PDA

View Full Version : British AA questions



Gibbage1
07-16-2004, 11:57 AM
In the recent dev update, it shows the British carriers. I have done rather limited research on them and there AA seems compleatly inept.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/160704/illustrious2.jpg

Those 8 gun banks look like 30 cal's! If I remember right...

Can anyone shed some info on Brit AA guns on carriers?

Gibbage1
07-16-2004, 11:57 AM
In the recent dev update, it shows the British carriers. I have done rather limited research on them and there AA seems compleatly inept.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/160704/illustrious2.jpg

Those 8 gun banks look like 30 cal's! If I remember right...

Can anyone shed some info on Brit AA guns on carriers?

WereSnowleopard
07-16-2004, 12:36 PM
There a link for everyone to get some information: http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m8.htm

http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m8_Octuple_pic.jpg

Regards
Snowleopard

Fennec_P
07-16-2004, 01:44 PM
The Brits seem to favor small numbers of heavy cannons, as opposed to mass numbers of light machine guns.

5 or 6 pom-pom guns might not seem like much, but they only need to hit you once.

k5054
07-16-2004, 02:06 PM
The turret guns are high angle a/a. The deck edge is covered by 20mm oerlikons. Many ships had 40mm Bofors in multiple mounts. In the Pacific the 20mms were considered better than the pompoms at first because of their range, but later with the kamikazes needing to be destroyed rather than just shot down, the pompom came back into favour because it could fill the sky with shells close in, and those shell would stop a Kamikaze, not just cripple it.
A couple of quotes:
The 20mms are only good for giving an audible alarm to those below decks.
When a Kamikaze hits a British carrier, it's "Sweepers, man your brooms".

Charlie901
07-16-2004, 02:07 PM
HOLY LOW POLY!

Everything looks soooo good it's a shame those AA guns and sailors look so boxy.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

owlwatcher
07-16-2004, 03:15 PM
Good gun mounts except for the weight factor.

Blutarski2004
07-16-2004, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
In the recent dev update, it shows the British carriers. I have done rather limited research on them and there AA seems compleatly inept.

http://www.il2sturmovik.com/forgotten_battles/160704/illustrious2.jpg

Those 8 gun banks look like 30 cal's! If I remember right...

Can anyone shed some info on Brit AA guns on carriers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Gib, those 8-barreled mounts in your screen shot resemble low velocity British 2-pounder (40mm) AA - not to be confused with the much more powerful 40mm Bofors.

It's important to considerwhich CV's you are modelling and which year of the war. There were tremendous improvements to AA armament made to the older ships from refit to refit, and the newest classes were much better equipped right from the getgo.

BLUTARSKI

ploughman
07-16-2004, 03:54 PM
Hey Gibbage, "inept" is a loaded statement, like "all though dudes who died so I'm free were totally inept" or "all those dudes who died at Pearl Harbor were totally inept" or...do you want me to go on or do you want to have a little respect?

WOLFMondo
07-16-2004, 04:03 PM
I could ask my grandfather if he was still with us. Him and his cousin were both AA/pom pom gunners and saw action both in the ETO and PTO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
When a Kamikaze hits a British carrier, it's "Sweepers, man your brooms".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read accounts of Kamikaze's hitting British carrier decks and they would explode or simply slide along the armoured deck and into the sea doing very little except dent it in both cases.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

RAC_Pips
07-16-2004, 04:09 PM
Does anyone have any info on a comparison between late war RN Carriers and late war USN Carriers regarding AA defence?

As in number of guns (by type) and volume of fire. I've read that the AA coming from US Carriers was absolutely frightening!

Baco-ECV56
07-16-2004, 04:59 PM
Ploughman, take it easy man, I am sure he ment "inadecuate", not "inept" and he was refering to the guns (as a weapons system) not the men that manned them...

Remember that for a lot of people including me, english is not their mother toung, so they may mean one thing and write another...

Inadaze
07-16-2004, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAC_Pips:
Does anyone have any info on a comparison between late war RN Carriers and late war USN Carriers regarding AA defence?

As in number of guns (by type) and volume of fire. I've read that the AA coming from US Carriers was absolutely frightening!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/illustrious_class.htm

http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/lexington.htm



S! Inadaze

Bluedog72
07-16-2004, 05:25 PM
Just in that shot you can see 16 40mm Pom Poms, 3 20mm Oerlikons(they may be 40mm Bofors too) and a pair of 5 inch dual purpose turret guns.
Thats just on one quarter of the ship.
I sure wouldnt like to be diving a Val at it myself.
At least not if I couldnt hit 'refly' shortly afterwards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Inadaze
07-16-2004, 05:43 PM
Here's some info on the weapons, its from a Dutch Naval web site, but the info should be about right.

http://home.wxs.nl/~jviss000/Guns.htm

Guns guns guns
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm

p1ngu666
07-16-2004, 06:23 PM
british hard tarmaced decks didnt they?

wondering why americans had wood, cant see a advantage myself

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Cess_Wizard
07-16-2004, 06:52 PM
Armoured Decks - the armour was 3" on the flight deck, 2" on the hanger deck. Lot of weight which might be why the Americans went the wood route I suppose

Also resulted in smaller Hangers and a reduced plan carrying capability. The Illustrious class did not convert well to jets after the war due to the limited space

mllaneza
07-16-2004, 07:58 PM
As I understand it, the idea was that wooden flight decks can be repaired while underway.

