Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
kgh52

real world vs this game

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,206
[TDRB]
Members
5,325 posts
13,743 battles

I see from time to time references made to German CV "secondaries". Actually these would have been single purpose guns & only AA rounds be carried. Conveys were escorted. DD's carried torpedoes.

No way would a CV commander place his CV in such pearl. But this is a game where the real world is compromised for the game world.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,438
[SALVO]
Members
3,508 posts
7,395 battles
10 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

I see from time to time references made to German CV "secondaries". Actually these would have been single purpose guns & only AA rounds be carried. Conveys were escorted. DD's carried torpedoes.

No way would a CV commander place his CV in such pearl. But this is a game where the real world is compromised for the game world.

 

I don't think a CV commander would have placed himself purposefully into a surface naval engagement but most certainly thats what the secondary battery was for.  Just incase it did happen:

Quote

As designed, Graf Zeppelin was to be fitted with eight 15 cm SK C/28 guns for defense against surface warships. This number was later increased to sixteen. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[INTEL]
Members
1,780 posts
16,453 battles
11 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

I see from time to time references made to German CV "secondaries". Actually these would have been single purpose guns & only AA rounds be carried. Conveys were escorted. DD's carried torpedoes.

No way would a CV commander place his CV in such pearl. But this is a game where the real world is compromised for the game world.

 

There have been very few single purpose AA guns. If it can be aimed and shot at a surface/ground target it will be. 

 The vaunted 88mm in it's full AA config was used very effectively against tanks and infantry in France, North Africa, and Russia. 

 The US Navy experimented with adding an anti surface capability to the 20mm Phalanx CIWS.

 The 5" Mounts on USN CVs were always DP... up to and including the 5"/54s that were in service when I entered the Navy in the 80's.

 Soviet ZSU 23-4 Shilka self propelled AA vehicles were/are extremely effective in the anti-personnel role. 

 Nobody with a brain says "We cant use that, it's an AA gun." Although one German AA battery commander reportedly tried during the Battle of Arras in 1940. I think the sight of multiple Matilda's and a pissed off panzer commander corrected his thinking.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,283
[BEA5T]
Members
5,297 posts
24,125 battles

It is just a game......  No more and, a lot less, where History is concerned.   The way it has been going since Update 8.0, I am shocked that carriers don't have 12-14" turrets or Missiles......  Next, I expect are Y-shaped 1950-ish flight decks and jets.  And, more Carriers for sale from places that never, even to this day, ever had a Carrier.   The money is simply too good selling OP carriers; no matter the collateral damage........  Cloning and Carriers is the sale paradigm for later 2020 and early 2021.  The "Golden era" comes right after that......   What is really surprising, is the lack of a major, Submarine event and sale!   Halloween is most likely that where subs fight subs while evading plastic ocean garbage covered monsters...........

Oh yeah, we're really we're really pushing towards quality now !  

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,728
[WOLFG]
Members
12,668 posts
11,787 battles
4 minutes ago, Ares1967 said:

 

 The US Navy experimented with adding an anti surface capability to the 20mm Phalanx CIWS.

 

 

If I remember, the US army used their tracked 20mm gatling AA guns against bunkers in Gulf War 1.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[HARU]
Beta Testers
117 posts
6,445 battles

Lets just say a few 'minor' changes(:Smile_veryhappy:) were made for the game.

For example it would take a DD over 20 minutes just to reach full speed, a BB would get up to about half speed during the game time. 2% hit rate would be average and 5% god level or close range(considered to be a few miles out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
424
[WOLFH]
Members
986 posts
4,782 battles

If memory serves a USN Cruiser in WWII ran out of ammo and started shooting starshells at an IJN DD with great effect.

A weapon system might not have been designed for certain roles but if it can hurt the enemy you can bet it will be used.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41?wprov=sfti1

Edited by CO_Valle
Added 88mm reference
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,682 posts
45,595 battles

Naval combat had evolved almost as quickly as the steam boiler.

