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

460 MM "AA gun"

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
774 posts
4,773 battles

I wonder how no one brought this up as most seem to hate aircraft with a passion and no AA can be strong enough :

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)

 

Some Japanse BB - the Yamato did -  fired massive AA shells with their main guns at aicraft formations. That would give a nice huge FLAK cloud and huge area effect no ?

 

"However, U.S. pilots considered these shells to be more of a pyrotechnics display than a competent anti-aircraft weapon"  :-)))

 

It seems to do this right here :  ( deck crews seemed to have been .50 mg/20 mm  strafed quite a lot....we dont have actual AA crews, but modules could be damaged by it.... )

 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,241 battles

Yea. Should absolutly be in the game. In mean, you cant deny historical facts and realism right? And well, when 152 mm guns put out coninous damage of 1200 or something, I think Yamato should get, well, lets say 3600. Oh yea, and the range must atleast be 24km. Rather 30km.

 

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

If you find sarcasm its yours to keep

....

Also:

Naaaah.

Did we have this topic before?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
4,108 posts
7,842 battles
9 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I wonder how no one brought this up

and what gave you that impression?

 

you can bet that WG is aware of these, and actively decided not to implement them a long long time ago. I mean, your own wikipedia quote tells the entire story - pointless and ineffective gimmick, we've got plenty enough of those in the game already...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
774 posts
4,773 battles
1 minute ago, Tyrendian89 said:

and what gave you that impression?

 

you can bet that WG is aware of these, and actively decided not to implement them a long long time ago. I mean, your own wikipedia quote tells the entire story - pointless and ineffective gimmick, we've got plenty enough of those in the game already...

 

But AA is far more effective in game  then it ever was IRL.......so this huge blunderbuss should be a wonder weapon in game :-))))))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
15,926 posts
11,172 battles
13 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

I wonder how no one brought this up ...

Really?

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,028 posts
2,749 battles

Might as well wish for the Konpeki no Kantai version while you're at it, those were considerably more usefull.

 

As a side note, there are no actual recorded instances of the IJN bb's ever shooting down a allied plane using these shells in case you're wondering @Beastofwar which does rather speak for itself as to how (in)effective they were in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,660 posts
3,542 battles
40 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

 pointless and ineffective gimmick, we've got plenty enough of those in the game already...

Hood...right?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Players
817 posts
7,751 battles

IMHO we should all thank the stupid guy who wasted precious resources to design that useless piece of junk instead of proper AP shells... I mean those Jap 460mm AP shells were just atrocious...But no, we need to have pointless AA shells that cant really do anything unless we engage a densely packed cloud of aircraft... Who needs to engage surface targets...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
310 posts
6,964 battles
1 hour ago, ForlornSailor said:

Yea. Should absolutly be in the game. In mean, you cant deny historical facts and realism right? And well, when 152 mm guns put out coninous damage of 1200 or something, I think Yamato should get, well, lets say 3600. Oh yea, and the range must atleast be 24km. Rather 30km.

 

  Reveal hidden contents
  Reveal hidden contents
  Reveal hidden contents
  Reveal hidden contents
  Reveal hidden contents

If you find sarcasm its yours to keep

....

Also:

Naaaah.

Did we have this topic before?

 

Two words.

 

Unrotated projectiles.

 

Historical Accuracy (TM) :Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
584 posts
5,721 battles
11 minutes ago, BlackYeti said:

Two words.

 

Unrotated projectiles.

 

 

That just sounds plain rude :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
774 posts
4,773 battles
50 minutes ago, DJ_Die said:

 unless we engage a densely packed cloud of aircraft...

 

 

Don't you remember right after patch 0.8 ? All forums were screaming densely packed cloud of aircraft making their game unplayable.....here is THE thing ! ( lol )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Just want to point out how historically inaccurate Hood rocket AA is too... 

 

That Yam death throes video is somewhat amusing as those dudes on deck do a hell of a lot of shouting in a way I've only ever seen in Japanese movies. Guess the situation would call for one to lose their head a bit :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,028 posts
2,749 battles
1 hour ago, Negativvv said:

Just want to point out how historically inaccurate Hood rocket AA is too... 

