|
|
Post by tbr on May 2, 2019 15:08:40 GMT -6
If you look at widely used, i.e. beyond low volume almost singular examples, anti-air cannon the largest calibre was 130mm. The reason lies in the fact that this is the largest "light" calibre as per the Kaiserliche Marine Definition: projectile and propellant can be unified and manually carried/loaded in that form (later on that coincided also with the maximum size for effective automatic carry/loading). Medium calibres are of a size where projectile and propellant can be manually carried/loaded if separated, heavy calibres need machine/lever/pulley support to carry/load projectile and propellant.
There are 6 and 8 inch exemptions to these categories in regards to fully automatic carry/loading, but only the 8inch installation on the De Moines calss heavy cruisers was truly successful.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2019 3:29:44 GMT -6
If you look at widely used, i.e. beyond low volume almost singular examples, anti-air cannon the largest calibre was 130mm. The reason lies in the fact that this is the largest "light" calibre as per the Kaiserliche Marine Definition: projectile and propellant can be unified and manually carried/loaded in that form (later on that coincided also with the maximum size for effective automatic carry/loading). Medium calibres are of a size where projectile and propellant can be manually carried/loaded if separated, heavy calibres need machine/lever/pulley support to carry/load projectile and propellant. There are 6 and 8 inch exemptions to these categories in regards to fully automatic carry/loading, but only the 8inch installation on the De Moines calss heavy cruisers was truly successful. no thats not the intire case while anti aircraft guns were generally below 130mm there are alot of cases of ships having anti aircraft guns above 130mm (NOTABLY EVERY SINGLE JAPANESE SHIP WITH OVER 130MM SIZED GUNS) every single japanese ship with 130mm plus guns could in theory fire sanshikidan shells though it was not common to do so but they did have a few of the shells available to put it into perspective from 127mm guns to 460mm guns they had sanshikidan shells and in fact the japanese guns of the following caliber were equipped with timed fuse he shells 152mm type 0 HE 155mm type 0 HE 203mm type 0 HE 203mm type 3 IS 356mm type 0 HE 356mm type 3 IS (incinderary shell) 410mm type 0 HE 410mm type 3 IS 460mm type 0 HE 460mm type 3 IS american 152mm HC Mark34 shell with proximity fuse (could be timed proximity or impact equipped depending on need) 203mm HC Mark 24 203mm HC Mark 25 can both be equipped with proxy timed or impact can be fired from any turret with the number designation between mark 12 and mark 16 (used on all baltimoores) 356mm mark8-12 HC Mark 22 can use impact and timed fuse (timed is for aa) 406mm HC Mark 13 AA round used on mark 7 mounts ONLY (they are hc mark13 he shells with a mechanical aa fuse) the french also had the 152 mm model 1933 mount which could fire aa he shells in the dual purpose mount british 152mm /50 qf mark n5 and mark V russians 180mm HE mod 1928, Shrapnel/HE mod 1928, AA grenade 152mm Distance Grenade (ZS-35) german 150mm HE L/4,5 nose fuze AA 150mm (used on bismarck) HE L/4,6 nose fuze AA 203mm HE L/4,7 nose fuse AA 283mm HE L/4,4 nose fuze AA 283mm (deutchland slightly diffrent gun) HE L/4,2 nose fuze AA 380mm HE L/4,6 nose fuze AA (yes its confusing but this was also on the 150mm gun of course not the same shell but the same designation) thats 24 shells that are larger than 130mm + that are anti aircraft shells dual purpose guns ABSOLUTELY should include big guns |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 3, 2019 5:04:49 GMT -6
But how effective were they?
This main point.
