PDA

View Full Version : Ship's gunnery!!!



munther
11-03-2006, 11:13 AM
I have noticed that ship's gunnery does shoot planes and other ships. I mean now AAA guns. Did they really shot other ships in WWII? If they didn't, could you just chanche it???? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

leitmotiv
11-03-2006, 11:21 AM
Darn right ships shot each other in actions against aircraft. Happened in the U.S. Navy frequently. There wasn't much that could be done about it.

Jaws2002
11-03-2006, 11:45 AM
I have some nice collection videos about the war in the Pacific. You should see the AAA 40mm Bofors shooting the **** out of the Japanese ground installations prior landings. Is scarry when the big guns are shooting, but when the Bofors got in range the island became a hellish site. Those things were cutting everything in their path.

If an enemy ship got close enough for AAA range they were engaged by AAA guns. Feels stupid not to do it.
Many larger caliber naval guns had both AA and AG capabilities.
The problem with IL-2 is that the guns don't shoot out of line of sight so you end up with engagements at shorter then historical ranges and many times the ships end up in AAA gun range.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

super71957
11-03-2006, 12:14 PM
Gotta ask,hope Munther does not mind.
I have never researched this but isn"t it true that there were over 2000 kamikaze aircraft and "only" about 400 made it thru to damage a ship?
Due to the fact that the AAA was so fearsome on the side of a carrier.
One more thing,on T.V. it always shows only one side of the carrier firing on inbound kamikaze"s but never the tower side,was it not protected or were the ships arranged to compensate?

Regards,Craig http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
11-03-2006, 01:02 PM
I don't know the exact numbers offhand, but the Kamikazes enjoyed a stunningly small success measured in sunk ships, especially their primary targets---carriers (their greatest success was to demolish two fleet carriers, FRANKLIN and BUNKER HILL---neither ever returned to service). Still, they caused more US Navy casualties than any other battle in WWII.

I am a little unclear about your meaning, super71957. The only restriction on fire from the ships was either (1) ship's structure, or (2) other ships in the trajectory of the gun. The only reason guns wouldn't fire would be due to one of the above. The 20mm guns were free-fire weapons, the 40mm and 5" guns were director-controlled and fired on command.

super71957
11-03-2006, 01:28 PM
My poor choice of wording.
That is , in real footage of a carrier defending itself from kamikaze"s it looks like only one side of the ship is lined with AAA guns.
They never show the superstructure side being attacked.?
Can"t seem to get the right words out today,turning 50 soon stinks lol.
Another words is each side as heavily gunned as the other?
If so why no footage of both sides being attacked?
Sheesh,can"t get with today leitmotiv,thats the best I can say it.
I try and check it out on Google.
Thx for the info.

leitmotiv
11-03-2006, 01:36 PM
Not to worry, Ace, I get your meaning loud and clear now. Yes, they were armed pretty much the same on each side. What you may be seeing is that some of the ship's structure is in the way due to the angle of the Kamikaze's dive---or, possibly, some guns were ordered to track another Kamikaze coming from another direction. You asked a good question---wish I could see the video! Regards, L

Blutarski2004
11-03-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I don't know the exact numbers offhand, but the Kamikazes enjoyed a stunningly small success measured in sunk ships, especially their primary targets---carriers (their greatest success was to demolish two fleet carriers, FRANKLIN and BUNKER HILL---neither ever returned to service). Still, they caused more US Navy casualties than any other battle in WWII.


..... Some quick stats on ships hit by Kamikazes at Okinawa and Leyte:

19 fleet carriers (0 sunk)

28 escort carriers (1 sunk)

10 battleships (0 sunk)

12 cruisers (0 sunk)

157 destroyers (48 sunk or considered total constuctive losses; only 81 returned to service)

69 auxiliary ships (23 sunk)


That makes 295 successful attacks obtained by 2,000 Kamikazes, not counting multiple a/c strikes against a single ship (which were not uncommon). I can't put my finger on it at the moment, but I have seen an estimate of 1 in 6 in terms of successes.


It can be argued that the Kamikazes failed to sink any capital ships, but the results which they did deliver were nevertheless dramatically greater than those obtained by conventional attack methods, which were suffering nearly as many losses anyways. There was in fact a logic to the Kamikaze effort, perverse as it may seem at first glance<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

BLUTARSKI

Sergio_101
11-03-2006, 06:12 PM
First the Japanese Kamakazi had the potential of
being many times more lethal.
It was truly a "smart weapon". The mistake
the Japanese made were two.

#1, few high angle diving attacks.
#2, few massed attacks.

Massed attacks overwhelm the defenses.
High angle at nearly terminal speeds
shorten the time to defend.

The Jap mind set was "one plane, one ship".
Poor tactics.

