Matrix Games Forums

The fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today! Warhammer - Weapons of WarFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone in AA coverage!

 
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 >> RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone in AA coverage! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 12:57:13 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3946
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
From roughly Oct 42 onwards there should be no "flak gap" for the 5"/38 in any case with the introduction of the VT proximity fuze. This particular fuze exploded the AA shell at the closest point of approach to an enemy aircraft due to a radar transponder in the fuze itself. It thus was effective from the muzzle (well almost) of the gun to the maximum ceiling/range of the gun. It was a major contributor to the deadliness of USN flak. It meant for one thing that the large caliber artillery could still engage a target that was rapidly changing the range. Older style AA fuzing required a manual time-fuze setting which could not be done fast enough to deal with a dive bomber which had already tipped over (for instance).
This technical Allied innovation has been ignored in this game and its predecessors (Pacwar/UV).

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 31
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 1:46:39 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline
The minimum altitude for heavy flak in BTR is 7500ft.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 32
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 1:49:38 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14382
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
I think it's 2500 feet in BTR Sharky not 7500 feet.

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 33
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 1:57:01 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline
it's 7500ft.
you need to have some 37mm (14000ft) at a base as the 20mm only has 6000ft max.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 34
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 2:00:43 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14382
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Hi,

I've always classed HAA as being 88mm and above and in the latest versions of BTR i've played its not 7500 feet - JCL V1.6 etc

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 35
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 2:07:34 AM   
Sharkosaurus rex


Posts: 467
Joined: 10/19/2004
From: under the waves
Status: offline
sorry I might have been unclear.
the heavies (88, 105, 128mm) have a min alt of 7500ft.
the 37mm has a max alt of 14000ft and no min alt
the 20mm has a max alt of 6000ft and no min alt.

_____________________________

Is Sharkosaurus rex the biggest fish in the sea?
Why don't you come in for a swim?

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 36
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 2:20:19 AM   
demonterico


Posts: 292
Joined: 10/16/2002
From: Seattle WA
Status: offline
Spence, while readind this thread, the idea of the proximity fuse also came to me. Although I could imagine a minimum altitude could be necessary for such a fuse to set, not that I actually know anything about this topic. It just seems logical to me that a fuse on a warhead of any type should be designed to set after the projectile has been fired, or droped, or whatever.

General question; I'm still playing UV does the AA gap exsist in this game as well? Seems to me like it should.

_____________________________

The world has never seen a more impressive demonstration of the influence of sea power upon history. Those far distant, storm-beaten ships, upon which the Grand Army never looked, stood between it and the dominion of the world. -- Alfred Thayer Mahan

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 37
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 2:21:41 AM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14382
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Hi Sharky,

I may have been too and apologies for that.

I've always classed 2500 feet s being the minimum I would fly due to flak.

TRUE minimum AKAIK are:

6500 feet for HAA flak and unlimted for LAA. As such 88's etc will not be effective until 6500 feet.

However, as a player of BTR. I will fly raids at less than this provided I know there is no quad 20m or 37mm +

I'm sorry but if you want to take in true minimums then 6500 feet is it for HAA but for realistic effecriveness levels I have found 2500 feet is ok WITHOUT heavy LAA being present.

Even below 6500 feet with HAA due to tracking times I have found it not too bad at bombing especially with Boston's due to their speed.

In short unless things have changed since JCL's last major works then the TRUE HAA limit is 6500 but I find the realistic operational without significant flak is 2500 feet.

Regards,

Steven

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Sharkosaurus rex)
Post #: 38
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 2:57:50 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2427
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
People seem to be forgetting that the night B-29 raids over Japan were low-level and they DID fly beneath the flak.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 39
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 3:25:43 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

From roughly Oct 42 onwards there should be no "flak gap" for the 5"/38 in any case with the introduction of the VT proximity fuze. This particular fuze exploded the AA shell at the closest point of approach to an enemy aircraft due to a radar transponder in the fuze itself. It thus was effective from the muzzle (well almost) of the gun to the maximum ceiling/range of the gun. It was a major contributor to the deadliness of USN flak. It meant for one thing that the large caliber artillery could still engage a target that was rapidly changing the range. Older style AA fuzing required a manual time-fuze setting which could not be done fast enough to deal with a dive bomber which had already tipped over (for instance).
This technical Allied innovation has been ignored in this game and its predecessors (Pacwar/UV).


