Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
StringWitch

Why don't Kagero and Harekaze (A) have DP guns?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SM0KE]
Players
1,550 posts
5,035 battles

The cynic in me wonders if the Russians have yet to forgive Japan for Tsushima, and the IJN gets the proverbial sh*tty end of the stick as a result...?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles

Only Akatsuki and Hatsuharu have them below the Kagero in the IJN tree, Shiratsuyu and Fubuki don't.

 

And it is mostly related to IJN developments IRL. Early Fubukis got only low-angle guns (Mod A), until the IJN wanted high-angle guns (Mod B) that theoretically could shoot at planes. These got put on the Ayanami batch, the Akatsuki-class and Hatsuharu-class. Then they realised the guns were just not good for AA and that all the necessary equipment for AA use had weight (when they wanted to save weight to cram in as much other stuff as possible), so the Mod C returned to low-angle surface-only use and was put on the latter Hatsuharus, Shiratsuyu-class, Asashio-class and Kagero-class. Only late-war on the Yuugumo and Shimakaze, the dual purpose concept returned as Mod D, which still wasn't great at AA, but by that point, it was clear that the ships needed any and all AA they could get (and the Type 95 25 mm guns were pretty garbage as well).

 

In that sense, WG kind of reflected this reality in a good few DDs not having DP main battery, but even those that have got pretty poor values. Most IJN DDs have to count on the 25 mm guns for AA (though it often is utterly insufficient at the job) and only the Type 98 10 cm guns are really any decent at AA. And with decent, I mean, they can kill spotter planes and with some investment save your ship from T6 CVs (most aircraft shot down in a single game with my BFT Harekaze - 7). Honestly, the difference between having the DP 127 mm or not is whether you need to turn off AA or not (as the 25 mm alone just fire as far as your aerial detection, so it's not like they give your position away, unless you are dumb enough to invest into AA range).

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
324 posts
4,515 battles

I guess it`s for the very same reason why Akizuki has so bad AA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
21 minutes ago, Infiriel said:

I guess it`s for the very same reason why Akizuki has so bad AA.

Akizuki has bad AA because it has no defAA. Base value-wise, Akizuki has way better AA values than Fletcher and Gearing. Base-value wise, the Type 98 10 cm gun is almost on par per barrel with USN 5 inch dual purpose guns, with equivalent range and negligibly less dps. That Akizuki and its follow ons have no defAA is kind of questionable, when other lines get such, but base-value wise, the Type 98 guns cannot complain about how they are represented ingame, while the 12.7 cm 3rd Year Type Mod B and D are basically representative of their historical inadequacy. These guns suffered from inadequate fire control, bad RoF, bad accuracy, bad traverse speed and to top it off, utterly insufficient loading angles at 10°, meaning in AA use, you basically wasted between 6 and 12 seconds just for lowering and raising the gun barrels between shots at targets at altitude (while the Type 98 could be loaded at any angle).

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
558 posts
10,570 battles

The more you know.. 

@Riselotte could you share your source(s) please? I'd love to read up on stuff like that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
15 minutes ago, Freyr_90 said:

The more you know.. 

@Riselotte could you share your source(s) please? I'd love to read up on stuff like that 

For this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7_cm/50_Type_3_naval_gun

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.php

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_39-65_t98.php

 

Pretty basic, but should be sufficient. Might want to consult sources stated there, for even more info.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
324 posts
4,515 battles
2 godziny temu, Riselotte napisał:

because it has no defAA

And therefore it`s AA is utter garbage...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,361 posts
15,164 battles

Mod C can elevate to 55 degrees and some DP mounts get an AA rating at 50 degrees (Lightning) Mod C should have AA capability too.. Yeah you can't do anything about a CV but it's still useful for trying to ping off float planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
49 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

Mod C can elevate to 55 degrees and some DP mounts get an AA rating at 50 degrees (Lightning) Mod C should have AA capability too.. Yeah you can't do anything about a CV but it's still useful for trying to ping off float planes.

Issue is, Mod A and Mod C weren't only limited to 55°, but because they were not supposed to be AA guns, they also lacked AA fire controls. So, basically, even if something was flying low enough, shooting that down would be almost impossible. The Lightning's guns weren't exactly good at their second role of AAA, but they at least had a HA/LA fire director that allowed them to somewhat accurately fire at low-flying aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,699 posts
13,142 battles
2 hours ago, Infiriel said:

And therefore it`s AA is utter garbage...

