Matrix Games Forums

Two New Videos for Distant Worlds!War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition Wins Game of the Year!Announcement to Customers: Replacement of Defective CDsMore Matrix Titles Nominated for Awards!Matrix Games Holiday Sale Ends Soon!Field of Glory Wins Award!New Video for Distant Worlds!Guns of August Gets a New UpdateHotfix Released for WW2: Time of WrathMatrix Games To Publish Distant Worlds!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Kongo class AA shell?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Kongo class AA shell? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/11/2007 8:39:31 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9330
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
Never-the-less, you are correct in that the key is fire control. A 5 inch projectile would kill any WW2 aircraft just as dead as any 8 or 18 inch shell can. You have to score a hit hough. With a higher rate of fire in the 5 inch, you get more chances to do so before the plane delivers it's ordnance and/or moves out of range or line of fire.



Fire Control and adjustment has ALWAYS been the key to artillery fire against any target. The Russians were forced to use thousands of guns to achieve the same results as the Western Allies were able to get with hundreds simply because the great majority of their fire was "area fire" rather than "directed fire", and they lacked the "flexibility" to shift targets rapidly and as needed.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 31
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 12:32:25 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Dont change subject. So what country put in service a ship rocket AAA system after WW2 and retained it until AAA missile age?



Is THAT the subject? I thought it was AAA shells for 14 inch guns.

In Russian and Chinese, of course, they call SAMs "rockets" - and they have a point - but it is just an interesting play on words - and not an answer to your question.

I do not think AA rockets were used post WWII.

The word you used was "weapon." The phrase containg it was "any kind of weapon." So my response was to what you said - apparently not what you meant. You meant the post to be a continuation of our sub-topic of rockets, but didn't say so - and I almost always read things literally - which can be good (in a tech manual or computer machine code) but sometimes isn't.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/12/2007 12:37:24 AM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 32
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 12:42:13 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2003
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		I think we have been "talking" about UK UP's and Japanese AA Rockets but i concede you could have made that confusion since other posts got in between.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 33
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 12:45:26 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
Never-the-less, you are correct in that the key is fire control. A 5 inch projectile would kill any WW2 aircraft just as dead as any 8 or 18 inch shell can. You have to score a hit hough. With a higher rate of fire in the 5 inch, you get more chances to do so before the plane delivers it's ordnance and/or moves out of range or line of fire.



Fire Control and adjustment has ALWAYS been the key to artillery fire against any target. The Russians were forced to use thousands of guns to achieve the same results as the Western Allies were able to get with hundreds simply because the great majority of their fire was "area fire" rather than "directed fire", and they lacked the "flexibility" to shift targets rapidly and as needed.




I completely concur with you both (mlees and Mike Sholl). However, there IS a justification for ultra heavy AAA in that era (and possibly in this one): IF you think you may have targets at very high altitudes, you will have problems of shell performance with lower calibers. The ultimate expression of heavy AA guns - in practical terms - may be the automatic six inch guns found on the Worcester class cruisers - and a number of almost identical projects in several countries - including an IJA project (with just a single battery defending the Imperial Palace) - which I think was 149.2 mm (talk about a wierd caliber). But if you are familiar with the eight inch guns on the Des Moines class cruisers, there is a possibility of making an effective AAA single from that technology - and it probably would be possible to mount six single eights of that sort on a Worcester. These Japanese eight inch guns LOOK LIKE that sort of mounting - they really look like a modern AAA mounting. At Singapore we have the possibility of looking at the handling gear - because the guns were not known - and not messed up by scrap hunters. They may also have achieved their design purpose - to discourage B-29 raids at full altitude. In air defense, (see Freeman Dyson in Weapons and Hope: he was the RAF statistical analyst during the war who later became a famous physicist) we count "targets not engaged" as victories. This is usually said to mean "if you must send more planes to destroy this target, then those more planes cannot fly at that target, so the mission not flown is a victory for the defense." But it can mean "if you are unwilling to attack the target, at all, ever, because of the defense" - it is a victory for the defense - no matter they never shot anything down in the raids you never flew. Later SAMs became deadly at very high altitudes - so that for a while we preferred "low penetration" at the risk of AA - and probably got rid of the need for very heavy AA. And the Worcester class shows that it can be very expensive to get this sort of protection. But note our present SAM ships are even more expensive (even in relative terms). What killed the number of heavy AA escorts may be the lack of threat: there have not been very many attacks on our carriers. Perhaps if we were being actually engaged we would regard AA escorts as more cost worthy?