 

That Yam death throes video is somewhat amusing as those dudes on deck do a hell of a lot of shouting in a way I've only ever seen in Japanese movies. Guess the situation would call for one to lose their head a bit :cap_rambo:

They're shouting out firing angles. At least some of them are, from what I recall (yes, I have seen the movie).

 

As fire control go, that's pretty basic, but hey it works, more or less..

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SEN]
Players
230 posts
7,231 battles

Talking about realism on this ARCADE game its hilarious. Look at that joke called "Katori", on the IJN "premium" tree !

Do you know that boat was THE worst disaster in the history of IJN ?? And was an TRAINING  & SCHOOL boat, constructed using civilian standards, in a civilian hull ? THE slowest "cruiser" on the IJN fleet in 1940, with worst design, underpowered, never see real combat, an failure from head to tail, to conclude.

All this historic & realist facts were absolutely ignored by the devs when they decided to introduce that crap in game, and to add insult to the injury, they made her an "premium" ship...

"... The ship was named after the noted Shinto Katori Shrine in Chiba prefecture, Japan. ... class cruisers have been seen by naval architects as a design failure. "

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Japanese-cruiser-Katori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
8,199 posts
14,454 battles

The concept of using your main guns as AA guns on capital ships wasn't entirely unique to the IJN, it's just that they developed special shells for it.

The USN just took their HE shells and put time/VT fuzes into them according to navweaps. A few examples:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.php

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_6-47_mk16.php

 

Quote

During World War II BuOrd developed AA shells for these guns which were standard HC rounds with a mechanical time fuze replacing the usual nose contact fuze. This meant that the gunnery crews could easily change the function of any HC shell on board by simply replacing the nose fuze. These AA shells do not appear to have been issued their own Mark number, as they seem to have been known simply as the HC Mark 13 AA round.

 

(16"/50 Mark 7, Iowa guns)

Quote

HC projectile bodies could be used with Point Detonating (PD) or Mechanical Time (MT) fuzes. When used with PD fuzes, they were considered to be HC rounds. When used with MT fuzes, they were considered to be AAC rounds.

 

(8"/55RF Mark 16 and 8"/55 Mark 12/15, DM and Balti guns)

Quote

The HC Mark 34 projectile body could be used with Point Detonating (PD), Mechanical Time (MT) or with proximity (VT) nose fuzes. When used with PD fuzes, they were considered to be HC rounds while those with MT and VT fuzes were considered as AA rounds. All versions used a base contact fuze. A specially cavitized HC Mark 34 projectile was produced to be used with a VT fuze. This projectile was unique in that it was the only VT fuzed projectile of the World War II period that used a base fuze.

 

(6"/47 Mark 16, Helena and Cleve guns)

 

No idea whether these were actually used in combat or if they were any effective tho.

 

Regardless introduction into the game of such weapons would make for a funny April Fools' mode at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLUMR]
Beta Tester
824 posts
7,662 battles
7 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

and what gave you that impression?

 

An even can bet that WG is aware of these, and actively decided not to implement them a long long time ago. I mean, your own wikipedia quote tells the entire story - pointless and ineffective gimmick, we've got plenty enough of those in the game already...

1

Perfect!

 

It can work as an Easter Eggs tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
310 posts
6,964 battles
4 hours ago, lafeel said:

They're shouting out firing angles. At least some of them are, from what I recall (yes, I have seen the movie).

 

As fire control go, that's pretty basic, but hey it works, more or less..

Makes sense. I think in the musashi documentary the survivor said they lost AA fire control very early in the battle and had to pick targets individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,212 posts
7,642 battles
6 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

No idea whether these were actually used in combat or if they were any effective tho.