 

Which is clearly why she was used in competitive as a no fly zone. :fish_palm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
292 posts
5,128 battles
10 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Mod C can elevate to 55 degrees and some DP mounts get an AA rating at 50 degrees (Lightning) Mod C should have AA capability too.. Yeah you can't do anything about a CV but it's still useful for trying to ping off float planes.

It's not just elevation, it's training speed as well as being able to load the gun in combat. 

Type 3s required the gun to be at a very low angle (up to 10 degrees at most) to be loaded. The mount's traverse speed also couldn't reliably track a fast moving target like a plane. 

The Imperial Japanese navy only considered the Type 3 model B (including mod. 2) and the Model D as true DP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,361 posts
15,164 battles

Didn't all the IJN 127 mounts have terrible manual loading angles, manual train/traverse, same HA/LA FCS and all carry sankaidan AA shells? I haven't read any books on the subject so am just going off online info. :cap_hmm:

All of those mounts were terrible for AA duty, even compared to Tribal CPXIX mounts with fancy predicted fire comp, powered train/elevation, power ramming etc. 40 degrees just wasn't enough to engage modern dive bombers.

 

Hopefully the CV revamp will make all these discussions totally redundant :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,699 posts
13,142 battles
2 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Hopefully the CV revamp will make all these discussions totally redundant :cap_like:

 

Actually with a manual AA component (as implied by WG) IJN DDs could be worse off than they are now precisely due to their historical limitations.

Imagine if planes could simply outrun your AA mounts as they could irl. Suddenly you have no AA vs the little AA you have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
7 hours ago, creamgravy said:

Didn't all the IJN 127 mounts have terrible manual loading angles, manual train/traverse, same HA/LA FCS and all carry sankaidan AA shells? I haven't read any books on the subject so am just going off online info. :cap_hmm:

All of those mounts were terrible for AA duty, even compared to Tribal CPXIX mounts with fancy predicted fire comp, powered train/elevation, power ramming etc. 40 degrees just wasn't enough to engage modern dive bombers.

 

Hopefully the CV revamp will make all these discussions totally redundant :cap_like:

Terrible loading angles? Yes, at 10°.

Terrible traverse? Yes.

Same HA/LA FCS? I wouldn't think models not for AA use would have a HA fire director.

Type 3 shells? Yes, but Type 3 are notoriously bad.

4 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Actually with a manual AA component (as implied by WG) IJN DDs could be worse off than they are now precisely due to their historical limitations.

Imagine if planes could simply outrun your AA mounts as they could irl. Suddenly you have no AA vs the little AA you have now.

Frankly, does it matter for the 12.7 cm DP guns? Even now, what are you ever going to shoot down with them? Maybe on akatsuki they provide 30 dps which make up half the ship's dps and might kill a spotter. But other than that...

 

And the 10 cm guns actually have turret traverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,699 posts
13,142 battles
1 minute ago, Riselotte said:

Frankly, does it matter for the 12.7 cm DP guns?

 

Well, no, but it applies to the light mounts too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
24 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Well, no, but it applies to the light mounts too.

Frankly, on IJN DDs, you'd be better off putting your concentration on rudder and engine and less on any manually-controlled AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,361 posts
15,164 battles
1 hour ago, Riselotte said:

I wouldn't think models not for AA use would have a HA fire director.

 

Looking at pics they all have the same director, a 55 degree elevation would certainly require HA kit. I still think they should have the same AA rating, including the 55 degree single mounts (~5 DPS)

 

Heida, Cossack, Jervis and GM should get AA functionality too, they could use barrage and predicted fire agasint planes attacking other ships. Isn't that want WG want for RN DDs, defensive ships that protect others? :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
3,185 posts
4,331 battles
7 minutes ago, creamgravy said:

 

Looking at pics they all have the same director, a 55 degree elevation would certainly require HA kit. I still think they should have the same AA rating, including the 55 degree single mounts (~5 DPS)

 

Heida, Cossack, Jervis and GM should get AA functionality too, they could use barrage and predicted fire agasint planes attacking other ships. Isn't that want WG want for RN DDs, defensive ships that protect others? :cap_haloween:

I don't see where you see them all with the same director, but frankly, it is simply silly to provide them ingame with a capability they never had IRL and which ingame also won't save their AA rating from being bad. all it does is make you press P to switch AA off.

  • Cool 1

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.

×