Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.
The_EURL_Guy

Armada: Fenyang

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IJN]
Players
115 posts
3,789 battles

I think Akizuki-class in IJN tech tree should has AA defense long time ago aswell since it is an AA destroyer after all.

 

Secondly why there are models of Type 5 Bofors ? This gun only seen on paper ships like Zao, Harugumo, Kii, Hayate and so on, no IJN ship ever had this copy of Bofors so i don't really understand how this weapon ended up with the Chinese ?

It would have make more sense to use the model of American Bofors, no ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
14,718 battles
2 hours ago, BooMKani_Sensei said:

It would have make more sense to use the model of American Bofors, no ?

The mounts appear to be the american Mk3 single bofors mount and some sort of twin mount for the late-war air cooled 40mm/L70 bofors gun. I assume this is to emulate a fictional/unknown modernisation by the ROC.

 

I don't know why the article says " five twin 40 mm Bofors autocannons; one twin 40 mm Bofors Mk3 mount" when it clearly has four twin mounts and two single Mk3 mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
563 posts
4 hours ago, BooMKani_Sensei said:

I think Akizuki-class in IJN tech tree should has AA defense long time ago aswell since it is an AA destroyer after all.

Too bad the "AA defense" was piling Type 96 25mm, should I go about then from the wikipedia article about then? I think I shall ...

 

Quote

The Type 96 was most effective when used at ranges of 1,000 meters or less. The Japanese military estimated that it required an average of 1,500 rounds to shoot down an aircraft at a height of 1,000 meters and a range of 2,000 meters, and that fire beyond that range was completely ineffective. Later in the war, when ammunition supply was restricted, firing was held until the targets were within 800 meters range, dropping this ratio to as low as seven rounds per aircraft. It was hampered by slow training and elevating speeds (even in power-operated triple mounts), excessive vibration and muzzle flash, and that the ammunition feed was via a 15-round fixed magazine, which necessitated ceasing fire every time the magazine had to be changed. all magazines had to be loaded by hand as no specialized loading equipment was ever developed.


The Japanese ranked in order of seriousness the problems with the gun as:

 

  1. Elevation and traverse were too slow, even with powered mounts;
  2. The sights were ineffective against high speed targets;
  3. Firing the multiple mounts caused excessive vibration, which reduced accuracy and prevented effective target tracking;
  4. Too little ammunition in each magazine resulted in a low overall rate of fire.

 

Yes, for the Japanese Navy it might been a AA destroyer with muh Type 96 superior anti air gun unlike inferior baka gaijin 40mm Bofors but in reality, they were about as capable as 20mm Oerlikons and just like Yamato, sprinkling then all over the ship wont make it suddenly better at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Players
115 posts
3,789 battles
38 minutes ago, WWDragon said:

Too bad the "AA defense" was piling Type 96 25mm, should I go about then from the wikipedia article about then? I think I shall ...

I never talked about the 25 mm ???

And you do realize the 25 mm guns only count as short range which doesn't matter much, this gun is onboard majority of IJN ships and isn't what made the Akizuki a AA destroyer.

 The real AA power on Akizuki are those 100 mm guns!

38 minutes ago, WWDragon said:

Yes, for the Japanese Navy it might been a AA destroyer with muh Type 96 superior anti air gun unlike inferior baka gaijin 40mm Bofors but in reality, they were about as capable as 20mm Oerlikons and just like Yamato, sprinkling then all over the ship wont make it suddenly better at it.

As i said, it is an AA destroyer because of the Type 98 100 mm gun considered to be the best japanese long range AA.

Also the Kitakaze and Harugumo have 40 mm so AA defense will be very useful for those ships aswell.

 

1 hour ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

The mounts appear to be the american Mk3 single bofors mount and some sort of twin mount for the late-war air cooled 40mm/L70 bofors gun. I assume this is to emulate a fictional/unknown modernisation by the ROC.

 

The single barrel is american while the models of twin barrel are copied from Type 5 Bofors which you can only found on Japanese paper ships at high tiers so idon't understand why they decided to go with the more or less fictional version of  Bofors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
14,718 battles
11 minutes ago, BooMKani_Sensei said:

The single barrel is american while the models of twin barrel are copied from Type 5 Bofors which you can only found on Japanese paper ships at high tiers so idon't understand why they decided to go with the more or less fictional version of  Bofors.

Oh I see, I forgot the Type 5 was actually ingame... but you are right, the ROC would more likely have had US twin bofor mounts than IJN bofor mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
563 posts
2 hours ago, BooMKani_Sensei said:

 The real AA power on Akizuki are those 100 mm guns!

As i said, it is an AA destroyer because of the Type 98 100 mm gun considered to be the best japanese long range AA.

That is meaningless as it would be only long range flak clouds.

 

Unless your Nippon 100mm gun made of Chinese Nippon Steel folded 100 times  was able to cut down gaijin aircraft by simply swinging around ... I am sorry but I do have a hard time taking this seriously, long range AA means flak in the game and in reality it also kinda meant a round (because I checked the firing rate) about every 3 seconds at best and yes, they did had a radar with the ones that survived getting the Type 22 that was multipurpose and not just air search,  the problem was that despite being very good dual purpose guns is that alone wont stop aircraft otherwise they would not keep piling Type 96 25mm on top of the ships and they did considering that gun "the most reliable Japanese anti-aircraft weapon and only second in effectiveness to the Type 98 100mm" that is not exactly a endorsement to the Type 98 100mm, I am not saying they are bad (even if their barrel life was ... short because firing rate worn it down at a higher rate) but that I am looking at the whole package and compared it with other ships, take the Mark 12 5"/38 caliber gun that is considered the best intermediate-caliber dual purpose naval gun of World War II but even with the Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System it still averaged 1000 rounds of ammunition spend per aircraft kill.