JF Dunnigan points out the USN NEVER solved the problem of the kamakaze, and STILL would be hurt by the tactic. In 1945 we were playing catch up ball in the air defense battle - and the technologies we worked on (including our own very heavy AAA guns) might look a lot better if the war had gone on a few more years. Similarly, had the IJA mass produced its six inch, and eight inch, AAA mountings, at least in a relative sense, because the war went on longer, we might have a better grasp of their significance. [Or not - we did abandon high altitude bombing - so maybe like the very heavy fighters they were no longer germane to the problem]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/12/2007 12:53:35 AM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 34
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 5:16:21 AM   
mlees


Posts: 2252
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
JF Dunnigan points out the USN NEVER solved the problem of the kamakaze, and STILL would be hurt by the tactic. In 1945 we were playing catch up ball in the air defense battle - and the technologies we worked on (including our own very heavy AAA guns) might look a lot better if the war had gone on a few more years. Similarly, had the IJA mass produced its six inch, and eight inch, AAA mountings, at least in a relative sense, because the war went on longer, we might have a better grasp of their significance. [Or not - we did abandon high altitude bombing - so maybe like the very heavy fighters they were no longer germane to the problem]


Hmmm. While I am just a "lay person" (compared to you guys) in terms of my WW2 knowledge, it seems to me that the USN did solve the kamikaze "problem".

IIRC, upthread somewhere someone states that the kamikaze success rate was somewhere in the neighborhood of 10% of the planes flown hit a target. NOTE: this does NOT mean a carrier target, but could be anything from a radar picket destroyer, or an LST off a landing beach, some cruiser or battleship operating independantly from the main fleet, the minesweepers, and so on.

In fact, the majority of ships damaged or sunk where not capital ships (where the heaviest AA is found).

The centrally coordinated, radar directed CAP intercepts made the fleet a tough target, and I assume that the auxiliary ships were damaged more often because they were easier targets in terms of AA installed and CAP available. (Please do not read this as some attempt to belittle the accomplishments made on the USS Franklin, or any other folks who suffered.)

But anyway, IMO, a 10% success rate is not something to crow about. Nor is it a rate that indicates to me that the USN failed to counter it.

Isn't it possible that the 10% success rate may actually have more to do with the sheer numbers of aircraft that Japan was able to gather together for their last line of defence, rather than the viability of a human guided missile tactic.

The USN had to adopt a new variation of fleet defence v. the kamikaze tactics, sure. And they had to adjust to the necessity of operating close to large numbers of land based aircraft. But they did do it.

Caveat time: I agree that a heavier shell retains more of its energy longer, and therefore is more effective at higher altitudes. However, the move away from gun barrel based AA to missle type AA systems was that the likely opposition (aircraft and missiles) would be flying much faster than before, and the fleet needed something that could be guided to the target. This usually requires a seeking warhead of some kind. (Either self guided, like a heat seeker, or launcher guided, where the shell homes in on radar reflections and/or emissions.) A gun shell is subjected to great shock when fired, and those older electronics weren't capable of taking that shock. Missiles dont have that launch shock.

I wonder: The Mighty U.S. 8th AF bombed Germany from these high altitudes (20,000 - 30,000 feet. What was the best ground based AA system used by Germany against high altitude targets, and why? (I bet it wasn't some 8 inch or greater gun tube... maybe in the 150mm range?) "Best" as in best rate of hits per shot fired.

Thanks for your patience.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 35
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 12:03:07 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 7278
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Dont change subject. So what country put in service a ship rocket AAA system after WW2 and retained it until AAA missile age?



Is THAT the subject? I thought it was AAA shells for 14 inch guns.

In Russian and Chinese, of course, they call SAMs "rockets" - and they have a point - but it is just an interesting play on words - and not an answer to your question.

I do not think AA rockets were used post WWII.

The word you used was "weapon." The phrase containg it was "any kind of weapon." So my response was to what you said - apparently not what you meant. You meant the post to be a continuation of our sub-topic of rockets, but didn't say so - and I almost always read things literally - which can be good (in a tech manual or computer machine code) but sometimes isn't.




for a non native speaker... what´s the difference between rocket and missile?