Sea based heavy flak guns have no minimum altitude.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 40
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 3:28:12 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
88's and 105's were doing just fine @6000 feet in tests I ran using BTR. (no other flak guns present)

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 41
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 4:15:00 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3946
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
From Jan 43 to the end of the war approxiamately half the 5"/38 cal AA shells produced were VT (variable time) fuzed. The US also developed versions for the 3"/50 and the 6"/47 (although after the war). The Army got VT fuzes for the 90 mm AA gun approx mid 43 and for their howitzers (for antipersonnel use) towards the end of 1944.
VT fuzes were developed for British Naval AA guns (4.5", 5.25" and 4") in the US and deployed before 1944 was over.
The number of rounds per a/c kill for 5" with VT vs 5" with MT (mechanical timer) averaged out at 500 rds/plane (VT) compared to 2000 rds/plane (MT). 5"/38 VT fuzed shells were better against Kamikazes than against conventional attack "because of the simplified trajectory of the kamikaze attacker".

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 42
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 4:16:24 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3946
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
Some data I found (sure hope this works)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 43
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 4:33:51 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3946
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
sorry folks

for a readable version of my previous post try this:

www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-075.htm

< Message edited by spence -- 10/8/2005 5:32:06 AM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 44
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 4:50:31 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9384
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
quote:

STRANGE OBSERVATION
Both Japanese and US "share" the same device 409 "75mm AA Gun" - is this a posiblye typo in OOB?


I could only see #409 in US and Chinese units. What Japanese units have it?

If so, then it will only show up in the Allied replacement pool. #409 is in Allied device range.

Michael


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 45
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 7:01:28 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15104
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

From roughly Oct 42 onwards there should be no "flak gap" for the 5"/38 in any case with the introduction of the VT proximity fuze. This particular fuze exploded the AA shell at the closest point of approach to an enemy aircraft due to a radar transponder in the fuze itself. It thus was effective from the muzzle (well almost) of the gun to the maximum ceiling/range of the gun. It was a major contributor to the deadliness of USN flak. It meant for one thing that the large caliber artillery could still engage a target that was rapidly changing the range. Older style AA fuzing required a manual time-fuze setting which could not be done fast enough to deal with a dive bomber which had already tipped over (for instance).
This technical Allied innovation has been ignored in this game and its predecessors (Pacwar/UV).


The use of the proximity fuse would not affect any difficulties that particular guns & mounts have tracking crossing targets. Certainly does improve the odds of hitting targets changing only (or mostly) range (as you point out).

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 46
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 9:33:55 AM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22624
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

STRANGE OBSERVATION
Both Japanese and US "share" the same device 409 "75mm AA Gun" - is this a posiblye typo in OOB?


I could only see #409 in US and Chinese units. What Japanese units have it?

If so, then it will only show up in the Allied replacement pool. #409 is in Allied device range.


You are right - my mistake (I removed it from my post on page 1).

Allies have device 409 "75mm AA Gun" whilst Japanese have device 275 "75mm AA Gun"...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 47
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 9:45:29 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9384
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: online
Thank goodness.
Couldn't stand another error
Michael
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

STRANGE OBSERVATION
Both Japanese and US "share" the same device 409 "75mm AA Gun" - is this a posiblye typo in OOB?


I could only see #409 in US and Chinese units. What Japanese units have it?

If so, then it will only show up in the Allied replacement pool. #409 is in Allied device range.


You are right - my mistake (I removed it from my post on page 1).

Allies have device 409 "75mm AA Gun" whilst Japanese have device 275 "75mm AA Gun"...


Leo "Apollo11"


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 48
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 10:02:44 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10261
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
So Apollo11, could you restate briefly what you think the problem ( still ) is at this point ?

Are the light weapons ( per the database ) able to fire up to the appropriate ( roughly 7,000 to 13,000 feet ) altitudes ? And are the heavy weapons restricted to minimums somewhere in this same altitude band ?

Or if not what is the case in the database ?

_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 49
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 7:21:52 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22624
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So Apollo11, could you restate briefly what you think the problem ( still ) is at this point ?

Are the light weapons ( per the database ) able to fire up to the appropriate ( roughly 7,000 to 13,000 feet ) altitudes ? And are the heavy weapons restricted to minimums somewhere in this same altitude band ?