As to ships gunnery.....
All that AAA was deadly to friendlies.
Many men died in a hail of "spent" AAA rounds.
The "secondary armament" of any large US Navy
ship of WWII was massive. Get in range of that and
you were in serious trouble, no matter what you
were in or on.

Sergio

leitmotiv
11-03-2006, 06:51 PM
As I recall, the biggest problem they had was, in many cases, the pilots elected to attack the first ship they spotted, and this was usually USN "radar picket" destroyers. Reading the accounts by those on the receiving end, most of the attacks were appallingly bad because of the pilots' lack of training. The plan completely failed because they were unable to knock out enough fleet carriers to seriously endanger the American fleet.

DukeAU
11-03-2006, 07:57 PM
Such a waste really wunnit , they obliterated the US fleet at pearl harbour and they didnt use alot of kamikaze there did they? If the japs hadnt of retreated after pearl what do you think would of happened to the outcome of the war?
I reckon you guys would all be speaking japanese

Fork-N-spoon
11-04-2006, 01:30 AM
DukeAU, That???s a bit reaching don???t you think? Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise to the ships anchored there. While some may argue that they were detected or some other conspiracy theory, the men in the ships were taken by complete surprise. The United States Army Air Corps was also taken by complete surprise. Since both the Army and the Navy were taken by complete surprise, on an off day, early on Sunday morning, and just about the time colors were to be sounded, it???s no wonder the Japanese inflicted such devastation with such little loss.

Now lets ???armchair general hindsight??? it to death. Had the Japanese attacked supply and repair stations and completely destroyed them both, Pearl Harbor would have been severely devastated. Had the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor, it would have undoubtedly lengthened the war or at least made it much harder to fight, initially at least, but I have serious doubts to weather or not we would be speaking Japanese.

Before the war was six months old, the Allied forces in the Pacific were reading Japanese coded messages. As a result, the Japanese didn???t achieve any surprise at Midway. The American fleet did however completely surprise the Japanese fleet and inflict serious damage to it. The Japanese never recovered. Moreover, wars are always won by supplies and logistics. Since Japan lacked most of the natural resources to wage a war, its supply lines were long and open for attack. Something many seem to over look is how the American submarines caused a lot of damage to Japan???s supply lines beginning almost immediately after the war started. The Japanese failed to attack Allied supply lines, while the Americans began attacking critical supply lines very early in the war. Even as early as Pearl Harbor, Japan failed to cause a critical blow to the American fleet by knocking out Pearl Harbor???s fuel, ammunition, and repair facilities, again supplies and logistics. The Japanese wouldn???t have had to take over Pearl Harbor to knock it out of action for a lengthy piece of time. By destroying the key repair and supply stations, they could have made Pearl a useless harbor for at least a year or two, but no they were full of chivalry and had to take out a bunch of old chivalrous twenty plus year old battleships??? For lack of a better word, the Japanese seemed to have some old romantic ideas about what were targets and what weren???t targets.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blondes are for nancy boys. Stop the cruelty adopt a brunette today

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/brunette.jpg

Sergio_101
11-04-2006, 04:04 AM
For the sake of argument, the canceled third wave
at Pearl Harbor was to hit fuel, repair
facilities etc.
We now know those should have been top priority.
No matter how you look at it, Pearl Harbor was a stunning victory.
But it was like kicking the 500lb Gorilla.
Short term victory, National suicide.
If not for the "Germany First" policy Japan
would have likely NOT have survived a year, maybe two.

Sergio

boxmike
11-04-2006, 04:20 AM
Good thread, I always wondered about this when watching footage from attacks, such an amount of AA fire everywhere. I 'cheated' offline by skip bombing a carrier from a direction that destroyer behind it tried to shoot me through the carrier http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
But it comes to mind also with big bomber flocks, hundreds of gunners in the loose against interceptors.
Carriers were top priority targets and 'grateful' ones, as battlewagons and other cap ships did not have such amounts of bombs, torps and fuel massed at quite open/wide lower deck. How many carriers literally blew up hours after actual attack?

Rgds,
-box<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Walter Mitty from Hell.

jarink
11-04-2006, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
If not for the "Germany First" policy Japan
would have likely NOT have survived a year, maybe two.

Actually, I think the "Germany first" strategy was correct for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it takes longer to build and train a fleet (especially the capital ships) than it does to recruit and train an army. If the policy had been "Japan first", I doubt it would have shortened the Pacific war by more than a year (Summer 1944). The ships needed for the amphibious campaigns were just not available before then.

While the Kamikazes did a pretty poor job of sinking ships, they were tremedously effective at damaging ships and killing sailors. Many of the damaged ships were so heavily damaged they were either written off or kept out of action until the end of the war. Repair facilities in the Pacific were overwhelmed to the point that many ships (the Franklin is a good example) were sent to shipyards on the Atlantic coast.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg