|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 31, 2018 13:46:02 GMT -6
Without radar to provide sufficient warning of incoming strikes, a combat air patrol was pretty ineffective and would have been so from 1917 through the late 1930s. A CAP would have been ineffective at preventing strikes, but not necessarily at making them costly. You may not be able to hit the enemy strike on the way in, but if you hit it on site or on the way out, you still might manage to cause significant casualties and mission-kill the enemy carrier by depleting its air wing, which is all the more important if your carrier is mission-killed or sunk by the strike. If your bombers are outperforming your fighters, you need to produce a variant of your bomber with equipment that doesn't contribute to dogfighting (tail guns, etc.) stripped out and deploy that as a fighter.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Dec 31, 2018 14:13:35 GMT -6
If your bombers are outperforming your fighters, you need to produce a variant of your bomber with equipment that doesn't contribute to dogfighting (tail guns, etc.) stripped out and deploy that as a fighter. That would seem like an obvious conclusion. I wonder if in the Japanese limitation in the case might not have been that they had a certain doctrines about the size that a fighter should be. The Japanese Zero fighter was considerably lighter then their Val dive bomber while the difference between a Wildcat fighter and a Dauntless dive bomber was not nearly as large. The Zero also had a smaller engine which might indicate that the cost and fuel economy savings of this doctrine would be substantial. The Americans did use the Dauntless as a miltirole plane a bit during the early period of the war. So perhaps the Japanese thinking was in that direction, allow a single design to serve as both fighter and bomber.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 31, 2018 14:29:00 GMT -6
You seem to be responding to a different post then the one that you quoted. Please be more careful in the future. I was responding to you specifically, because this statement: in reply to this:
in a thread specifically about large-caliber DP guns strongly implies that you were suggesting using relatively heavy guns to harass dive bombers when they're diving on your ship. Heavy guns are not suitable for that purpose, and my post was meant to partially explain why that is so.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Dec 31, 2018 14:46:29 GMT -6
Without radar to provide sufficient warning of incoming strikes, a combat air patrol was pretty ineffective and would have been so from 1917 through the late 1930s. A CAP would have been ineffective at preventing strikes, but not necessarily at making them costly. You may not be able to hit the enemy strike on the way in, but if you hit it on site or on the way out, you still might manage to cause significant casualties and mission-kill the enemy carrier by depleting its air wing, which is all the more important if your carrier is mission-killed or sunk by the strike. If your bombers are outperforming your fighters, you need to produce a variant of your bomber with equipment that doesn't contribute to dogfighting (tail guns, etc.) stripped out and deploy that as a fighter. You mistake the type of bomber that was faster than the Japanese fighters. It was not a single engined carrier bomber and it was not Japanese. It was a two engine land-based American bomber, the Martin B-10. This bomber incorporated a lot of new technology for the time, including an internal bomb bay, retractable wheels, a fully enclosed cockpit, rotatable enclosed turret, and NACA cowlings for its engines, all of which contributed to a very clean design for the period and allowed a speed in excess of what most fighters of the period were capable. At the time it was introduced virtually all fighters were biplanes with speeds around 150 mph, which included the primary Japanese carrier fighter of the period, the Nakajima A1N. This bomber could make nearly 200 and it was fielded by the primary potential enemy of the Japanese, which put quite a scare into their navy as well as other navies and air forces around the world.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Dec 31, 2018 16:33:18 GMT -6
in a thread specifically about large-caliber DP guns strongly implies that you were suggesting using relatively heavy guns to harass dive bombers when they're diving on your ship. Heavy guns are not suitable for that purpose, and my post was meant to partially explain why that is so. The conversation started with a discussion on type 3 ammunition. It is an elementary fact about such ammunition that it was not a conventional anti aircraft artillery shell because it was an attempt to compensate for the fact that such shells were not effective at such a large caliber. We should at this point assume that everyone is on board with that premise. To assume that I need you to explain this to me in a patronizing fashion is an insult to my intelligence. At no point did I say I thought it was an advisable idea or even a plausible one. This only "strongly implies" that I think such a design is a practical idea if you operate from the assumption that I am such a single track individual that if I make a statement about something having a theoretical utility I must be in favor of it. I've been on this forum for two years. I shouldn't think it needs to be said at this point that I am capable of trivial logic. I would hope I've even shown that I can be intelligent on occasion. However I think it should be really blindingly obvious at this point that I like discussing things that aren't effective or effective for roundabout reasons, the Akrons, the semidreadnoughts, the destroyer escorts, corvettes and jeep carriers, there's a reason why I have brought up such things. If after two years you can't distinguish between my appreciation for the counterintuitive and me being an idiot, please just ignore my posts from now on. If you are reading my posts in such a fashion the posts are of no use to you and I can say I am not getting anything from your replies to them. Click on my name to go to my profile, hit the gear button and select 'block user'. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Dec 31, 2018 18:07:18 GMT -6
AiryW - Reading over the posts so far I honestly don't see aeson as purposefully trying to be patronizing towards you. This is a reminder to everyone: Let us keep things civil and not let our emotions get the better of us. We all benefit when we are polite, professional, and keep our posts from progressing towards personal animosity. This is not a direct accusation towards anyone in this thread, I just want to make sure we don't head towards that path.... Thanks.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Dec 31, 2018 19:20:17 GMT -6
AiryW - Reading over the posts so far I honestly don't see aeson as purposefully trying to be patronizing towards you. I would believe that if it was the first such instance. However it is a repeated pattern and I have expressed my frustration with this behavior indirectly, directly and in completely non technical contexts. The reason I am stating this so forcefully is that more gentle suggestions have been completely disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Dec 31, 2018 20:14:51 GMT -6
The conversation started with a discussion on type 3 ammunition. It is an elementary fact about such ammunition that it was not a conventional anti aircraft artillery shell because it was an attempt to compensate for the fact that such shells were not effective at such a large caliber. Type 3 shells used a delay fuse, and as such heavy DP guns equipped with them would not be much, if any, more capable of engaging dive bombers equipped with them than would heavy DP guns equipped with more typical delay-fused anti-aircraft shells. Whether you believe it or not, I am not trying to patronize or harass you.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Jan 1, 2019 5:28:11 GMT -6
I still think that very long range planes should have a very tiny chance to be shot down by battleship grade AA rounds.
