An interesting point. However Britain didn't have the armaments production capabilities of the US and even in 1941 there was still a shortage of weapons.johnalbion wrote: What I find amazing is after 2 years of war and suffering horrendous losses from air attack that RN warships were still so lightly armed with AA weapons.
Indeed.Tom17 wrote:... Prince of Wales also carried 4 octuple 40mm Bofors (32 guns)
No she didn't.
POW had 2pdr Pom-Pom http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_2pounder_m8.htm not Bofors http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.htm
Although the same caliber (40mm) they were not as long ranged, had a lower muzzle velocity, no tracer round, and, (POW at least) had issues with ammunition.
She did have a single Bofors (army pattern) mounted on 'B' turret I believe.
Tom
This presumably would also be the case against surface targets, such as Bismarck in the DS battle, and KGV three days later.johnalbion wrote:Yes the 5.25 was theoretically a DP weapon but it simply was not effective. The shells were heavy and lifting them wore the crew out quicker, Turrets cramped and over complicated and rate of fire was low.
.
... Secondary batteries were of little importance in battleship combat. Similarly, Duke of York's action against Scharnhrost had no important events linked to her 16 x 133mm guns.RF wrote:This presumably would also be the case against surface targets, such as Bismarck in the DS battle, and KGV three days later.johnalbion wrote:Yes the 5.25 was theoretically a DP weapon but it simply was not effective. The shells were heavy and lifting them wore the crew out quicker, Turrets cramped and over complicated and rate of fire was low.
.
However I haven't seen any criticism of the performance of either ships 5.25 inch in either engagement.....
RN ships in 1941 carried much heavier AA than any other navy including the USN. The RN had no qualms about using the 5in/38 but the USA could not produce enough for themselves, and the production facilities didn't exist to build them in the UK. The 5in/38 was a good weapon but only marginally better than the 4.7in as a surface weapon or the the RN 4.5in as an AA weapon but the RN 5.25in was a much longer ranged weapon with far superior ballistics.johnalbion wrote:Here we have a statement without foundation. It certainly wouldn't have hurt PoW to have carried a better AA gun, but whether or not it made a difference in that particular engagement is entirely a matter of speculation.These problems rapidly made themselves felt in the loss of Force Z[1], and the Battle of Crete[citation needed].
I strongly disagree with this statement. Had the ships at Crete and Force Z had every available bit of deck space paked with quad 40mm and 20 mm like most American ships were near the end of the war I believe it would have made a huge difference especially against the low flying Beatty bombers. Just look at the photo's of Japanese aircraft trying to fly through the wall of flak in 44. It is a terrible shame the RN did not put its pride aside an adopted the 5"/38 which was available to them for production in the UK. I was a 5/38 gun mount captain and tech and can tell you it was an outstanding weapon in every way. What I find amazing is after 2 years of war and suffering horrendous losses from air attack that RN warships were still so lightly armed with AA weapons.
DoY's 5.25in guns were an important factor in providing starshell illumination of Scharnhorst.alecsandros wrote:... Secondary batteries were of little importance in battleship combat. Similarly, Duke of York's action against Scharnhrost had no important events linked to her 16 x 133mm guns.RF wrote:This presumably would also be the case against surface targets, such as Bismarck in the DS battle, and KGV three days later.johnalbion wrote:Yes the 5.25 was theoretically a DP weapon but it simply was not effective. The shells were heavy and lifting them wore the crew out quicker, Turrets cramped and over complicated and rate of fire was low.
.
However I haven't seen any criticism of the performance of either ships 5.25 inch in either engagement.....
THis was the case with all secondary batteries in service in all battleships of the war...
The 5.25in was an effective DP weapon that PoW used to shoot down Italian TBs in Sept 1941, and she managed to damage 10 of the 16 high level bombers, two seriously, that attacked Force Z. According to Lundstrom the USN did't do any better at Coral Sea, Midway or Eastern Solomons than Force Z, despite the much larger number of AA capable ships (the RN DDs in Force Z had no AA FC systems).johnalbion wrote:Yes the 5.25 was theoretically a DP weapon but it simply was not effective. The shells were heavy and lifting them wore the crew out quicker, Turrets cramped and over complicated and rate of fire was low. the 2pdr was never adequate and only adopted in order to use left over ammunition from WW.I, yes it was improved as time went on but never adequate. Heavy, complicated, low muzzle velocity (high muzzle velocity is a must in AAA) the worst possible choice from what was available. The moment the 40mm quads and twins a used by the USN was available for production it should have been produced as it also was very uncomplicated and easy to produce, easy to operate and maintain, easy to train crews how to use, very much more so then the 2pdr. It is always the same sad story of politicians and government twits sending great young men into battle with out the right tools to get the job done with the least amount of casualties.
... At Eastern Solomons (Aug 1942), the IJN lost 60 planes in combat , out of which at least 15-20 destroyed by AA gunfire. The AA gunfire was s dense that at least 5 US fighters were also destroyed in the barrage.dunmunro wrote:The 5.25in was an effective DP weapon that PoW used to shoot down Italian TBs in Sept 1941, and she managed to damage 10 of the 16 high level bombers, two seriously, that attacked Force Z. According to Lundstrom the USN did't do any better at Coral Sea, Midway or Eastern Solomons than Force Z, despite the much larger number of AA capable ships (the RN DDs in Force Z had no AA FC systems).
This does need to be qualified - otherwise why have secondary batteries? Apart from engaging small torpedo carrying vessels like destroyers or cruisers (which frequently can be dealt with at longer ranges by the main armament) secondary batteries do have some attributes in battleship combat at close range. They should have a much faster rate of fire than the heavy guns and can degrade by direct hit those unprotected areas outside the main armoured belt, the same argument as used for supporting cruiser fire in battleship combat. Their faster rate of fire combined with the main armament fire can also impede rangefinders and fire control because the exposed personnel have to keep their heads down and also create an impression of constant fire which degrades over a sustained period of time. One example is the KGV/Rodney engagement of Bismarck.alecsandros wrote: [... Secondary batteries were of little importance in battleship combat. Similarly, Duke of York's action against Scharnhrost had no important events linked to her 16 x 133mm guns.
THis was the case with all secondary batteries in service in all battleships of the war...