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 36
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 12:29:58 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
JF Dunnigan points out the USN NEVER solved the problem of the kamakaze, and STILL would be hurt by the tactic. In 1945 we were playing catch up ball in the air defense battle - and the technologies we worked on (including our own very heavy AAA guns) might look a lot better if the war had gone on a few more years. Similarly, had the IJA mass produced its six inch, and eight inch, AAA mountings, at least in a relative sense, because the war went on longer, we might have a better grasp of their significance. [Or not - we did abandon high altitude bombing - so maybe like the very heavy fighters they were no longer germane to the problem]


Hmmm. While I am just a "lay person" (compared to you guys) in terms of my WW2 knowledge, it seems to me that the USN did solve the kamikaze "problem".



This is a widely held view. This is also my problem: fleet anti-air warfare. And in particular I study the possibility of fleet air defense re Chinese aircraft. There are a lot of dimensions to AAW, and it is a difficult thing to get it right: you can even lose if you have got it right technology wise, but are not paying attention operationally (VERY likely with Americans).
IDF spotted incoming Styx missiles when Elat was hit - visually (they don't show up on search radar). Contemplating Styx attack a year later (assigned to defend against it) we had NO hope OUR lookouts would spot such a small target in time even to give a British style "brace, brace, brace" warning. So we sought detection by what was then termed passive ESM (and is usually called ESM now): listen for the radar on the missile as a flag "it is coming." In WWII it was marginally better - when you are losing ships every few hours it focuses the attention. Consider the northern picket station off Okinawa: the time a destroyer was able to be on station was measured in single digit hours! When the enemy can do that to you - things are pretty awful.

Most kamakazes were inexperienced pilots who could barely hold formation. But Adm Ukazi died leading a raid - so sometimes you had really experienced pilots. Using statistics diluted by large numbers of people with 15 hours of flight time dilutes the danger potential of the threat. If PLAAF decides to run such missions, it is the opposite case: their pilots are given 10 hours on a flight simulator for 1 in the air on their primary type, and UNLIMITED time in older, high performance types (which they have in thousands). Further - the problem we solved (re anti-ship missiles) was easier than the kamakaze problem - missiles are far dumber and more predictable than humans. And note the problem didn't exactly stay solved: a US frigate in the Persian Gulf was hit by French Exocet missiles in spite of having anti-missile technology (soft and hard) we would have drooled to have (and which we designed): they were not even manning their ECM equipment in a shooting war years long where most missiles were hitting bouys - that is how dumb they are - and the captain was foolish enough to think "my American flag will save me from being a target." [If the missiles attack bouys, they don't care about your flag] Not manning his ECM, he had no warning. He STILL believes the "fatal flaw" lie in Pentagon design of a ship whose search radar cannot spot a tiny head on missile: he says so in interviews and his book.
Yet the real flaw lies in the failure to train him to "think electronically" - and use what he had effectively. Few navy captains think electronically - almost all think in terms of using radar all the time - which in fact permits an attacking jet or missile to come in passive - homing on your signal! THEN there is NO ESM warning. This problem is far from solved - and Dunnigan is right.

USN is particularly vulnerable to a Chinese attack because we "know" they "cannot be any good." A friend who teaches at the US Naval War college says pilot students say they don't need to study their Chinese counterparts. But the Chinese do it the other way around: they have "blue" units that imitate our tactics, and their pilots have to train against those who do things the way we do. They are flying variants of the Su-27 and the F-16 - and also some local derivitives of the MiG-21 which do things no MiG-21 we know about ever could do. They are buying and developing short range and long range missiles for use from aircraft, large and small, and from ships and submarines. On land the entire short and medium range missile force - the world's largest - has converted over to conventional warheads - and one of these is designed to rain BALLISTIC missiles onto ships at sea. [The captain of a US Ticonderoga type cruiser believes they sent a message during a crisis - by hitting the center of pre published aiming boxes as closely as radar can measure - to show they can hit a ship at sea that simply stays on course for a few minutes WITHOUT onboard guidance.] There isn't much difference between a missile and a kamakaze - they are one way attack aircraft - and these can come at us in numbers likely to saturate the defenses (what do you do when you have no more SAMs????) - some of them at speeds most of our ships cannot solve fire control problems for (we have - what is it ? - five experimental anti-missile variants of one of our AAW classes which probably can track them). And the manned ones may be determined and clever. I don't really care if a target is a kamakaze or an attack pilot intending to go home either - it is almost the same threat - but a kamakaze can turn the entire aircraft into warhead (and fire is the most deadly enemy to a ship) - and a kamakaze won't break off when damaged or wounded. Not nice.