To have system in RTW2 which was not effective is not good for this game as players will not used it and you either script AI not to use it too or use it but it gives players additional advantage which is always bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2019 5:18:57 GMT -6
But how effective were they? This main point. To have system in RTW2 which was not effective is not good for this game as players will not used it and you either script AI not to use it too or use it but it gives players additional advantage which is always bad. depends intirely on the gun for example the us technical mission to japan determined the japanese type 0 high explosive for the 460mm gun had an effective radious of 81 METERS from the center (thats over 160meter wide explosion) while the 356 and 410 and 203 had these values respectively 59 meters 50 meters and 29 meters radius of effectiveness US Naval Technical Mission to Japan report O-19 so as long as the shell explodes relatively close to the plane its likely gonna be toast i would expect the german and other nations guns to be around the same or slightly worse in effectiveness (mostly because they dident pursue big anti air guns as hard as the japanese did) the sanshikidan shells were used and covered quite the area there are reports the yamato shot down a couple of helldivers with a 3 gun salvo of them but their usefullness was in general dissapointing the type 0 HE was very likely alot more effective their effectiveness is not that bad the explosive radius (where they are effective) is absolutely huge on large guns like yamatos and their range is basically unmatched by other anti aircraft guns this basically makes them extreme range anti aircraft guns with a lot of punch but at close range the turrets wont be able to turn to match the planes also whats important to be mentioned is the sanshikidan shells were not intended to shoot down planes but to create clouds and scare pilots which would make them either disengage be nervous or be forced to evade (DUE TO THE GIANT FIRE CLOUD) the type 0 he however was more likely designed to just nuke anything close to it out of orbit a bit of info on sanshikidan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)again these are likely not designed to directly down aircraft (certainly are extremely capable of doing so) but more make a giant wall of smoke and fragments and danger at very long range which pilots would want to avoid at all costs because if they do get hit they die which would force them to dodge change course altitude and in general not fly in a straight line they were also used to bombard airfields with their fuse so they exploded above the airfield and against henderson field the 356mm sanshiki shells proved quite usefull at burning fuel destroying planes and whatnot granted its almost gauranteed HE shells were also used |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 3, 2019 5:25:06 GMT -6
But how effective were they? This main point. To have system in RTW2 which was not effective is not good for this game as players will not used it and you either script AI not to use it too or use it but it gives players additional advantage which is always bad. depends intirely on the gun for example the us technical mission to japan determined the japanese type 0 high explosive for the 460mm gun had an effective radious of 81 METERS from the center (thats over 160meter wide explosion) while the 356 and 410 and 203 had these values respectively 59 meters 50 meters and 29 meters radius of effectiveness US Naval Technical Mission to Japan report O-19 so as long as the shell explodes relatively close to the plane its likely gonna be toast i would expect the german and other nations guns to be around the same or slightly worse in effectiveness (mostly because they dident pursue big anti air guns as hard as the japanese did) the sanshikidan shells were used and covered quite the area there are reports the yamato shot down a couple of helldivers with a 3 gun salvo of them but their usefullness was in general dissapointing the type 0 HE was very likely alot more effective their effectiveness is not that bad the explosive radius (where they are effective) is absolutely huge on large guns like yamatos and their range is basically unmatched by other anti aircraft guns this basically makes them extreme range anti aircraft guns with a lot of punch but at close range the turrets wont be able to turn to match the planes I am asking about whole system not only shells. As long as you are not able use it and shot down aircrafts with some reliability the quality of shells does not matter. It is similar with heavy guns, If you do not have good quality fire control, crew etc., you will not hit anything. System as whole is important not some of their parts... |
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2019 5:31:42 GMT -6
depends intirely on the gun for example the us technical mission to japan determined the japanese type 0 high explosive for the 460mm gun had an effective radious of 81 METERS from the center (thats over 160meter wide explosion) while the 356 and 410 and 203 had these values respectively 59 meters 50 meters and 29 meters radius of effectiveness US Naval Technical Mission to Japan report O-19 so as long as the shell explodes relatively close to the plane its likely gonna be toast i would expect the german and other nations guns to be around the same or slightly worse in effectiveness (mostly because they dident pursue big anti air guns as hard as the japanese did) the sanshikidan shells were used and covered quite the area there are reports the yamato shot down a couple of helldivers with a 3 gun salvo of them but their usefullness was in general dissapointing the type 0 HE was very likely alot more effective their effectiveness is not that bad the explosive radius (where they are effective) is absolutely huge on large guns like yamatos and their range is basically unmatched by other anti aircraft guns this basically makes them extreme range anti aircraft guns with a lot of punch but at close range the turrets wont be able to turn to match the planes I am asking about whole system not only