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

British BB's AA

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
6 posts
37 battles

i think the all the high tier UK BB's are mounted with the most up-to-date AA's all their ship, which are far better than the 4*20 bofors and 127 gun. Their AA are all guided by the ladar, dont know why they are so bad in the game, especially compares to the USSR BB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles

The best heavy AA was the US 5"/38 and the best medium was the 40mm Bofers at least according to Drachinfel. Between director control and proximity fuses for the 5" US AA was deadly by the end of the war.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6 posts
37 battles
18 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The best heavy AA was the US 5"/38 and the best medium was the 40mm Bofers at least according to Drachinfel. Between director control and proximity fuses for the 5" US AA was deadly by the end of the war.

 

Ty!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6
[OMGIF]
Members
37 posts
4,374 battles

Did the US, 3 inch radar guided gun  enter before the wars end ? that would be pretty powerful.

I think it was in responds to kamikaze attacks and the 40mm being a little underpowered to completely destroy aircraft on a suicide run.

 

link

 http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php

 

 

Edited by lowlander28
new info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,336 posts
14 minutes ago, lowlander28 said:

Did the US, 3 inch radar guided gun  enter before the wars end ? that would be pretty powerful.

I think it was in responds to kamikaze attacks and the 40mm being a little underpowered to completely destroy aircraft on a suicide run.

link

 http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php

Not really.  First big use of those was on the Des Moines class cruisers, and I don't think those really got into service in time.  Same for FDR/Coral Sea/Midway.

Main reason for the 3" was that it was big enough for VT shells.  (VT = Variable Time.  Basically a radar proximity-fused shell.)

 

Edited by Kesh_Lives
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,107
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
3,724 posts
13,410 battles
6 minutes ago, lowlander28 said:

Did the US, 3 inch radar guided gun  enter before the wars end ? that would be pretty powerful.

I think it was in responds to kamikaze attacks and the 40mm being a little underpowered to completely destroy aircraft on a suicide run.

 

link

 http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php

Answer is in the link, too late for WWII.

58 minutes ago, TiTanSEEEED said:

i think the all the high tier UK BB's are mounted with the most up-to-date AA's all their ship, which are far better than the 4*20 bofors and 127 gun. Their AA are all guided by the ladar, dont know why they are so bad in the game, especially compares to the USSR BB

For 20mm Oerlikons, the Royal Navy had a more effective mounting than the US Navy.

40mm Bofors in STAAG mounts historically were pretty good AA guns post war, the Gigantic 6 barreled monstrosities look like they'd be a disaster, and reading how they operate, were probably actually worse than the US Navy quad mounts.

The rest of them look about typical for weapons of the time.

The Royal Navy was seriously hampered by it's use of DC power on ships in the timeframe represented in game, and because of it, fire control suffered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[PISD]
Members
2,011 posts
6,644 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

The best heavy AA was the US 5"/38 and the best medium was the 40mm Bofers at least according to Drachinfel. Between director control and proximity fuses for the 5" US AA was deadly by the end of the war.

 

Still, Royal Navy large caliber had longer range, which do not translate at all in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles
6 minutes ago, Y_Nagato said:

Still, Royal Navy large caliber had longer range, which do not translate at all in the game.

Game scale wise I don't think the difference is big enough to try to model and the 5"38 put out so much iron that the range difference didn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,680
[ARS]
Beta Testers
6,763 posts
6,907 battles

Should be noted that Vanguard does not get her upgraded 5.25" gun mounts, she has the old, deficient designs from the KGV class even though visually she has the revised design.  This issue probably affects Lion, Conqueror and Thunderer, perhaps Monarch as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,336 posts
12 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Game scale wise I don't think the difference is big enough to try to model and the 5"38 put out so much iron that the range difference didn't matter.