I remember a time when we lost every air to air engagement in a shooting war for five months running - and when our planes were not properly fitted with guns (a lesson learned, they are now) nor their pilots trained to dog fight (not so well learned, we now are teaching that you should depend on BVR weapons and long range radar to set them up - and dogfighting is not going to be necessary - political nonsense - you cannot shoot what you cannot see in most situations - and if you see it well enough to identify it you probably cannot use BVR weapons any more). There are other potential problems as well - our latest generation (untested) technology uses continuous data links between planes as well as continuous use of search radar (similar to an unsinkable battleship, there is no such thing as undetectable radar: if it could not be detected WE could get no target data!) - the very opposite of what "electronic thinking" would advise (which, to oversimplify, begins with "be passive unless your position is already known or there is some CLEAR advantage to being active") - and we have a problem with contractors selling our secrets to China. We may find they are reading our signals - real time - and managing the battle with them. Stuff like that - and more we should not talk about. The arrogance we once had about Japan we are now repeating with China - and we may come to regret it. [I was pleased to hear the USAF COS last week saying HE was worried in a press conference. It isn't those who are worried that bother me - it is those who are sure there is "nothing to worry about."]

< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/12/2007 12:48:55 PM >

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 37
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 12:54:25 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy




for a non native speaker... what´s the difference between rocket and missile?


Its technical: a rocket is ANY rocket propelled flying thing; a missile is an unmanned flying thing (which may NOT be a rocket at all - USAF had Bomarc SAMs that were more or less unmanned jet fighters - and cruise missiles are usually jet propelled rather than rocket propelled) with an intelligent guidance package (in some sense, even if just intertial guidance). A German V-1 (not a rocket) and V-2 (a rocket) were BOTH missiles - because both had primitive guidance. Actually, the V-2 was not used as planned, but in an emergency mode from mobile launchers. The plan - kyboshed by Bomber raids on its launch sites - was to have it taken off UNDER RADIO CONTROL where guidance was worked out real time by computers using the best long range precision radar system in the world. To combine radio command during the power phase with intertial guidance would have greatly increased their accuracy. The point here is V-2 had two kinds of guidance - interial and command. That makes it a missile. Early cruise missiles were propeller driven - the US had one in WWI. If there is no propulsion, it is not a missile. But some new shells have on board guidance - making them very like missiles except they either do not maneuver or they only maneuver slightly along a nearly ballistic path.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/12/2007 12:59:10 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 38
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 1:00:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees



I wonder: The Mighty U.S. 8th AF bombed Germany from these high altitudes (20,000 - 30,000 feet. What was the best ground based AA system used by Germany against high altitude targets, and why? (I bet it wasn't some 8 inch or greater gun tube... maybe in the 150mm range?) "Best" as in best rate of hits per shot fired.

Thanks for your patience.



Good guess. The Flak 39 was 150 mm (nearly 6 inch) - and it is the ONLY case of AAA greater than 5.25 inch caliber being used extensively in AA combat. I forgot about that - but it does show that the six inch - at least - were indeed viable and feasible weapons (which I thought likely - but was not sure was combat proven). IF that is the case, eight inch guns of the ROF of USS Newport News should be up to it - if you gave them single mountings that could elevate and traverse faster - and they should have higher reach than 6 inch.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 39
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 8:30:59 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2003
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

what´s the difference between rocket and missile



Not all use this definition but like el cid again said a Missile is a rocket with guidance that can change or correct course and a plain Rocket cant . Of course nothing of this has much connection with traditional meaning of the words and technological twists like artillery granades with rocket assistence, non-rocket propulsion and course corrected rounds, etc.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 40
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/12/2007 10:06:42 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Or my favorite twist - the "rocket gun" or "gun launched rocket" - a way to get a rocket into the air without a first stage. The latest Chinese version has fully intelligent guided warheads, and also a variant - a recon round! It is supposed to provide real time, hypersonic targeting data for the attack to follow (in a few minutes) on a US formation at ranges greater than any weapon in any US formation can fire. We are talking 600 km for an artillery weapon. The primary round has something like 42 sub munitions. Given the beaste is something like 16 inch caliber - these are respectable size in their own right.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 41
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/13/2007 3:59:04 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 5191
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

But anyway, IMO, a 10% success rate is not something to crow about.