Just for historical accuracy and Japanese doctrine role playing.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 1, 2019 8:58:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 1, 2019 10:50:53 GMT -6
Without radar to provide sufficient warning of incoming strikes, a combat air patrol was pretty ineffective and would have been so from 1917 through the late 1930s. A CAP would have been ineffective at preventing strikes, but not necessarily at making them costly. You may not be able to hit the enemy strike on the way in, but if you hit it on site or on the way out, you still might manage to cause significant casualties and mission-kill the enemy carrier by depleting its air wing, which is all the more important if your carrier is mission-killed or sunk by the strike. If your bombers are outperforming your fighters, you need to produce a variant of your bomber with equipment that doesn't contribute to dogfighting (tail guns, etc.) stripped out and deploy that as a fighter. In reality much more sorties were from land strikes to carrier than from carrier to carrier. You have mission which is not sea itself. So it depend on mission if it is hit and run than several enemy planes shot down is usually not so important. In case you need to operate long time period in range of land enemy airfields, enemy losses Will be probably not significant enough. Look ať ETO. Or you can look ať eperation Icenberg which is exception and total advantage in resources on Allied side. You are right that in middle of 30s, fighters was not expected to defend carrier. USA played with strategy not putting all eggs in oné basket, RN with pssive defence by AA and armour and other passive features.
|
|
|
Post by mikesnyder on Jan 1, 2019 12:52:56 GMT -6
I see no discussion of fire control here or fuzes. What made the 5" Mk.12 L/38 gun in single base ring powered mounts and twin shielded base ring mounts was not just power loading allowing max effort RoF of 20-30 rpm per barrel, but that the USN (and the IJN) had superior heavy AA fire control systems, having gone with tachymetric systems, where the RN did not. The RN spent the rest of the war catching up until they got Mk.37 directors through Lend-Lease. While there were issues with the speed of response and acquisition, the facts were that USN early warning and search radars were superior to any other navies. The CXAM-1 could provide range and approxiamate bearing on large formations above 10,000 feet out to 120nm, a performance bettered by the SK in that with increased power, more accurate bearings could be read. SC with its smaller antenna had a maximum range of 50nm, while the more powerful SC-2 could acquire and track out to 75nm. This gave the Air Defense Officer in the CIC to assign directors. The Mk.37 director with the Mk.1 computer and the Mk.12 and Mk.22 radar could pick up the targets at 20nm and run the data through the FCS for a firing solution. The Mk.37/Mk.1 used remote power control to put the mounts on target and update fuzing information, the fuze being set by data from the Mk.1 computer in the power loading sequence reducing dead time. When the proximity fuze was used the fuze setter was cut out and the loaders simply dropped the shells and cartridge cases into the tray and tipped the ammo over for the rammer. The Mk.4 (FD) radar was not as accurate in reading range and bearing but allowed quick acquisition of the target so the 15 foot stereoscopic range finder could take range readings. The key here was maximum automation of the process. The IJN's Type 98 FCS used a powered director with an integral optical RF and an off-mount computer. It was almost as good as the Mk.37 but lacked RPC to the mounts and manual transmission of data was used for some parts of the firing solution. Also, the fuze setting machine was on the mount, increasing the dead time between fuze set and firing. It also lacked radar, yet it was better than anything the RN had at the time. Working backward, you go through the Mk.33 and Mk.28 directors where the computer (rangekeeper) was in the director to the first effective tachymetric director adopted by any navy, the Mk.19, which when integrated with the RF and with a shield added, became FC director Mk.1, the IJN equivalent being the Type 94. The same progression can be seen with heavy automatic weapons.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 1, 2019 13:47:20 GMT -6
You mistake the type of bomber that was faster than the Japanese fighters. It was not a single engined carrier bomber and it was not Japanese. It was a two engine land-based American bomber, the Martin B-10. This bomber incorporated a lot of new technology for the time, including an internal bomb bay, retractable wheels, a fully enclosed cockpit, rotatable enclosed turret, and NACA cowlings for its engines, all of which contributed to a very clean design for the period and allowed a speed in excess of what most fighters of the period were capable. At the time it was introduced virtually all fighters were biplanes with speeds around 150 mph, which included the primary Japanese carrier fighter of the period, the Nakajima A1N. This bomber could make nearly 200 and it was fielded by the primary potential enemy of the Japanese, which put quite a scare into their navy as well as other navies and air forces around the world. In that case it's more of an issue of "the enemy's planes outperform yours significantly" than of "bombers, as a type and across the world, outperform fighters", in which case the proper strategy to adopt is "avoid war at all costs".