shells. As long as you are not able use it and shot down aircrafts with some reliability the quality of shells does not matter. It is similar with heavy guns, If you do not have good quality fire control, crew etc., you will not hit anything. System as whole is important not some of their parts... no idea about their guidance but because the fact they had it i would expect them to be able to aim the guns against planes (else they would not have been made) the rangefinder on ships might in fact be better than from anti aircraft firecontrol due to the larger rangefinders giving more accurate measurements you could always just make the main guns fire from the anti aircraft directors if you REALLY could not fire from the main rangefinder would likely just be aimed like it would against ships but aimed at the sky instead with the firecontrol station providing the firing data to shoot at the planes wiki article about sanshikidan shells states yamato fired her guns several times against planes with the shells once against a pbm flying boat and later against task force 58s airplanes also i realize this is wiki but still it bears mention During repairs after Operation Tungsten, the 38 cm SK C/34 naval guns of the Bismarck-class battleship Tirpitz were modified to allow their use against aircraft, being supplied with specially-fuzed 38 cm shells for barrage antiaircraft fire this seems to indicate no firecontrol edits were needed which is interesting i dont think i mentioned this but the use of these guns is not neccesarily to shoot down planes and more to scare them make them abort their attack run cloud vision with flak clouds and make planes dodge of course they are still perfectly capable of downing planes and are in fact very dangerous due to the fact they fly with an insane amount of high explosive BOOM for example the 460mm type 0 HE of the yamato had 61 kgs of explosives and the 38cm gun on bismarck had 69 kgs of explosives (this is likely due to yamato having more shell wall thickness allowing for much more shrapnell to be created upon explosion thus making it more effective at both bombardment and anti airplane duty) |
|
|
|
Post by sleventyfive on May 3, 2019 7:59:34 GMT -6
will we have extremely large anti aircraft guns such as the japanese 203mm 356mm 410mm and 460mm dual purpose guns although ineffective it would still be nice to see for extra long range aa cover (10km+ airial bursts to make aircraft turn or maneuver) I've suggested this in the past, the answer was that large caliber AA is not going to be a thing. ;( Despite germany, America, and Japan all using 8 inch and up AA guns. When you say 'used' is there any evidence for their actual use? I haven't found much reference to dual-purpose guns (or dedicated AA guns) over 6in beyond the San Shiki shells (which seemed to be more used in shore bombardment) and some other nations (the Tirpitz, specifically) having similar 'this will be a great idea' super-heavy AA shells that never really got used. Edit: I see that this was asked and answered a day ago, that's what I get for forgetting to update the page. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2019 10:52:49 GMT -6
I've suggested this in the past, the answer was that large caliber AA is not going to be a thing. ;( Despite germany, America, and Japan all using 8 inch and up AA guns. When you say 'used' is there any evidence for their actual use? I haven't found much reference to dual-purpose guns (or dedicated AA guns) over 6in beyond the San Shiki shells (which seemed to be more used in shore bombardment) and some other nations (the Tirpitz, specifically) having similar 'this will be a great idea' super-heavy AA shells that never really got used. Edit: I see that this was asked and answered a day ago, that's what I get for forgetting to update the page. i litteraly provided a list of guns which used the aa shells that includes all american 16 inch mk7 mounts equipped most american 356 mm gun equipped battleships could use aa fuse shells pretty much all german guns could use aa shells (and i do mean almost every single one) the american 203mm guns from baltimore wichita and des moines classes every single 180mm russian ship and every single 152mm equipped russian ship the french had a dual purpose 152 mount the japanese had NON SANSHIKIDAN shells the type 0 HE shell is their STANDARD HIGH EXPLOSIVE SHELL but was supplied with a timed fuse which COULD BE USED AGAINST PLANES the contact fuse for it was for ground units i understand the list is difficult to understand if you have no idea how many diffrent guns were used by diffrent nations but let me spell it out for you EVERY SINGLE JAPANESE HEAVY CRUISER AND LARGER COULD USE ANTI AIR HIGH EXPLOSIVE OR SANSHIKIDAN FROM ITS MAIN GUNS EVERY LARGE GERMAN SHIP COULD USE HIGH EXPLOSIVE ANTI AIR FROM ITS MAIN GUNS (203mm and larger some destroyers did not have 150mm aa shells) most american battleships could not do it although the retrofitted ships from the pearl harbour attack (battleships) could do it and every single american 406mm mk7 gun could too ( high explosive shell could be changed to an anti aircraft shell by simply changing the fuse which took almost no time goes for all american anti air shells for large guns) most american cruisers could do it it is rare they did use it or we have very few recorded instances atleast outside of the germans and the japanese (the germans used it for the intirety the tirpitz was in the fjord and in every single raid she was using her big guns to engage planes with anti aircraft shells including the fortifications with 420 and 380mm guns guarding the fjord) the japanese used them extensively also please dont ignore what i say and actually read what im saying there are several nations who used large caliber anti air |
|
|
|
Post by Antediluvian Monster on May 3, 2019 16:00:41 GMT -6
For what it's worth, AA capability or being "DP" is usually measured in terms of fire control when it comes down to it, i.e. it's the least you must have to qualify. Which is why the US destroyer leaders had truly single purpose guns despite using 5"/38 as they had no AA fire control, unlike every other modern US destroyer.