Or if not what is the case in the database ?


The problem is composition of AA (and base) units for all sides with existence of heavy AA "altitude gap"...


IJA AA Regiment

##  Device  Name             Ceiling
------------------------------------
12x 276     105mm AA Gun     36000
12x 275     75mm AA Gun      30000
8x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000



IJA AA Battalion

##  Device  Name             Ceiling
------------------------------------
18x 276     105mm AA Gun     36000
6x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000



IJN AA Battalion

##  Device  Name             Ceiling
------------------------------------
8x  276     105mm AA Gun     36000
8x  275     75mm AA Gun      30000
8x  273     25mm AA Gun (3)  14000
24x 272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000



IJA Base Force

##  Device  Name             Ceiling
------------------------------------
4x  275     75mm AA Gun      30000
4x  274     40mm AA Gun (2)  14000
4x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000



IJN Base Force

##  Device  Name             Ceiling
------------------------------------
4x  275     75mm AA Gun      30000
4x  273     25mm AA Gun (3)  14000
4x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000



US Marines AA Units

Unit #  Name       Type
-------------------------------
2652    1st USMC   AA Battalion



US Army Coast AA Regiment

##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
-----------------------------------------
12x 409     75mm AA Gun           28000
8x  406     37mm AA Gun           10500
8x  404     20mm Oerlikon AA Gun  10000



US Marines AA Battalion

##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
-----------------------------------------
12x 409     75mm AA Gun           28000



US Army Base Force

##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
-----------------------------------------
4x  409     75mm AA Gun           28000
4x  406     37mm AA Gun           10500
4x  399     .303 Lewis AAMG       6200



US Navy Base Force

##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
-----------------------------------------
8x  410     3in AA Gun            29800
8x  408     40mm Bofors AA Gun    22800
8x  403     0.5in Browning AAMG   14500



US Marines Defense Bn (on average - they differ a lot from one to another)

##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
-----------------------------------------
12x 410     3in AA Gun            29800
30x 403     0.5in Browning AAMG   14500
30x 399     .303 Lewis AAMG       6200



The dead zone lies between (not surprisingly) 6K and 9K feet.

Guns with max of 26K feet have a min of 7K.
Guns with max of 28K feet have a min of 7K.
Guns with max of 30K feet have a min of 8K.
Guns with max of 34K feet have a min of 9K.


Both sides, therefore, have protection of lower altitudes (below 7000ft, 8000ft and 9000ft) exclusively lying in hands of smaller sized AA weapons (i.e. automatic guns of smaller caliber) whilst heavy AA guns only start to operate above 7000ft, 8000ft and 9000ft.

Like "Nikademus" said this was not the case in BtR (Gary Grigsby's Bombing the Reich) where heavy AA guns operated at lower altitudes and where this "altitude gap" was much more narrower.

I agree with that think that heavy AA minimum altitude should be lowered to 4000ft - 6000ft (this is roughly 1500m - 2000m) which equals several seconds of shell flight time.

Please note that Japanese are especially "shafted" here because, for example, they have measly 13mm machine gun for defense for dedicated IJA AA units (please note that there is just one single IJN AA unit). The base forces have additional automatic weapons for this "altitude" gap but those are few in numbers (4 per unit is almost nothing)...


BTW, 6000 ft is _DEFAULT_ set altitude for all air units in WitP - with above discoveries it now looks that value is not foolish as it seemed (it seems ludicrous low but now with this knowledge we all know better)...


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Please remember that even at 10000 ft the heavy AA guns are almost useless. My comprehensive bombing tests (I posted them here many many times) shoved that even with 100+ heavy AA guns (75mm and 105mm) present the attacking 100 bombers (B-29, B-17, B-25) suffered very low casualties...

< Message edited by Apollo11 -- 10/8/2005 7:28:01 PM >


_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 50
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 7:33:23 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
I believe Apollo, that the _DEFAULT_ altitude is 15000 in WitP( it was 6000 in UV ).

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 51
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 8:39:58 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4947
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Default is 15000, most people change to 6000 cause that is as low as you can go with no added moral penalties.

I personally change my naval attack bombers to 10k because 6 seems to low and 15 is just to high. My heavies go in higher usually.