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 1, 2019 14:03:43 GMT -6
I see no discussion of fire control here or fuzes. What made the 5" Mk.12 L/38 gun in single base ring powered mounts and twin shielded base ring mounts was not just power loading allowing max effort RoF of 20-30 rpm per barrel, but that the USN (and the IJN) had superior heavy AA fire control systems, having gone with tachymetric systems, where the RN did not. The RN spent the rest of the war catching up until they got Mk.37 directors through Lend-Lease. While there were issues with the speed of response and acquisition, the facts were that USN early warning and search radars were superior to any other navies. The CXAM-1 could provide range and approxiamate bearing on large formations above 10,000 feet out to 120nm, a performance bettered by the SK in that with increased power, more accurate bearings could be read. SC with its smaller antenna had a maximum range of 50nm, while the more powerful SC-2 could acquire and track out to 75nm. This gave the Air Defense Officer in the CIC to assign directors. The Mk.37 director with the Mk.1 computer and the Mk.12 and Mk.22 radar could pick up the targets at 20nm and run the data through the FCS for a firing solution. The Mk.37/Mk.1 used remote power control to put the mounts on target and update fuzing information, the fuze being set by data from the Mk.1 computer in the power loading sequence reducing dead time. When the proximity fuze was used the fuze setter was cut out and the loaders simply dropped the shells and cartridge cases into the tray and tipped the ammo over for the rammer. The Mk.4 (FD) radar was not as accurate in reading range and bearing but allowed quick acquisition of the target so the 15 foot stereoscopic range finder could take range readings. The key here was maximum automation of the process. The IJN's Type 98 FCS used a powered director with an integral optical RF and an off-mount computer. It was almost as good as the Mk.37 but lacked RPC to the mounts and manual transmission of data was used for some parts of the firing solution. Also, the fuze setting machine was on the mount, increasing the dead time between fuze set and firing. It also lacked radar, yet it was better than anything the RN had at the time. Working backward, you go through the Mk.33 and Mk.28 directors where the computer (rangekeeper) was in the director to the first effective tachymetric director adopted by any navy, the Mk.19, which when integrated with the RF and with a shield added, became FC director Mk.1, the IJN equivalent being the Type 94. The same progression can be seen with heavy automatic weapons. From my files, the CXAM range on a 130 foot antenna and a large aircraft wasabout 50 miles. It's range accuracy was about 200 yards plus or minus. Official sources states that it could detect a large aircraft at 70 nautical miles at 10,000 feet, smaller planes at 50 miles. It used a manually rotated bedspring antenna and was first issued in 1938 to the USS New York. pacificeagles.net/cxam-air-search-radar/I will agree that we were light years ahead of the British which is hard to understand with their advancements in land based fixed ground radar. Our Mark 1A fire control radar computer which was electro-mechanical analog ballistic computer did provide accurate firing solutions and could automatically control at least one or more mounts. www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.phpwww.cowardstereoview.com/analog/ford.htmOfficial Naval Mission to Japan document on Japanese Anti-aircraft Fire control - web.archive.org/web/20141022174610/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200E-0633-0764%20Report%200-30.pdf - Be patient, this document takes time to come up on the screen.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Jan 1, 2019 14:16:47 GMT -6
AiryW - Reading over the posts so far I honestly don't see aeson as purposefully trying to be patronizing towards you. I would believe that if it was the first such instance. However it is a repeated pattern and I have expressed my frustration with this behavior indirectly, directly and in completely non technical contexts. The reason I am stating this so forcefully is that more gentle suggestions have been completely disregarded. The communities for niche games like this tend to be full of nerds, and one of the problems nerds have is that we often take a patronizing tone without intending to. It is thus incumbent on everybody to: A) Recognize that we may come across as patronizing if we do not actively avoid it. B) Recognize that others likely do not intend it any more than we do, even if it is a persistent pattern.
|
|