Royal Navy 'bigger' caliber was only 5.25" vs 5", but never quite equaled the ubiquitous 5"/38. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
379
[WOLF1]
Members
1,153 posts
2,229 battles
54 minutes ago, Kesh_Lives said:

Not really.  First big use of those was on the Des Moines class cruisers, and I don't think those really got into service in time.  Same for FDR/Coral Sea/Midway.

Main reason for the 3" was that it was big enough for VT shells.  (VT = Variable Time.  Basically a radar proximity-fused shell.)

 

Not really if I remember correctly. The 5 inch gun was good and it had VT fuses, but the navy wanted a faster firing gun, especially for fending off kamakaze attacks. So they sought out the smallest caliber gun that could still fire a VT fuse, and that was the 76.2mm 3 inch gun.

 

thats from what i know, maybe be wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles
6 minutes ago, Kesh_Lives said:

Royal Navy 'bigger' caliber was only 5.25" vs 5", but never quite equaled the ubiquitous 5"/38. 

 

For guns that is an appreciably larger warhead but they just couldn't keep up with the 5"/38 in rate of fire. The RN also had AA shells up to 8" if I remember the video correctly but they were not very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles
1 minute ago, Boomer625 said:

Not really if I remember correctly. The 5 inch gun was good and it had VT fuses, but the navy wanted a faster firing gun, especially for fending off kamakaze attacks. So they sought out the smallest caliber gun that could still fire a VT fuse, and that was the 76.2mm 3 inch gun.

 

thats from what i know, maybe be wrong 

The 3" was a good gun on smaller ships particularly once it had radar direction but for sheer punch the 5" won out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,069
[NYAAR]
Members
2,999 posts
15,966 battles
1 hour ago, lowlander28 said:

Did the US, 3 inch radar guided gun  enter before the wars end ? that would be pretty powerful.

I think it was in responds to kamikaze attacks and the 40mm being a little underpowered to completely destroy aircraft on a suicide run.

 

link

 http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Kesh_Lives said:

Not really.  First big use of those was on the Des Moines class cruisers, and I don't think those really got into service in time.  Same for FDR/Coral Sea/Midway.

Main reason for the 3" was that it was big enough for VT shells.  (VT = Variable Time.  Basically a radar proximity-fused shell.)

 

 

1 hour ago, SgtBeltfed said:

Answer is in the link, too late for WWII.

After digging through a few links, it read the prototype 3inrf mount was test fired in Sept 1st 1945.

Entered fleet service in 1948.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[DW-62]
Beta Testers
277 posts
1,974 battles
4 hours ago, TiTanSEEEED said:

i think the all the high tier UK BB's are mounted with the most up-to-date AA's all their ship, which are far better than the 4*20 bofors and 127 gun. Their AA are all guided by the ladar, dont know why they are so bad in the game, especially compares to the USSR BB

lol tell that to the Prince of Wales (KGV class) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,611
[BONKS]
Members
3,164 posts
52 battles
4 hours ago, TiTanSEEEED said:

Their AA are all guided by the ladar, dont know why they are so bad in the game, especially compares to the USSR BB

AA effectiveness ingame is arbitrarily decided by WG and has little basis in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,336 posts
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

AA effectiveness ingame is arbitrarily decided by WG and has little basis in reality.

Yeah, if it was historical, there would be US and British AA at one level, and everyone else, except a few Allied ships that got refits, at a lower level.  VT shells from guns under radar director control was a huge difference, and only one side had them.

Bombing the German fleet would be much easier than it is now, actually, if they were doing anything historical with it.

(Note that, as you say, I'm not saying anything that WG is doing with AA has any historical basis.  AA is one of the places you probably don't want a historical basis used.)