This makes me wonder - does anybody know roughly what percentage of attacking aircraft hit a ship with either bombs, torpedoes, or rockets? I'm leaving out missiles on purpose, but if you know that separately, that would be interesting too.

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 42
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/13/2007 7:00:05 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		It depends on conditions. Lots of factors. Working up for Midway - the Kates under Capt Fujida achieved an astonishing hit rate - probably the best for non-smart weapons ever: horizontal bombers with 800 kg bombs from altitude (so they had the energy to penetrate a deck) could hit a target 85% of the time per element of 5 - that is 17% per aircraft. Now that is in practice, with no one shooting at them. You can take the number of Kates at PH armed with 800 kg bombs and the number of hits by them to work out the actual value - and it probably will still be the record for horizontal bombing.
I have some ballistic tables somewhere I will see if I can find. Low altitude helps. Dive bombing and glide bombing help.
But the % is awfully low - and for horizontal bombers vs defended targets always well below that 10% figure. 10% may sound bad - yet it was achieved mostly with obsolete aircraft and green pilots - and it is better than what skilled pilots in good planes usually achieve. Kamakazes should be able to do better than that if you could motivate experienced pilots and give them new planes. But it is a waste of both pilots and planes - and I don't believe in it as a force tactic. Its great value might be in its propaganda/terrorist aspects: say they were running into ocean liners, tankers, or ships loaded with troops headed to Taiwan - it might affect popular reaction to the war.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 43
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 6:55:33 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2003
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Italian torpedo bombers in 1941 got 8 torpedo hits per aircraft lost. In 1943 that reduced to 2,5-3 hits.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 44
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 1:48:09 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		But what was the rate per sortee?

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 45
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 2:03:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 33751
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Sid, have you got any source material on this 15cm Flak 39 you posted about earlier? The heaviest LW flak I've heard of to date was the 12.8cm Flak 40.

EDIT: did some more digging, and the only 15cm LW Flak I could find was something called the "Gerät 50" which saw nearly no service. The Germans seem to have discovered that the 15cm wasn't a big enough improvement on the 12.8cm to warrant retooling for mass production.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 10/14/2007 2:14:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 46
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 2:47:59 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 6463
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Sid, have you got any source material on this 15cm Flak 39 you posted about earlier? The heaviest LW flak I've heard of to date was the 12.8cm Flak 40.

EDIT: did some more digging, and the only 15cm LW Flak I could find was something called the "Gerät 50" which saw nearly no service. The Germans seem to have discovered that the 15cm wasn't a big enough improvement on the 12.8cm to warrant retooling for mass production.


Here ya go, friend:

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/german_aa/gaa7_german_antiaircraft_aa_guns.html


http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1271




< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/14/2007 3:00:37 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 47
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 3:02:52 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 33751
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Excellent stuff, Bob! Thank you.

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 48
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 6:59:32 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2003
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

But what was the rate per sortee?


Didnt have that info. 

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 49
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 10:44:22 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		This gives a very simplified sense of the factors which matter in air attacks: you can see that there is a lot more to it than the type of aircraft. The mission approach profile has a profound influence on the outcome. So does the existence of air defenses. So does the existence of a spotter/controller for the operation. [This was a WWII era Japanese concept: Fujida controlled the strikes at Pearl Harbor, beginning to end, determining which of several drilled attack options to use, from a Kate, which was the last plane to land, having led stragglers without navigation instruments back to the carriers. There may have been a controller at Clark - the most accurate bombing mission of WWII.] So does pilot experience rating. Today also the nature of the weapons is more complex than it was in WWII: but even then primitive smart munitions existed (see B-24s operational use of BAT for example). Even statistical data from real world missions in a shooting war in sufficient numbers to be valid (minimum 30 cases) is going to be heavily influenced by the actual profile of the attacks chosen, the nature of the air defenses, and the experience of the air crews. The very same aircraft in different conditions will achieve a very different score. [This is a table of modifiers for a decimal die roll when using an air CRT]