Veteran - Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1993-1951.

p1ngu666
07-16-2004, 09:34 PM
hmm
maybe that

i do think the decks where tarmaced for some reason, and not really armoured in the big hunks of steel style.
im probably wrong http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Latico
07-16-2004, 09:56 PM
The US Navy wanted as much speed as possible from it's carriers, therefore the lighter wooded decks were a trade off for the extra speed.

Latico
07-16-2004, 10:08 PM
Here's a site that can give the skinny on almost every carrier in the world.

Hazegray and Underway (http://www,hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/)

tygrmule
07-16-2004, 11:58 PM
There were several factors involved. One clear thing is that the Americans and the British differed in their philosophy as to what a Fleet carrier's specs should be.

The American's big concern was work in the Pacific Theatre. There, their carriers would have to be mobile air bases. Attrition would be harder to replace and tours would be longer. Hence a design philosophy of having more planes per carrier was adopted. Plus they having more planes would provide greater defence and attack capabilities to their carriers.

The British had to contend with warfare closer to land bases. The Mediterranian proved really challanging. They needed their carriers to survive a beating. This meant armoured carriers, but it also meant less planes carried which was a limiting factor.

Again, there were more reason's why the design philosophies differed but I won't get into all of them.

Hope this helps.
-tygrmule

Gibbage1
07-17-2004, 12:16 AM
Dude. Chill. Just asking a simple question here. Im getting good reply's and it looks like I was mistaken. No need to go on some little tantrum because I used a bad word.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ploughman:
Hey Gibbage, "inept" is a loaded statement, like "all though dudes who died so I'm free were totally inept" or "all those dudes who died at Pearl Harbor were totally inept" or...do you want me to go on or do you want to have a little respect?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RCJ99
07-17-2004, 08:12 PM
The gun mounts are 2 pounder pom-pom guns. the 2lb shells explode after a set distance making enemy planes fly through a barrage. While I am sure the crews did a courageous job the British poswar studies showed no recorded planes shot down by the 2 pounder it was more of a deterrant.

ImpStarDuece
07-17-2004, 08:22 PM
RCJ99 can you point me in the direction of those studies, i have some problems with them.

I can think of several accounts of pom poms scoring kills, starting with the BoB and going all the way up until mid 44. HMS Ulysses got 2 Ju-87s in one evening/night attack with its foward pompoms escorting a Russian convoy in the North Sea.

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"War is just an extension of politics carried out by other means" von Clauswitz.

k5054
07-18-2004, 02:37 AM
Think of the 2pdr pompom as a P-39s 37mm with a 33% bigger shell. The MV is about the same. Then think of 8 such guns pumping out in total 700rpm. If it hits, it's deadly. But the range is limited. The original idea was to engage torpedo planes before torp release range.
As an aside, Gib is not too far out in thinking they might be .303s, the vickers 40mm was one of a family of maxim-based weapons ranging from the famous .303 Vickers MMG through vehicle-mounted .50 MGs to the pompom.

I wonder what is going to happen to my frame rate if that ship lights up all the guns we can see in the picture?

k5054
07-18-2004, 02:53 AM
Just an afterthought. The pompom was also related to the Vickers S gun, used on the Hurricane IID for anti-tank work, and that Hurricane was used in Burma against Japanese tanks. We gotta have it.
Do I remember reading that the 40mm was also used against pack-elephants in Burma? Yeuch.

biggs222
07-18-2004, 03:21 AM
yes that hurri is a must in the Burma part of PF (hope there is a Burma in PF)

p1ngu666
07-18-2004, 06:34 AM
yeah, my grandad was in burma, stuck the injured back together http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

burma should be easy, just TONS of forest i think.

and btw burma isnt a nice place tobe now http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
abusive dictorship type thing, called the junita i think

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

whiteladder
07-21-2004, 06:31 AM
The pom-pom was good in its day, unfortunately that had pretty much come to an end by 1940. It was probally the best AA weapon in service at the start of the war, with each barrel firing at 120rpm.

It had two major faults, it was unreliable, the ammunition had to be constantly regreased to stop the guns jamming.

The second is that it produced so much smoke when firing it had to have an off mount director and the British were way behind other nations with their directors. It wasn`t until the end of the war when they got tachometric directors with radar ranging that the gun could meet is full potential, by which time weapons with better performance(bofors 40mm) were available.

mark

Yellonet
07-21-2004, 08:36 AM
I've actually fire a few shots (and acted as loader on quite a few more) with a Bofors 40mm AA gun. Not a WW2 version but a similar version designed only a few years after the war. 3-4 rps, 970 m/s muzzle velocity, effective range 3 km IIRC.

That was a lot of fun I can tell you http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


- Yellonet

RCJ99
07-22-2004, 08:46 PM
The postwar naval Revolution
Norman Friedman
Naval institute press 1986
ISDN 0-87021-952-

Fennec_P
07-23-2004, 09:12 PM
Everything looks soooo good it's a shame those AA guns and sailors look so boxy....

Though boxy, the polycount for carriers is more than double the polycount for the biggest ships in FB.

Compare the guns to the ones on the Marat and they will not look so bad.