Initially, it was the pre-dreadnaughts, protected cruisers that started it all. But the DD changed Naval tactics because they were fast, nimble and difficult to hit with main battery. To make matters serious, they carried the torpedo. A variant of the sea mine with its own propulsion.

To counter this new class, secondary battery was extensively developed. The first versions were in casemates, but eventually turrets were used as well. Due to aircraft carriers being the new threat, some became dual purpose.

 

In the North Atlantic, many nations knew that DDs are more numerous for patrols and they are often hard to detect in poor weather. A CV was considered a huge investment in sea power and could ill afford to be left open to sneak attack. Most aircraft could not fly in certain weather or at night.

So secondaries both casemate, due to conversions, and dual purpose, were often used.

It made sense until proper escorts were built.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,848
[WOLF3]
Members
30,966 posts
26,039 battles

If we want to be "real" the 105mm/65 SK C/33 would have had a lot of issues.

TLDR:  Basically a good gun with a horrible mount causing issues.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_41-65_skc33.php

"This weapon was used primarily as AAA on cruisers and capital ships, although it could be used against surface targets. A reasonably good weapon, but the training and elevation rates of their mountings were rather slow. Replaced the older 8.8 cm (3.5") SK C/31 on newer ships.

Note the triaxial mounting in the picture below. This was intended to be able to compensate for the motion of the ship and so maintain target lock. Unfortunately, this mounting proved to be susceptible to electrical faults as it was not sufficiently waterproofed and the mountings were opened to the weather. These earlier mounts had limited RPC. The "H" class battleships were to have much improved enclosed mounts with full RPC, but these ships were never completed."

WNGER_41-65_skc33_pic.jpg

 

It was a very common gun used in the Kriegsmarine.

"Capital Ships and Cruisers: Deutschland, Scharnhorst, Bismarck, Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen classes
    U-Boat Depot Ships: Bauer class
    S-Boat Depot Ships: Lüderitz and Nachtigal classes as rearmed
    Planned for "H" class battleships, Graf Zeppelin class and Seydlitz aircraft carriers"

 

Another example of German Overengineering causing problems.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

Actually these would have been single purpose guns & only AA rounds be carried.

The 105mm L/65 was not a single purpose gun. It was capable of firing against sea targets, it did fire against sea targets and it was equipped to fire at sea targets. It was surely not a 120+mm gun in that regard, but it still had enough explosive mass in the shell to ensure sufficient harm against unarmored targets.

There were impact fuze HE shells that were carried on board the ships, and in combat those guns would also see usage against surface targets. To list a few examples off memory:

Prinz Eugen in the Denmark Strait fired several salvos with her 105mm batteries against the British battleships. However as at that point the combat range exceeded 15km the gun crews were ordered back into shelter positions soon after.

Either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau temporarily used her 105mm batteries against Acasta or Ardent during Operation Juno.

And finally there is this image of Admiral Scheer who just used this very gun to sink a merchant:
C644BCA2-40E3-4204-9EC2-4F24DFEFF12D.thumb.jpeg.66bc9bf80e2a2bcfeaaf2705f0945be0.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[TDRB]
Members
5,325 posts
13,743 battles

The Germans designed the Bismarck to be a raider capable of fighting off British Warships. We see how well that worked. The Tirpitz hid for most of the time until it was sunk.  A CV with 150mm guns wouldn't frighten off any cruiser or BB commander.

Not every thing works as planned.

 

Quote

The US Navy experimented with adding an anti surface capability to the 20mm Phalanx CIWS.

I've heard an A-10's Gua-8 could sink all but the CV's in today's US Navy if it did not have to face the Phalanx.  I'm sure this is referring to the DD's & Frigates. But with modern technology were targets can be hit with almost pinpoint accuracy from a 100 miles and more away why risk a pilot & plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[TDRB]
Members
5,325 posts
13,743 battles
1 hour ago, Highblooded said:

Lets just say a few 'minor' changes(:Smile_veryhappy:) were made for the game.