Table 4A: Combat Modifiers for Air Attacks [Rev. 8.82] © Sid Trevethan June 2005

Attack Profile Altitude Range Air Spotter No Air Spotter Anti-Ship
Dive Bombing 3 km to 1 kilometer 0 +3 0 +1
Glide Bombing, Low Altitude 2 km to 1 kilometer 0 +3 0 +2
Glide Bombing, Medium Altitude 3 km to 2 kilometer 0 +2 -1 0
Level Bombing, Very Low Altitude 50 (1 - 99 ) meters 0 0 -3 - 1
Level Bombing, Low Altitude 500 (100 – 999) meters 0 +1 -2 0
Level Bombing, Medium Altitude 3 (1 - 5) kilometers 0 0 -3 - 2
Level Bombing, High Altitude 8 (5.001 - 11) kilometers 0 -1 -4 - 3
Level Bombing, Very High Altitude 15 ( 11,001+) kilometers 1 -3 -6 - 5
Strafing or Naval Rocket Attack 50 (1 - 99 ) meters 0 +3 0 +2
Toss Bombing, End @ High Altitude 8 (5.001 - 11) kilometers 0 -5 -8 - 7

Note 1: If multiple elements perform an air attack mission as a squadron, add the square root of the number of air elements to the modifier (drop fractions) = for 2 or 3 add 1, for 4-8, add 2, for 9+ add 3.
Note 2: Pilot effectiveness level modifier: If the PEL of the attacking air elements is 5 or more, add 1;
If the PELof the attacking air elements is 3 or 4, no modifier.
If the PEL of the attacking air elements is less than 3, subtract 1.
Note 3: Defensive fire modifier: If the attacking air elements were fired upon by LAA, HAA, SAMs or an enemy air combat
mission, subtract 1 from the modifier for each (cumulative).
Note4: If laser guided bombs are used by attacking air elements in hexes where there is no cloud cover, storms or fog
add 4 to the modifier.
Note 5: Toss bombing profile involves a low altitude approach and ends with the aircraft at high altitude
opening the range to the target after tossing the bomb. Instead of passing over the target after bomb
delivery, the aircraft actually leaves the target in the same direction from which it came.
Note 6: If GPS guided bombs (including JDAM) are used against a fixed target of known position, add 3 to the modifier.
Note 7: Unspotted target: only fixed unspotted targets may be attacked. Moving unspotted targets may not
be attacked.
Note 8: Air elements performing the tactical airs support function must use dive bombing, glide bombing low altitude,
level bombing high altitude withlaser guided bombs, level bombing medium altitude with GPS guided bombs or strafing
attack profiles.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/14/2007 10:56:10 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 50
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/14/2007 10:54:58 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Here is the actual table for ship attacks: [For reasons unclear each column posts separately instead of side by side]
Notice modifiers here for target speed: different targets will produce different results for the same attack aircraft and profile - some targets are larger, some are slower, etc.

Table 13: Anti-Ship Combat Results Table [Rev. 8.60]© Sid Trevethan June 2005

ADSAMSS, ASCM or ASBM Factor, Bomb Factor, BVR Factor, Helo Attack Factor or Naval Gun Factor

Corrected
Die Roll
1 - 2

3 - 4
5 - 6
7- 8
9-10

11-12
13-14
15-16
17-18
19-20
21-22
23-24
25+

0 (or less)
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3

1
NE
NE
NE
NE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3

2
NE
NE
NE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4

3
NE
NE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4

4
NE
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4

5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4

6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4

7
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4

8
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

9
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

10
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

11 2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

12
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

13
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

14 and up
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Roll once per shot of missiles, once per element of aircraft, or once per round of gunfire.
Result: The number of hits on task group where NE = No Effect.
For combat within visual range, apply result after both sides attack.