For large bore (6"+ in this sense) barrage fire British seem to have been the most elaborate, and perhaps the most successful in use in the Med. They had barrage fire directors, a dedicated radar for the purpose (Type 283), and a system (auto-barrage unit) that automatically fired the guns at right range. These systems were fitted all the way up to battleships.
One way to approach the issue would be to have a "AA capable" mount variation that unlike DP doesn't cost too much, perhaps even none in weight terms. This would give the guns some long range barrage ability for breaking up bomber formations, but little to zero lethal effect or ability to engage close targets. Could be also used for things like British and Japanese 4.7" and 5" destroyer guns with limited AA capability due to modestly outfitted mountings. Then the DP variation (the one that costs extra weight) would be for those mounts with high speed power training and pointing and power ramming at any elevation.
|
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on May 3, 2019 16:12:20 GMT -6
The fact that heavy AA shells (or HE shells that could be used in this role) were developed for various guns, do not make those guns AA or even DP. DP gun needs to be able to engage aircraft and this require not only train and and elevation fast enough to target objects rapidly moving and changing angle but also has RoF allowing to fire multiple shells in the engagement.
While US had the capability, had they ever used heavy shells against planes? Was there any visible result? Was there any effect from the German guns defending Tirpitz?
I'd say if we do not have data on effectiveness of those shells, there is no point in adding them to game. All that code needs to be written, tested, corrected, balanced - all that work for a piece of weaponry that we can't even know if ever managed to endanger any plane.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 4, 2019 10:29:08 GMT -6
The fact that heavy AA shells (or HE shells that could be used in this role) were developed for various guns, do not make those guns AA or even DP. DP gun needs to be able to engage aircraft and this require not only train and and elevation fast enough to target objects rapidly moving and changing angle but also has RoF allowing to fire multiple shells in the engagement. While US had the capability, had they ever used heavy shells against planes? Was there any visible result? Was there any effect from the German guns defending Tirpitz? I'd say if we do not have data on effectiveness of those shells, there is no point in adding them to game. All that code needs to be written, tested, corrected, balanced - all that work for a piece of weaponry that we can't even know if ever managed to endanger any plane. the tirpitz shells werent especially effective at downing the planes this however can be due to multiple factors such as the mountains and other things such as the fact they smoked the intire fjord with their smoke projectors covering the ship making its fire control effectively useless in total the germans shot down 11 heavy bombers and heavily damaged one wether or not this was due to the tirpitz we dont know the shells were also used against henderson field for bombardment and anti aircraft use in total 979 shells were used all the aviation fuel on the field was burned the runway ruined and over half of 90 planes destroyed so yes these shells were widely used in addition to that by 1944 yamatos ammunition consisted 40% of sanshikidan shells in addition to this sanshikidan shells were fired against american cruisers as they had not yet switched to armor piercing which although not very effective did start fires and do some damage "The fact that heavy AA shells (or HE shells that could be used in this role) were developed for various guns, do not make those guns AA or even DP." except yes it does a dual purpose gun is able to engage both aircraft and surface targets and all the guns with these shells which were DESIGNED to engage aircraft (note the proximity fuses and timed fuses for them) are anti aircraft guns "gun needs to be able to engage aircraft and this require not only train and and elevation fast enough to target objects rapidly moving and changing angle but also has RoF allowing to fire multiple shells in the engagement." in short what you said here makes absolutely no sense because nobody is stupid enough to try and fire these guns at under 2kms against aircraft they simply cant aim at them also their elevation rate is fast enough most battleships and heavy cruisers sit between 6-10 degrees/s the yamato sitting at 8 degrees/s which is defeneatly enough and yes i do realise yamato actually fired sanshikidan 460mm shells at less than 2km distance but during said attack she was getting quite desperate especially because her aa mounts were getting strafed bombed and set on fire secondly the guns dont actually need to turn or elevate because as i said if you are shooting below 2km distance they are too close while the shells can of course shoot down planes its mostly meant to make the approach of the enemy planes difficult and problematic which can cause the enemy planes to loose formation making them more vulnerable to allied carrier fighters and also causing the enemy planes to disengage or dodge and possibly making them turn back because of damage to the aircraft from shrapnell again these shells were not useless and had a purpose to them else they would not have been made or produced also the sanshikidan shells and other shells for battleships against aa were defeneatly used and did get results for example yamato firing at the pbm and the last battle it is likely the shells had some effect on the aircraft it was fired upon and also the tirpitz against the lancasters and the british who used it in the medeterranian on their 6 inchers the french jean bart which used it against an american carrier the countless aircraft these guns destroyed in the pacific also i wouldnt expect it to be particulairly hard to code in these weapons it would just be an extension of the 5 inch guns since the "large caliber" dual purpose guns are already in game the 6-20 inch dual purpose guns would just use the code of the 2-5 inch guns but buff the damage/effect of the explosions but make the reload time longer and possibly reduce accuracy and increase range again coding this is not gonna be a problem they already have dual purpose 2-5 inch guns |
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 4, 2019 10:46:35 GMT -6
To a certain degree, I think ship designers should be given the latitude (likewise the potential ship technologies) to create designs slightly beyond the historical usage cases.