For example it would take a DD over 20 minutes just to reach full speed, a BB would get up to about half speed during the game time. 2% hit rate would be average and 5% god level or close range(considered to be a few miles out).

The game is in a world created by WG. Making it a real world simulator would sink the game. Comparing real-world to this fantasy world of battling warships is for fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles
18 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

The Germans designed the Bismarck to be a raider capable of fighting off British Warships. We see how well that worked. The Tirpitz hid for most of the time until it was sunk.  A CV with 150mm guns wouldn't frighten off any cruiser or BB commander.

This is a common misconception. Neither the Bismarck-class nor the Scharnhorst-class were designed to raid convoys, or even to engage British warships. They were responses to French capital ships, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being meant to counter Dunkerque and Strasbourg and Bismarck and Tirpitz being meant to counter Richelieu and Jean Bart. That is for example why Bismarck's design was upgunned from 330mm to 380mm when they learned that the French battleships would use such a caliber.

The Royal Navy was not considered as it was hoped that they would not stick their nose too deeply into the things Germany was doing on the mainland (like taking the Sudetenland). The invasion of Poland and the subsequent declaration of war shattered this hope once and for all. And then the Kriegsmarine, equipped to fight the smaller European Navies, saw themselves going against the Royal Navy. We know how that one ended.

That they were then pushed into convoy raiding is something where you can truly say that not all things go as planned.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[WOLF6]
Members
474 posts
3,717 battles
2 hours ago, kgh52 said:

I see from time to time references made to German CV "secondaries". Actually these would have been single purpose guns & only AA rounds be carried. Conveys were escorted. DD's carried torpedoes.

No way would a CV commander place his CV in such pearl. But this is a game where the real world is compromised for the game world.

Interwar CV designs had secondaries for the same reason Battleships did: to counter DDs & PT boats.

In addition, the folks in charge of CV design weren't entirely sold on aircraft efficacy.  See Lexington & Saratoga's original deck armament of 8x8" guns (same as many heavy cruisers of the day).

19 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

I've heard an A-10's Gua-8 could sink all but the CV's in today's US Navy if it did not have to face the Phalanx.

Heard from whom?  A 14 year old on the internet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,812
[WOLFG]
Members
33,671 posts
10,453 battles
27 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

The Germans designed the Bismarck to be a raider capable of fighting off British Warships. We see how well that worked. The Tirpitz hid for most of the time until it was sunk.  A CV with 150mm guns wouldn't frighten off any cruiser or BB commander.

Not every thing works as planned.

Exactly, not everything works as planned. If, for some reason, a warship gets that close, it's nice to be able to shoot back. A CV with 150mm guns isn't going to frighten off a cruiser or BB, but neither is a CV with no guns, and one can always get lucky. Plus, they would be useful anti DD and surfaced U-Boat guns.

And if you were converting a cruiser or BB hull, the guns are probably allocated for it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,848
[WOLF3]
Members
30,966 posts
26,039 battles
16 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

This is a common misconception. Neither the Bismarck-class nor the Scharnhorst-class were designed to raid convoys, or even to engage British warships. They were responses to French capital ships, with Scharnhorst and Gneisenau being meant to counter Dunkerque and Strasbourg and Bismarck and Tirpitz being meant to counter Richelieu and Jean Bart. That is for example why Bismarck's design was upgunned from 330mm to 380mm when they learned that the French battleships would use such a caliber.

The Royal Navy was not considered as it was hoped that they would not stick their nose too deeply into the things Germany was doing on the mainland (like taking the Sudetenland). The invasion of Poland and the subsequent declaration of war shattered this hope once and for all. And then the Kriegsmarine, equipped to fight the smaller European Navies, saw themselves going against the Royal Navy. We know how that one ended.

That they were then pushed into convoy raiding is something where you can truly say that not all things go as planned.