Note 1: Add the attacking electronic warfare level to the die roll.
Note 2: Subtract the defending electronic warfare level from the die roll.
Note 3: For missile attacks and all attacks at night or in fog, the side with the higher EW level chooses the first target hit.
Note 4: If EW levels are identical, or if it is the third target hit, the target is randomly selected from the largest
unhit targets available, in order CV, LH, MJO, MKHL, AKRR, AKCR, LS, FS, MS, FPB, SPB, submarine.
Note 5: For missile attacks only, even numbered (i.e. second and fourth) hits seek targets on fire, or the largest
unhit targets available, in order CV, LH, MJO, MKHL, AKRR, AKCR, LS, FS, MS, FPB, SPB, submarine.
Note 6: For air attacks, add attack profile modifier to the die roll: See Table 4A.
Note 7: If laser guided bombs are used by the attacking air elements on day turns with no cloud cover or fog
obscuring the target, add +4 to the die roll.
Note 8: For targets moving at speeds of 6 through 11, add -1 to the die roll.
Note 9: For targets moving at speeds of 12+, add -2 to the die roll.
Note 10: If JDAM command bombs are used by the attacking air elements, add +3 to the die roll.
Note 11: Land units and naval units which are out of AMMO may not conduct anti-ship attacks.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/14/2007 11:01:39 PM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 51
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/15/2007 1:32:28 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9330
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Here ya go, friend:

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/german_aa/gaa7_german_antiaircraft_aa_guns.html

http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1271




Bob..., do you have anything else on the 150mm aa. That muzzle velocity (3450 fps) is pretty unbelievable. What was the barrel life on that thing? 15-20 rounds?

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 52
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/15/2007 10:46:10 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 6463
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Different gun, but same source,(from wartime publications and intel bulletins):

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-105mm-flak-gun.html

Sames source, only mention of belief it was used for protection of Germany itself:

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch7sec4sub7.html

< Message edited by m10bob -- 10/15/2007 11:07:59 AM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 53
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/15/2007 1:23:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Most high velocity rifles (from the kind you carry up through big naval guns) have mv on the order of 2700 fps. But the theoretical practical upper bound for a full caliber round without wierd engineering is 3600 fps. For a sub caliber device, where the sub caliber is 0.73333 the diameter of the rifle caliber, the theoretical practical upper bound is 4200 fps. To go beyond that requires something strange, like the "high pressure pump" (multiple firing chambers and an ultra long barrol) or rocket assisted projectiles. Normal rifles have barrol lengths in the 40 to 60 caliber range - and they can be moved with reasonable effort. Rifles with much longer barrols are generally built into place or have to be assembled before use, and cannot be considered for any application like AAA. Within that range, mv is related to things like the charge and the weight of the projectile, and the pressure that can be tolerated. But any value up to about 3600 fps is not "unbelievable" in normal rifle engineering. For everything there is a price - and really high performance weapons pay it in barrol life. The Paris Gun (press name, actually Kaiser William Geshutz) had to use DIFFERENT ammunition for EACH shot: a barrol could only fire about 42 times, and each round came with its firing order painted on it - because each shot ate up a predictable amount of the barrol. If you keep pressures in reasonable bounds (and performance moderate) you should achieve hundreds of rounds before wearing out the barrol: in 1968 USS Iowa calculated it could fire almost 300 times per tube before the liners were worn excessively - and we had a spare set at Subic in case we needed to change them out - so we were told at the time.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/15/2007 1:27:52 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 54
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/15/2007 5:33:29 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9330
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Different gun, but same source,(from wartime publications and intel bulletins):

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-105mm-flak-gun.html

Sames source, only mention of belief it was used for protection of Germany itself:

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch7sec4sub7.html



Bob. Wasn't doubting it's existance in at least some small quantity..., just questioning the extraordinary muzzle velocity quoted in your source. Looks more like a misprint than a fact.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 55
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/15/2007 8:39:55 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 6463
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Different gun, but same source,(from wartime publications and intel bulletins):

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-105mm-flak-gun.html

Sames source, only mention of belief it was used for protection of Germany itself:

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tme30/ch7sec4sub7.html



Bob. Wasn't doubting it's existance in at least some small quantity..., just questioning the extraordinary muzzle velocity quoted in your source. Looks more like a misprint than a fact.



No Mike..we're fine...I'm just upset I can't seem to find anymore to satisfy your very legit question.....I have some books at home which might have an answer, but that is hours away....

_____________________________




(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 56
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/15/2007 9:41:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		When I get home I will look in a list of all artillery pieces in my files taken from a British publisher. It might also be in Campbell - if these were used for CD they should be. To confirm the data is not a misprint - or is.