Why did RtW have 18-in guns available? We can say that there were no historical uses of them in that time period. But we allow for the possibility that research and other factors may lead to a fictional scenario where 18-in guns become a realistic option.
Something to consider, and not just for AA guns.
|
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 4, 2019 11:08:28 GMT -6
To a certain degree, I think ship designers should be given the latitude (likewise the potential ship technologies) to create designs slightly beyond the historical usage cases. Why did RtW have 18-in guns available? We can say that there were no historical uses of them in that time period. But we allow for the possibility that research and other factors may lead to a fictional scenario where 18-in guns become a realistic option. Something to consider, and not just for AA guns. exactly this i think the player should be given the ability to be given free reign over which technologies he chooses and uses so we can create some wonky designs much like how 40 knot battleships weighting 90k tons werent a thing yet will be possible in game and the fact that battleships with over 80 torpedoes on them were not possible or sane in real life but tada we have them in game also tillman battleships yeet the exact same goes for unguided anti aircraft rockets/anti aircraft mines (hood) they were known to be completely and absolutely useless and self harming to the ship (LOOKING AT MINES) but they were still used and we should still have the ability to use them unguided anti aircraft rockets were more effective but still far from good and i still think we should have the ability to use them although we will see if they get added in the future of the game |
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 4, 2019 11:18:15 GMT -6
To a certain degree, I think ship designers should be given the latitude (likewise the potential ship technologies) to create designs slightly beyond the historical usage cases. Why did RtW have 18-in guns available? We can say that there were no historical uses of them in that time period. But we allow for the possibility that research and other factors may lead to a fictional scenario where 18-in guns become a realistic option. Something to consider, and not just for AA guns. HMS Furious mounted 2 single-turret 18" guns fire and aft when commissioned in 1917. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Furious_(47)One of the great beauties of RTW is that the player can only create historically possible designs. Everything in RTW had a real-world example, either in service, in final design stages or blatantly possibly were anyone to think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 4, 2019 17:19:08 GMT -6
To a certain degree, I think ship designers should be given the latitude (likewise the potential ship technologies) to create designs slightly beyond the historical usage cases. Why did RtW have 18-in guns available? We can say that there were no historical uses of them in that time period. But we allow for the possibility that research and other factors may lead to a fictional scenario where 18-in guns become a realistic option. Something to consider, and not just for AA guns. HMS Furious mounted 2 single-turret 18" guns fire and aft when commissioned in 1917. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Furious_(47)One of the great beauties of RTW is that the player can only create historically possible designs. Everything in RTW had a real-world example, either in service, in final design stages or blatantly possibly were anyone to think about it. Darn!  Correct my previous to "18-in guns in multi-barreled turrets"! (And thanks for info.) Anyway, I trust my point is understood: you can create things beyond what was historically seen, but not wildly fictional things. I thought RtW did a good job balancing this. Related to this particular thread, 8-in DP/AA guns were built and employed on a real design. It sounds like the Japanese could use their larger guns for AA as well (I wasn't aware of this). |
|
Correct my previous to "18-in guns in multi-barreled turrets"! (And thanks for info.)