The British were stacked with nice cards.

 

The British home islands straddle access to the Atlantic and made for one helluva nice gigantic airfield.  They also have Egypt, Malta, and the gigantic dagger-sized thorn in the side of the Axis... Gibraltar.  All of which the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force could operate out of.  Gibraltar ensured that naval cooperation between the Axis was going to be next to impossible to do.  The Italians and German navies could not coordinate and help each other.  You got the British home islands, Gibraltar, and Egypt preventing it.

 

Helps that the RN was also pretty darn big.  Hell, by the time time Pearl Harbor happened, the RN had a pretty good handle of things.  Bismarck was sunk long before.  The only problem were U-Boats, and that was it.  Once more DDs / DDEs and Escort Carriers began to enter the game in quantity, the game was over.  Bogue-class Escort Carriers were a big deal and most of them were built for the Royal Navy.

USS Bogue

USS_Bogue_ACV-9.jpg

HMS Attacker below:

HMSAttackerD02.jpg

"HMS Attacker (D02) at anchor in San Francisco Bay on 13 November 1942. A Fairey Swordfish biplane of 842 Squadron RAF can be seen on the flight deck just ahead of the superstructure."

 

The US also ended up building hundreds of DDEs for Allied use.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Members
6 posts
15,460 battles

I'm fairly certain some early carriers had quite a heavy armament. The lexingtons had 8 203mms and the kaga and akagi had 10. I think this was some doctrinal thing, not knowing the role of carriers yet, but at least for the lexingtons I think I read something like the US navy thought that as long as they were building such a large ship it should be able to at least pull some weight in a surface battle. Even in the battle off samar the escort carriers used their 5in guns to fire on the japanese as they were retreating.

See the source image

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,848
[WOLF3]
Members
30,966 posts
26,039 battles
33 minutes ago, Comrade_Jimmy said:

I'm fairly certain some early carriers had quite a heavy armament. The lexingtons had 8 203mms and the kaga and akagi had 10. I think this was some doctrinal thing, not knowing the role of carriers yet, but at least for the lexingtons I think I read something like the US navy thought that as long as they were building such a large ship it should be able to at least pull some weight in a surface battle. Even in the battle off samar the escort carriers used their 5in guns to fire on the japanese as they were retreating.

See the source image

Early carriers like Kaga and Lexington-class did have 8" guns.  This was partly due to their original Battlecruiser origins and the belief that early aircraft weren't really all that impressive at first.  But that changed as time progressed and aircraft designs got better and more importantly, more powerful.

 

You saw the transition of ditching large guns once the USN, IJN, RN got newer Carrier designs.  For the USN & IJN, 127mm was as large as they got for guns in newer Carriers.  For the RN, I think it was about 120mm.  Matter of fact, the RN was so desperate for good, dual purpose guns they had a critical shortage.  Their DDs needed them desperately, but with so few good DP guns, they went instead to the RN's Carriers.

 

Lexington was sunk at Coral Sea.  Her surviving sister, Saratoga, got her 203mm guns removed in January 1942.  The guns were replaced by dual 127mm/38 dual purpose gun turrets.

Saratoga below off Guadalcanal, and you can see the 127mm gun turrets in place of the 203mm guns.

USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_operating_off_Guadal

With the removal of those guns, there were no longer any USN Carriers with such large guns.  127mm was it, even for Midway-class.

Also, you can see in this post the evolution of Naval Aviation from 1932-1941 from the IJN alone, and understand why the real navies that actually operated Carriers threw away large guns for them.  You didn't need them.  Meanwhile the Germans were trying to fit 150mm guns on Graf Zeppelin :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,008
[JEDI-]
Members
2,684 posts
6,903 battles
2 hours ago, kgh52 said:

I see from time to time references made to German CV "secondaries". Actually these would have been single purpose guns & only AA rounds be carried. Conveys were escorted. DD's carried torpedoes.

