A more vigorous US military buildup in response to the second Sino-Japanese war

[McPherson]

But you need to do it by year and rate of fire and weight/cost of each system.....

Is the 1.1" really 88.66% as good as the 40mm?

No. The shell design was defective in the fusing so that sometimes the shells exploded at the muzzle. The table does not tell you this.

If this is really all equal then this looks amazing as its lighter and fires faster than the 5" as well?

Again the table does not specify VT which is what I think is actually the case since 3" AAA auto-guns were not really seen until late 1944.

A link or a source cite will help. Refer to page 6. As the table above the one cited (^^^) shows for the murder year of 1944, it took 1257 3"/50 shells per kill as opposed to 1157 5"/38 common. Which makes me think that the 3"/50 were common. This is not unexpected. Previous years the 3"/50 actually does better, but then the enemy presents target servicing closer and slower. As he turns kamikaze the VT difference inserted to negate is null as to effect. 3" and 5" appear the same.

But note...

The indicated performance of the 3"/50, which boasts a lower R. P. B. than even the 5-inch VT, is considered a statistical casualty as a result of poor reporting by ships.

It is what it is.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

But you need to do it by year and rate of fire and weight/cost of each system.....

Is the 1.1" really 88.66% as good as the 40mm?


If this is really all equal then this looks amazing as its lighter and fires faster than the 5" as well?

The 3"/50 gun was not a useful Dual Purpose weapon unlike the 5"/25 and 5"/38 as it lacked the weight of shell to do any meaningful damage
As for the 1.1" gun it was way more temperamental than the Bofors 40mm and quite frankly reliability is vital in your AA guns

 

[marathag]

Is the 1.1" really 88.66% as good as the 40mm

When the 1.1" worked, it did a good job.
It needed more development.

 

[marathag]

No. The shell design was defective in the fusing so that sometimes the shells exploded at the muzzle. The table does not tell you this.

that bug was feature of desired goal.

a _very_ sensitive fuze was spec'ed so that even grazing fabric on an airframe would set it off.

Handy for early 1930s aircraft, but by time WWII, not that many fabric covered wings or fuselages in service compared to monocoque duraluminum skins that needed such sensitivity.

That was one of the other reasons for the slow RoF, careful controlled feed in loading

 

[McPherson]

that bug was feature of desired goal.

a _very_ sensitive fuze was spec'ed so that even grazing fabric on an airframe would set it off.

Handy for early 1930s aircraft, but by time WWII, not that many fabric covered wings or fuselages in service compared to monocoque duraluminum skins that needed such sensitivity.

That was one of the other reasons for the slow RoF, careful controlled feed in loading

More here.

Fiasco in service. Page 4.

In essence...

Two different design philosophies yielded two different results.

In US service.

You know with all the claims about the USN concerns (^^^) for inside the bore and at the muzzle detonations with the Bofors 40mm shell during tests in 1940-1941, something tells me that the USN KNEW it had boloed with the 2.8cm/75 and knew exactly how it boloed before WW II ever formally started for the American navy.

 

[marathag]

More here.

something tells me that the USN KNEW it had boloed with the 2.8cm/75 and knew exactly how it boloed before WW II ever formally started for the American navy.

From the link
In retrospect, it would appear that these defects were little more than teething problems and that the basic design was sound.

Like I said, needed more development and reexamining the need for graze fuzing after 1937, when they had reports the IJN had Vals and Claudes

 

[McPherson]

From the link
In retrospect, it would appear that these defects were little more than teething problems and that the basic design was sound.

Like I said, needed more development and reexamining the need for graze fuzing after 1937, when they had reports the IJN had Vals and Claudes

Like so much US pre-world war II military tech, not enough up front investment, poor think through in the development process, need springs up sooner than expected and then other solutions prove better, and further investment in the original option is a complete waste of time and scarce resources.

 

[marathag]

Like so much US pre-world war II military tech, not enough up front investment, poor think through in the development process, need springs up sooner than expected and then other solutions prove better, and further investment in the original option is a complete waste of time and scarce resources.

It was the future, though, a powered AA mount that was able to be director controlled.

It seems that one was put into service hurridly near Manila Bay, a spare meant for USS Houston, that was rigged up to fire from a concrete platform without a proper director, and the Moore Report stated as was effective in deterring the Japanese from flying in the band between area covered by .50s and the 3" AAA, until it was destroyed by artillery fire.

 

[McPherson]

It was the future, though, a powered AA mount that was able to be director controlled.

It seems that one was put into service hurridly near Manila Bay, a spare meant for USS Houston, that was rigged up to fire from a concrete platform without a proper director, and the Moore Report stated as was effective in deterring the Japanese from flying in the [altitude, McP.] band between area covered by .50s and the 3" AAA, until it was destroyed by artillery fire.

1,000-3000 meters? That would have been enough for a push through to rush final development if the developers had realized the need. The usual modern AAA dead zone is 2,500 to 5,000 meters where neither MANPADs, AAA, or SAM coverage is very good. The aircraft would eventually grow tougher hides and become way to fast or develop stand-off capability, but that still is useful. Poor think through.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

Like so much US pre-world war II military tech, not enough up front investment, poor think through in the development process, need springs up sooner than expected and then other solutions prove better, and further investment in the original option is a complete waste of time and scarce resources.

In fairness the USN also ended up making MK.37 fire control system and the 5"/38 gun both world class systems in this time period, but yeah they really did design some lemons