy, absent anywhere 40-43 and the Germans and Italians, which ceased most major ship ops after mid-1943. What I am grappling with is that most of these navies only operated their pre-war systems, without having much time, opportunity, experience or even materiel to effect any but the most marginal changes. The USN, on the other hand, rearmed almost entirely with new medium and light AA batteries, installed radar detection and director controls, even relatively sophisticated lead calculating pointing devices for the lowly single 20mm Oerlikon, not to mention as a local pointer for the 40mm twin/quad. Did I mention the proximity fuze? Note how many UK/CW, Fr and It warships receive their new AA batteries via refits in US shipyards after 1943.... The relevant technology soared after 1938 and the dawning of one of the few true lessons of the Sp Civil War, that light AA and director controlled medium AA worked and everybody had to get into it. So, to be fair - and relevant - wouldn't we have to cite the year in question before making comparisons? I'm afraid that most of that is chauvanistic rubbish. The RN suffered a much longer AAW experience - unfortunately. The US benefitted from it by having the experience and lessons learned transmitted to them and being able to have obsevers with the Navy prior to the US's entry into the war ! The RN had problems just getting enough oerlikons and Bofors produced as the vast majority of the items they ordered from the US under Lend-Lease were re-directed to the USN after Pearl Harbor. The RN had radar direction, and separate directors for medium AA before the US (centrimetric radar again from the British). And of course the proximity fuse was a British invention - although developed in the US. There were relatively few British ships refitted with AA in the US due to the 6 months rule and the difficulty of obtaining bofors and oerlikons from the US as after mid-43 they regarded US auxiliaries as having a higher priority than Allied warships. The only reason the USN got the bofors was because the British asked them to produce it and they bent the rules of the British licence to have them produced in America. Sorry if that was equally chauvanistic, but ........
Ken Estes Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I'm afraid that most of that is chauvanistic rubbish. The RN suffered a much longer AAW experience - unfortunately. The US benefitted from it by having the experience and lessons learned transmitted to them and being able to have obsevers with the Navy prior to the US's entry into the war ! The RN had problems just getting enough oerlikons and Bofors produced as the vast majority of the items they ordered from the US under Lend-Lease were re-directed to the USN after Pearl Harbor. The RN had radar direction, and separate directors for medium AA before the US (centrimetric radar again from the British). And of course the proximity fuse was a British invention - although developed in the US. There were relatively few British ships refitted with AA in the US due to the 6 months rule and the difficulty of obtaining bofors and oerlikons from the US as after mid-43 they regarded US auxiliaries as having a higher priority than Allied warships. The only reason the USN got the bofors was because the British asked them to produce it and they bent the rules of the British licence to have them produced in America. Sorry if that was equally chauvanistic, but ........ Yeah, you must be right; I wrote drivel but you are spot on.... Something that's always bothered me about the Bofors 40mm mounts used by the USN is the clip feed. Given the massive scale of naval and air operations by the end of the war, it always seemed clunky to me to not have a continuous feed system. I find it surprising that the clip system wasn't replaced by late 1945. Ivanhoe, don't be too surprised then if the USN did just that. The real postwar replacement for the 40mm mount was really the 3"/70, and it had internal autofeed for almost continuous 3" fire, capable of emptying the magazines with its 100 rds/min. But I think the ready rounds supported less than a minute of fire. It was even water cooled! But, like the first 5"/54 auto mount, it was too far ahead of itself. Both systems had numerous microswitches controlling the sequencing for cycling the feed, loading, ramming, etc., and the failure of any one of these would deadline the mount [casrep in USNspeak]. The USN mod'ed the 5"/54 Mk42 and brought it relatively under control, but the 3"/70 [on the Mitschers and cruisers Northampton & Norfolk] just could not be made to work. There was something like it in the RN [Tiger class CLs] and the RCN DDEs.
Tony Williams Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I think the US 1.1" was the worst AA weapon the US had, and it didn't last much past 1942.The 1.1" had lots of problems, but it could be effective in the hands of a good crew. The worst USN AA weapon was the .50 Browning: nothing wrong with the gun, but it simply didn't have the reach and power to be effective.
EchoFiveMike Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 I thought the 3"/L50 replaced the 40mm and then in turn was replaced by the ginormous 3"/L70, neither worked for shit, but the L50 was somewhat better. Yeah, the Brits had some good designs, just no ability to do anything with it, production wise. Based on their automotive parts, this was definately for the best for all concerned S/F....Ken M
Redbeard Posted June 25, 2007 Posted June 25, 2007 The RN unguided rocket batteries dropping parachutes with lines (!) ought to be a good bid for worst AA weapon system. AFAIK they never shot down anything and were removed after Hood's demise as a fire in their ready use ammo was suspected to have contributed to her sinking. Best will have to be the Bofors 40mm. Regards Steffen Redbeard
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now