No way would a CV commander place his CV in such pearl. But this is a game where the real world is compromised for the game world.

 

Well yeah. Could you imagine if they gave the secondaries their actual power in game too?

Most BB are covered in guns that are used as main weapons for lots of smaller ships like the one you listed.

Imagine if they gave them the same power as main weapons. That would be something to see.

But they can't because it would break the game.

 

So we gotta go with the game rules in order to make it enjoyable. Which means ignoring reality to some extents.

Edited by xalmgrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,180
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,332 battles
1 hour ago, SireneRacker said:

Prinz Eugen in the Denmark Strait fired several salvos with her 105mm batteries against the British battleships. However as at that point the combat range exceeded 15km the gun crews were ordered back into shelter positions soon after.

Yes, but you did point the flaws of it: those mount were not made for such engagement. In naval combat, they would never be manned due to the danger of shrapnel

 

11 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Early carriers like Kaga and Lexington-class did have 8" guns.  This was partly due to their original Battlecruiser origins and the belief that early aircraft weren't really all that impressive at first.  But that changed as time progressed and aircraft designs got better and more importantly, more powerful.

Do not forget Furious with it's ''B'' hull and its 18'' secondary gun.

 

11 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

You saw the transition of ditching large guns once the USN, IJN, RN got newer Carrier designs.  For the USN & IJN, 127mm was as large as they got for guns in newer Carriers.  For the RN, I think it was about 120mm.  Matter of fact, the RN was so desperate for good, dual purpose guns they had a critical shortage.  Their DDs needed them desperately, but with so few good DP guns, they went instead to the RN's Carriers

There is 2 thing there: first they went away with the ''close combat carrier'' idea, and figure out that CV can keep in general enemy navy at bay easily. And second, an evolution in armament: Saratoga was designed before the 5''/38 was put into service, in an era were no good dual purpose gun existed in the US Navy. Thus, like for many navy, she had dedicated anti surface guns and anti air guns. With the 5''/38, they had a gun able to do both effectively and were able to ditch those big guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,283
[BEA5T]
Members
5,297 posts
24,125 battles
2 hours ago, DrHolmes52 said:

If I remember, the US army used their tracked 20mm gatling AA guns against bunkers in Gulf War 1.

We've been using Gatling weapon designs for a very long time.......against surface targets.  Goalkeeper is dual purpose.  The M-249 was dual purpose.

image.png.e19375eb82c5652b303dfb3d2bc45fa1.png

Some had discussed a three barrel 40mm Gatling in a M60-A3 hull with all sorts of 40MM add-ons for Urban battles.....  An Urban warfare tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,848
[WOLF3]
Members
30,966 posts
26,039 battles
2 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

There is 2 thing there: first they went away with the ''close combat carrier'' idea, and figure out that CV can keep in general enemy navy at bay easily. And second, an evolution in armament: Saratoga was designed before the 5''/38 was put into service, in an era were no good dual purpose gun existed in the US Navy. Thus, like for many navy, she had dedicated anti surface guns and anti air guns. With the 5''/38, they had a gun able to do both effectively and were able to ditch those big guns.

Yes, it's just I get amused with the archaic Kriegsmarine.  All the navies actually operating Carriers were ditching large guns whenever they could, newer designs didn't have them at all.  But here are the Germans, throwing 150mm guns on a Carrier.  Everything with Graf Zeppelin was a** backwards :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,180
[PISD]
Members
1,921 posts
6,332 battles
20 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Yes, it's just I get amused with the archaic Kriegsmarine.  All the navies actually operating Carriers were ditching large guns whenever they could, newer designs didn't have them at all.  But here are the Germans, throwing 150mm guns on a Carrier.  Everything with Graf Zeppelin was a** backwards :Smile_teethhappy:

Well, yes but at the time did not have proper mounting for dual purpose. Sure the 105mm can be use for it, but the AA mount of it did not give any protection for it's crew, making it a poor surface gun.  And let's face it: with her small air wing she would probably need such gun to survive (tho those gun make that air wing small so...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,282
[WG-CC]
Wiki Editor, Members
9,099 posts
7,995 battles
36 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Yes, but you did point the flaws of it: those mount were not made for such engagement. In naval combat, they would never be manned due to the danger of shrapnel

Yes and no.

