Naval History Forums

[ Why again is the Mark 37 not capable of this? It never shot down any aircraft in comparable circumstances? Oh, and how was the HACS at surface fire control? I have no doubt that Mk 37 was capable of it, but the fact is that many people think that HACS wasn't. The only advantage that HACS would ha...

One snippet from the above: The last phase of the main air attack commenced at 1240A the next day, 15th September but no torpedo planes came out. A continuous high level bombing attack by Ju88s was kept up until 1630A but the enemy seldom left cloud cover. Bombs fell amongst the convoy and as far o...

The LW was attacking with twin engine bombers, which are much easier targets for flak because they aren't as agile, can be seen more easily, and are simply larger targets. Didn't the IJN stop attacking USN warship formations with torpedo carrying Bettys because their losses were disproportionately g...

How about the crew of the British cruiser that went to sea with a Mark 37 system, having previously deployed with British equipment? Wasn't that about as direct a comparison as is possible? Also, BuOrd was not the only voice when it came to USN equipment. Why ignore all the others? Many USN sailors ...

Ah, I did not know anything about him. Should everything he writes be dismissed because of that? The real issue here is what Roskill and the DNO reported, and they had first hand knowlege. I have found that the Royal Navy and the KM tend to be much more critical of their own than the USN does. Inte...

Was there anything the USN did better than the British? Or was the RN just simply equal or better than the USN at all things of any significance in WWII?

Well, you've already indicated that it was pretty much impossible for Mark 37 systems to even engage aircraft because it was too difficult to get it on the target, so why the concern about how well it did if it ever could actually engage one?

It's interesting how the USN detractors like to quote the very critical USN AARs when that suits their purpose, and then claim over exuberant kill claims when that does.

Pretty much the only CIWS the USN had in 1942 were 50 cal MGs and 1.1" autocannon, which had a lot of problems, so one would think the IJN would have sunk pretty much every ship they attacked, subject only to bombing inaccuracy. We know the IJN pilots were very good in 1942 and USN Wildcats fig...

It's interesting how you convert the integral hoist/fuse setter into a disadvantage because the USN doesn't have to wait for a "load lamp".

Every advantage of the Mark 37 system you try to turn into a disadvantage. Too bad Vanguard was hobbled with that horrible kluge.

How could you possibly get a kill with a VT fuse if the fire control system is unable to get the round close enough to the target?

If we were to take those examples as indicative of what happened most of the time, it shows it was impossible for a 5"/38 to shoot down aircraft at all. And yet these weapons shot down a lot of aircraft. If you look at IJN comments, they describe USN flak as heavy and accurate. How do you think...

Yes, I responded above to dunmunro's post about that. Does it explain why? Steeve, sorry, I could not answer sooner. I don't have the book at hand and relies just on my poor memory. What I understand is that violents maneuvers made aiming of the large guns difficult because they fired at longer ran...

The Tribal class were introduced in 1938/39. A Tribal had 8 x 4.7in guns all of which could engage aerial targets to the limits of their elevation. A Tribal had a quad 40mm pom-pom and two quad .5in MGs. USN Leaders had 8 x 5", none of which could engage aerial targets beyond a simple barrage ...

The system wasn't able to keep up. 40mm guns are much less effected because there is a direct connection from the lightweight Mk 51 director (versus a 15 ton DCT with multiple stabilized sights to the 40mm mount. The 40mm mount is much lighter than a 5in turret so it has much less lag in the servo ...