 

If you are going to compare it with the Fletcher it will lose, in the game Kidd is in the game with her late refit that is a mix of her main 127mm guns, 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikons, a lot of people want Akizuki to be a IJN Kidd ... ignoring that Kidd is a downtiered Fletcher and one with a weird post war AA refit as if it needed more AA (this was even done when she was in the reserve fleet, maybe its true the US liked to strap even more AA to everything as hobby) as Akizuki is Type 98 100mm, Type 96 25mm and 13.2 mm Hotchkiss machine guns, you should see the problem with "best Japanese AA gun" for long range AA and with "(believed) second best Japanese AA gun" for close range AA with nothing else...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
14,718 battles

Akizuki is an AA destroyer by comparison to sister ship classes like Kagero, thanks to the use of 100mm Type 98 DP guns instead of 127mm 3rd Year Model B/D guns which were far inferior DP guns, and also the addition of Type 94 anti-aircraft fire control directors among other electronics more advanced that what other IJN destroyers had available at the time such as the Type 13 air search radar.

 

But despite the relatively good performance of the 100mm Type 98s, whose performance was arguable superior to the USN 5"/38 due to their greater rate of fire and longer effective range, the ships overall AA performance was mediocre, let down by its suite of 25mm guns and inferior electronics when compared to other nations. The 25mm guns were not powerful enough to effectively destroy aircraft late in the war and were inferior to medium calibre AA guns like the 40mm bofors in almost every way, the Akizuki class did not fulfill the role of an AA destroyer by the standards of other navies. And when compared to other AA screening ships such as the Atlanta and Dido class, it's pretty clear that the IJN solution to the need for an anti-aircraft vessel was lacking.

 

That said, I also believe that the Akizuki line should have had DFAA from the start. Despite their real world performance, their intention was to be AA destroyers. Marceau has AA that's even worse than Harugumo, but it gets DFAA because it was designed to use DP guns for increased AA performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Players
115 posts
3,789 battles
2 hours ago, WWDragon said:

That is meaningless as it would be only long range flak clouds.

 

 

What meaningless ? Flak deal more damage than mid and short range AA, with defensive AA would significantly buff its AA power ! Although it is still quite effective even without consumable but because of how aircraft became so tough that  the 100 mm alone is not enough to deal with a platoon of aircraft, with defensive AA however could effectively reduce the number of aircraft before it reach the 25 mm AA range and then the ship itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Players
115 posts
3,789 battles
2 hours ago, WWDragon said:

If you are going to compare it with the Fletcher it will lose, in the game Kidd is in the game with her late refit that is a mix of her main 127mm guns, 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikons, a lot of people want Akizuki to be a IJN Kidd ... ignoring that Kidd is a downtiered Fletcher and one with a weird post war AA refit as if it needed more AA (this was even done when she was in the reserve fleet, maybe its true the US liked to strap even more AA to everything as hobby) as Akizuki is Type 98 100mm, Type 96 25mm and 13.2 mm Hotchkiss machine guns, you should see the problem with "best Japanese AA gun" for long range AA and with "(believed) second best Japanese AA gun" for close range AA with nothing else...

 

The Kitakaze has significantly more powerful AA from long to mid range. I'd believe it is even better than the Fletcher 5x 127 mm gun Vs 8x 100 mm guns plus those japanese Type 5 40 mm Bofors and then a bunch of 25 mm for final defense, and that is why the IJN AA destroyers should get defensive AA because their powerful AA defense will surely take a good advantage of this consumable....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,873 posts
14,718 battles
10 hours ago, BooMKani_Sensei said:

The Kitakaze has significantly more powerful AA from long to mid range. I'd believe it is even better than the Fletcher 5x 127 mm gun Vs 8x 100 mm guns plus those japanese Type 5 40 mm Bofors and then a bunch of 25 mm for final defense, and that is why the IJN AA destroyers should get defensive AA because their powerful AA defense will surely take a good advantage of this consumable....

Ingame, Kitakazes AA is better than Fletchers, although the difference is small, except for the fact that Fletcher has access to the specialised US DD DFAA consumable.

 

But Akizuki, Kitakaze and Harugumo are all very strong ships, it would be difficult to justify them gaining the DFAA consumable without some other nerf to counter their current performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IJN]
Players
115 posts
3,789 battles
2 hours ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

But Akizuki, Kitakaze and Harugumo are all very strong ships, it would be difficult to justify them gaining the DFAA consumable without some other nerf to counter their current performance.

 

Instead of in a seperated sloth maybe it can be in the same sloth as either speed boost or torpedo reload booster ? These two are really useful stuff.

Well, i honestly would not pick the DFAA over those two consumables to be honest, i just wanted DFAA simply because these ships were designed to kill aircraft so it only makes sense for them to have a consumable to support this task, and it would also give a new option for the players who willing to build these 3 ships for AA role which i can prefectly understand with the  CV sh_t show we are currently having.

Share this post


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

×