Edited by Kesh_Lives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,281 posts
12,191 battles
6 hours ago, TiTanSEEEED said:

i think the all the high tier UK BB's are mounted with the most up-to-date AA's all their ship, which are far better than the 4*20 bofors and 127 gun. Their AA are all guided by the ladar, dont know why they are so bad in the game, especially compares to the USSR BB

You could put a Phalanx CIWS on a IJN Shimakaze in game in a spot where it could cover 100% of the airspace but it doesn't matter if there isn't any good fire control and the like to aim it. Part of Bismarck's downfall was actually the Swordfish flying too slow compared to what all the fire control was meant for as well as too low. Sure UK has the shiny new STAAG mounts with 6 barrels on ships - Iowa is actually 1952 Missouri, with the upgraded electronics, fire control, etc. Fun fact - the L85 20 mm Oerlikon has similar effective range (vs low flying planes) and greater maximum range than the Phalanx, current models of the Phalanx are 13,600 lbs with a 4500 RPM fire rate, while the L85 is 400 pounds per unit with a RoF of 1000 rounds and so you could fit 34 of them in place of the Phalanx if you have room and have effectively 5-6 times the volume of fire with somewhat greater range. But all the targeting stuff is basically built in to the Phalanx and can lock on better than all those guns. It effectively behaves the same way a human operator would (finding a target, looking for the best chance to hit and 'walking' rounds in to it) just more efficiently. That doesn't even get in to things like the ammunition itself - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.php  - go down you'll see 4 nations using 40 mm bofors with 4 ranges - and then see that the self destruct (note this is a feature that breaks the round up to limit friendly fire NOT a flak round) at different ranges, in some cases shorter (early UK) or longer (later UK). Some of IJN's under-performance is attributed to possibly aerodynamics of the shell they used. The STAAG mount which is a early CIWS like Phalanx actually had A LOT of issues when firing, actually damaging itself and not being as effective as they hoped. 

If were talking about 'in game' AA - the best is actually the USN 3 inch guns on ships like Des Moines - they had arguably the perfect balance of shell weight/caliber to knock planes down combined with rate of fire and it's directors - the difference between it and the guns on Texas and the like being that, conversion to automatic fire (effectively doubling/tripling it) and single vs double mount as they are actually the same literal guns just mounting and fire type. 

I'd have to look in game at some point but I know at one point when I checked - some of the UK ships actually have better AA than the USN ones of the same type/tier unless the USN ones pop DEF AA if they have it. Seeing as the keys to AA power in this game are the DPS number and the range, which anyone's guess on how Wargaming determines them because I have yet to find a method to the madness. I'm guessing they figure in the ships fire control and directors - which can make a 'worse' gun perform better than a gun that technically better due to ability to hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,274
[LEGIO]
Members
3,584 posts
9,151 battles

For whatever reason WG gave British BBs pretty mediocre AA ratings even though the higher tier ones have a huge number of 40mm Bofors.

The 5.25" is given miserable stats in game when it really deserves somewhat better. Yes it wasn't as good in the anti-aircraft role as the faster firing 5"/38 but it was still improved with time and by the wars end had VT shells.

One odd minor detail is that WG put a twin 40mm Mark IV mounting on roof of 'B' turret on Monarch and Lion. This had its own radar fire control yet this mounting would never have been used in that position because the firing of the main battery would have completely knocked the fire control system out of action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[PISD]
Members
2,011 posts
6,644 battles
9 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Game scale wise I don't think the difference is big enough to try to model and the 5"38 put out so much iron that the range difference didn't matter.

It is roughly a 15% increase between the 5.25’’ and the 5’’/38, which should bring British long range AA close to the Russian one ( around 5.8km instead of 5.2km). Sure US damage would still be higher, but with that range British would at least have some teeth on their long range.

 

I would also point that the 5,25’’ trade in AA power for surface power, and yet no British ship have decent secondaries for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,034
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
28,473 posts
14,971 battles
7 hours ago, Y_Nagato said:

It is roughly a 15% increase between the 5.25’’ and the 5’’/38, which should bring British long range AA close to the Russian one ( around 5.8km instead of 5.2km). Sure US damage would still be higher, but with that range British would at least have some teeth on their long range.

 

I would also point that the 5,25’’ trade in AA power for surface power, and yet no British ship have decent secondaries for now.

Russian AA is fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×