Fire was ceased primarily because the gain wasn't really there. As mentioned, firing took place at rather long ranges for such a weapon, which if you then consider the nature of your target and the low chance of a hit, it's simply not worth the ammunition. When ammo is limited and you are expecting to operate for a longer time on the Atlantic, you do not want to waste 105mm shells against some battleships 15km away.

The A.O. that ordered the crews to take shelter wasn't afraid of shrapnels, but of direct shell hits. Because against such guns no splinter protection in the world would help, so he wanted to minimize the risk of a direct hit hitting the crew by having them go to the opposite side of the ship.

 

That those guns would be crewed during combat if need be should go without saying. Or are you suggesting that whoever of the ugly sisters fired at British destroyers during Operation Juno did so via remote control and telepathic loading only?

39 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Yes, it's just I get amused with the archaic Kriegsmarine.  All the navies actually operating Carriers were ditching large guns whenever they could, newer designs didn't have them at all.  But here are the Germans, throwing 150mm guns on a Carrier.  Everything with Graf Zeppelin was a** backwards :Smile_teethhappy:

Oh there was a reason for that. The Germans had no idea how to make a CV as GZ was the first real design, and the only navy that allowed them to inspect their carriers was Japan with Akagi. And now the grand question what Akagi had mounted: secondaries of larger caliber.

Hence why the evolution of secondary armament for GZ went roundabout like this:

1. 2x3 203mm turrets - rejected as it'd take too much space

2. 1x3 + 6x1 203mm (casemates for the single mounts) - rejected as they realized 203mm is too large, 150mm it shall be

3. 8x1 150mm - sounds good, a helpful Junior designer comes up with the idea of making twin mounts in casemates to save some space. His suggestion gets horribly misinterpreted...

4. 8x2 150mm - accepted for the final design, boat gets laid down. But in a meeting a certain dictator with square shaped moustache questions the point of such a secondary armament. Big panic, he is right, idea comes up to create sponsons in their place for more 105mm dual purpose guns. Structure doesn't take it, the ships are progressed too far. So instead another 105mm twin gets added for in total six twins and the 150mm guns stay.

 

As questionable as the design is in that regard, it's a bit hard to blame them when they never had an opportunity to study more than Akagi, which was far from a good carrier design herself. Other navies could rely on more experience to come to such conclusions (although to note, the Americans kept the 203mm batteries on the Lexington class until way after GZ's design was finalized. So what superficial data they could get from her, she was most definitely also armed with heavy artillery), for the Germans it was their first shot. Could've gotten a lot worse, like Bearn... ugh...

28 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Well, yes but at the time did not have proper mounting for dual purpose. Sure the 105mm can be use for it, but the AA mount of it did not give any protection for it's crew, making it a poor surface gun.

You mean like all carrier secondary dp guns at that time? No seriously, look up the secondary dp guns of carriers until 1936 (GZ being laid down) and check for their armor.

On the American carriers all dp guns were in exposed mountings. On the Japanese the same story except those that would receive shielding from exhaust fumes. On British carriers same story, though you at least sometimes have a gun shield if you are fortunate enough to be either Ark Royal or use the 102mm gun. A gun shield which the 105mm gun also had...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,206
[TDRB]
Members
5,325 posts
13,743 battles
Quote

The lexingtons had 8 203mms

The Lexington had her 8" guns removed in March of 1942, shortly before Coral Sea where she was sunk. They were replaced by the 1.1" or 28mm gun. These were known for jamming and many were replaced with 40mm Befors. The Lady Lex may have survived if it had the Befors at Coral Sea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×