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 52
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 8:43:43 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Correct. Players use 6000 feet because for one, it used to be the default setting for a long time in UV + it is the lowest alt one can bomb without incurring automatic morale penalties.

However....in the end the biggest reason players do it is because they can without suffering damage and losses to great to sustain a continual bombardment. The # of hits achieved at this alt will ensure obliteration of the base in a very short period of time.


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 53
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 8:47:26 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4947
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Well then, I suggest one of 2 remedies. One would be lower the minimum level to fire on heavies to 6 thousand feet OR change moral penalties for 4 engine Bombers to 10,000 feet.

I prefer number one.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 54
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 8:49:40 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
My preference is number 1 as well. But as i said earlier, it wont make any appreciable difference.


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 55
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 8:52:50 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4947
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Against the allies it doesnt make sense for japanese bombers facing p-39's to fly at 6000 feet, they should fly at 15000 or higher to make the 39 much less effective.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 56
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 9:01:21 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
The Japanese bombed at high altitude to to avoid both flak and fighter interception (At lunga for example they usually bomed at around 25,000 feet.

In the game the Japan player will want to bombard at 6000 feet for the same reason the Allied player will. It will get them the hits to close the base and wipe out any airpower sitting on the ground. Provide enough escorts and one doesn't have to worry about enemy fighters. Its actually more important for the Japanese to bomb low because the low yeilds of their bombers produce less results vs the stable of modern Allied medium and heavies.


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 57
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/8/2005 10:32:55 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2427
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

From Jan 43 to the end of the war approxiamately half the 5"/38 cal AA shells produced were VT (variable time) fuzed. The US also developed versions for the 3"/50 and the 6"/47 (although after the war). The Army got VT fuzes for the 90 mm AA gun approx mid 43 and for their howitzers (for antipersonnel use) towards the end of 1944.
VT fuzes were developed for British Naval AA guns (4.5", 5.25" and 4") in the US and deployed before 1944 was over.
The number of rounds per a/c kill for 5" with VT vs 5" with MT (mechanical timer) averaged out at 500 rds/plane (VT) compared to 2000 rds/plane (MT). 5"/38 VT fuzed shells were better against Kamikazes than against conventional attack "because of the simplified trajectory of the kamikaze attacker".


Following web sites discuss the proximity fuse (which, from what I can tell only the Allies had):

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuse
http://www.smecc.org/radio_proximity_fuzes.htm

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 58
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/9/2005 12:15:43 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 3946
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
YES - ONLY THE ALLIES HAD THE PROXIMITY FUZE. In fact, really only the Americans. The shells for British guns were all designed and produced in the USA.

The idea for proximity fuzes was not uniquely American. Everybody else realized how useful they would be. BUT ONLY THE AMERICANS PRODUCED ONE THAT WORKED. The shells were ordered into production when design tests showed a reliability of 50% but by the time the shells began to ship out to the fleet that reliability figure had improved to 80% and rose steadily thereafter to near 99%. Of the other warring nations Germany apparently got closest to producing a proximity fuzed shell but field reliability remained a big problem that in fact was not solved before the German surrender.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 59
RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone i... - 10/9/2005 12:33:29 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2427
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

YES - ONLY THE ALLIES HAD THE PROXIMITY FUZE. In fact, really only the Americans. The shells for British guns were all designed and produced in the USA.

The idea for proximity fuzes was not uniquely American. Everybody else realized how useful they would be. BUT ONLY THE AMERICANS PRODUCED ONE THAT WORKED. The shells were ordered into production when design tests showed a reliability of 50% but by the time the shells began to ship out to the fleet that reliability figure had improved to 80% and rose steadily thereafter to near 99%. Of the other warring nations Germany apparently got closest to producing a proximity fuzed shell but field reliability remained a big problem that in fact was not solved before the German surrender.


A few years back I was cornered by a neighbor of my parents and a friend of his while visiting my parents (it's amazing how veterans always like to talk to former military regardless of age). It turned out the neighbor's friend was a B-29 crewmember during WWII and he specifically mentioned they flew their night missions BELOW the minumum flak altitude. I'm not sure exactly what he said but it was something like "above the machine gun fire but below the flak". The minimum flak altitude was a fact and one that was taken advantage of like any sane person during an insane period such as a war would do.

According to what he said, they had more problems with engine fires than with Japanese flak.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone in AA coverage! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141