Yup. USS Helena was the first ship to score a kill with her main battery guns using VT fuses, in 1943. https://www.navalhistory.org/2011/01/05/variable-time-fuse’s-combat-debut

 

Although - if you look down the comments in that blog - it appears they were ineffective against wooden framed aircraft, which didn't trigger the proximity fuse. I was wondering whether the RN ever got a Mosquito (wooden framed) to fly off a carrier .... they did, with the intent of attacking battleships at anchor with bouncing bombs: https://airscapemag.com/2015/07/26/secrets-of-the-sea-mosquito/ Can we have those on an RN CV? :fish_boom:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
774 posts
4,773 battles
1 hour ago, Darth_Glorious said:

To waste a lot of ressources for a single ship, I'm sure that WG doesn't bother.

Operational history

The Sanshiki anti-aircraft shell were used for shore bombardment during the Battle for Henderson Field. On 13 October 1942, in order to help protect the transit of an important supply convoy to Guadalcanal that consisted of six slower cargo ships, the Japanese Combined Fleet commander Isoroku Yamamoto sent a naval force from Truk—commanded by Vice-Admiral Takeo Kurita—to bombard Henderson Field. Kurita's force—consisting of the battleships Kongō and Haruna, escorted by one light cruiser and nine destroyers—approached Guadalcanal unopposed and opened fire on Henderson Field at 01:33 on 14 October. Over the next 83 minutes, they fired 973 14 in (360 mm) shells into the Lunga perimeter, most of them falling in and around the 2,200 m² area of the airfield. The bombardment heavily damaged the airfield's two runways, burned almost all of the available aviation fuel, destroyed 48 of the CAF's 90 aircraft, and killed 41 men, including six CAF aircrew.[2][3]

During the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal on 13 November 1942, another Japanese naval force attempted to bombard Henderson Field but before they could reach their target they were intercepted by American cruisers and destroyers. The first few salvos from the battleships Hiei and Kirishima consisted of the Sanshiki anti-aircraft shells, as their crews were not expecting a ship-to-ship confrontation and took several minutes to switch to armor-piercing ammunition, with several Sanshiki shells hitting the cruiser USS San Francisco, causing less serious damage than what would have been inflicted by armor-piercing shells.

Even though the 3 Shiki tsûjôdan shells comprised 40% of the total main ammunition load of the Yamato-class battleships by 1944, they were rarely used in combat against enemy aircraft.[4] The blast of the main guns turned out to disrupt the fire of the smaller antiaircraft guns. In addition the copper drive bands of the rounds were poorly machined and constant firing was damaging the gun rifling;[5][6] indeed, one of the shells may have exploded early and disabled one of Musashi's guns during the Battle of the Sibuyan Sea.[4]Yamato fired these shells in two separate instances during Operation Ten-Go, first against PBM Mariner flying boats shadowing her, and later against the attacking aircraft of Task Force 58.

 

I already count 6 japanese ships....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOME]
Players
817 posts
7,751 battles
1 hour ago, Beastofwar said:

I already count 6 japanese ships....

Yeah, 6 ships shooting useless ammo... Amazing :Smile_trollface: I still say we should be glad that Jap version of BuOrd wasted resources on a lot of useless stuff. Those shells were pretty bad even on the 155mm guns mounted on japanese "light" cruisers. Anything bigger than that couldnt train fast emough, reload fast enough, and the effective increase of their kill radius was a dubious advantage at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,661 posts
5,455 battles
13 hours ago, lafeel said:

...As a side note, there are no actual recorded instances of the IJN bb's ever shooting down a allied plane using these shells in case you're wondering @Beastofwar which does rather speak for itself as to how (in)effective they were in practice...

Although Yoshida Mitsuru (former bridge crew member on the final sortie) does claim a couple in his book "Requiem for Battleship Yamato". 100% anecdotal of course....

 

A good read if anyone is interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,028 posts
2,749 battles
1 hour ago, philjd said:

Although Yoshida Mitsuru (former bridge crew member on the final sortie) does claim a couple in his book "Requiem for Battleship Yamato". 100% anecdotal of course....

 

A good read if anyone is interested.

If claims were even halfway correct the Luftwaffe would have won the Battle of Britain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×