My artillery file set - sent by a British author - seems to be missing the page listing data for German Heavy Flak. But the German "Light Anti-tank" (if this stuff is light, wow) page does show German FLAK guns had high velocities: PAK 40 comes in at 3250 fps (980 m/s); PAK 36 comes in at the same value; PAK 41 comes in at 3690 fps (1125 m/s) - and is above the range I described as "normal" above. This was with a 4.53 kg shell (10.01 pounds) - a peculiar hollow charge shell - for a 7.5 cm gun. The German "Medium FLAK" page shows FLAK 58 at 3445 fps (1040 m/s) and FLAK 41 (the 8.8 cm one, not the 5 cm one) at 3280 fps (1000 m/s). Clearly velocities over 3000 fps were routine for wartime German high performance rifles. Wierd "taper bore" guns reached as high as 4593 fps (1402 m/s).

Aha - I found it - on the wrong page - with AT guns "15cm FLAK": 3600 fps (1100 m/s). That is actually higher by 150 than the web site listed above shows. This is small enough it may be a matter of the specific round or charge used - but it is certainly in the same range.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/16/2007 5:00:15 AM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 57
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/19/2007 11:33:40 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 13445
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		As long as we must work on artillery devices anyway - we should work this in.

I am going to assume that AA shells for UltraHeavy guns not otherwise fitted to be AA are ceiling limited to 1/3 of theoretical effective altitude
EDIT: This works only if we assume effective altitude is 50% of maximum shell height on a long range shot = 1/12 of full range of the gun.


that AA shells for DP guns limited to 75 degree elevation is 2/3 of their theoretical effective altitude

and that true AA guns which elevate to 90 degrees get full effective elevation.

AA guns and DP guns are range limited to the range = effective ceiling (to the nearest thousand yards)

but ultra heavy guns are not so limited - so they remain mainly SP guns

The ultra heavies are not very effective (in this case meaning the effect value in the game - not just IRL), so they won't often score - and then only at lower altitudes. Since they cannot elevate or traverse rapidly, they would really matter only against a large formation pressing in constant bearing decreasing range - if the ship was not turning - something that Hara did with a DD with generally ineffective Long 50 caliber 5 inch guns - baggind a single attacker on his first attempt. The stable gun platform vs a stable target at low altitude permitted a fire control solution that worked.


< Message edited by el cid again -- 10/20/2007 12:47:05 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 58
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/20/2007 2:30:15 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9330
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

When I get home I will look in a list of all artillery pieces in my files taken from a British publisher. It might also be in Campbell - if these were used for CD they should be. To confirm the data is not a misprint - or is.

My artillery file set - sent by a British author - seems to be missing the page listing data for German Heavy Flak. But the German "Light Anti-tank" (if this stuff is light, wow) page does show German FLAK guns had high velocities: PAK 40 comes in at 3250 fps (980 m/s); PAK 36 comes in at the same value; PAK 41 comes in at 3690 fps (1125 m/s) - and is above the range I described as "normal" above. This was with a 4.53 kg shell (10.01 pounds) - a peculiar hollow charge shell - for a 7.5 cm gun. The German "Medium FLAK" page shows FLAK 58 at 3445 fps (1040 m/s) and FLAK 41 (the 8.8 cm one, not the 5 cm one) at 3280 fps (1000 m/s). Clearly velocities over 3000 fps were routine for wartime German high performance rifles. Wierd "taper bore" guns reached as high as 4593 fps (1402 m/s).

Aha - I found it - on the wrong page - with AT guns "15cm FLAK": 3600 fps (1100 m/s). That is actually higher by 150 than the web site listed above shows. This is small enough it may be a matter of the specific round or charge used - but it is certainly in the same range.




All those numbers seem high, Cid. Are you sure you aren't quoting MV's for the sub-calibre tungsten- cored AP rounds?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 59
RE: Kongo class AA shell? - 10/20/2007 5:52:26 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 6463
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		BTW, according to Richard B Frank,(GUADALCANAL), the fisrt American naval VT aa round to down an enemy plane was a Val in the first week of Jan 1943, from a 5" gun..(I had not realized they were available that early.)

_____________________________




(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Kongo class AA shell? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts



Terms and Conditions of Use  |  Privacy Statement

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.105