Japanese flak weapons

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Japanese flak weapons

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Japanese flak weapons

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Japanese flak weapons - 8/28/2010 5:30:54 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

A question for Japanese FBs... Playing PBEM scen 2 was looking for antiaircraft weapons usable to counter 4E bombers coming in from medium levels (7000 - 10000).
I found device no. 1706 which seems to be an automatic antiaircraft gun (AAA?) produced from day one, but never seen any LCU that uses it...

Seems like a Japanese version of 3.7 cm Flugzeugabwehrkanone 18, but what units will use it?
If any?

BTW: I miss some Japanese "Boforses" in this "enhanced scenario".

Seems odd that IRL no medium level weapons that would solve the most obvious deficiencies of the 25mm cannons were under development.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 8/28/2010 5:31:48 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

Post #: 1

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/28/2010 5:37:18 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Heee...heeee...heeee. No comment.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 2

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/28/2010 6:19:24 PM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

At least one late war submarine will use it, but submarines doesn't use guns from pool...

I think there might be a database error? "Type 4" indicates to a year 1944, so I guess 37 mm type 4 is late war AA gun. I know that one japanese submarine brought german 37 mm AA guns from Germany during the war.

EDIT: Now I'm not sure about the 37 mm guns. At least japanese submarines brought 20 mm german AA guns...

< Message edited by Puhis -- 8/28/2010 6:52:40 PM >

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 3

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/28/2010 6:58:27 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Well, ID 1706 is in the IJN device�"grouping", so�prolly not for IJA in any case.

725 is your best weapon until 729 comes along. They were real slow getting those in production after capturing so many at Singers and Manila. Not sure why, but likely just NIH more than anything. They have the 50cal in production by '43 after Manila, it wasn't technology that stumped them.

Yes I'm fully aware of the Postwar metalurgy reports of the ones found. But, it was essentially the same requirements as for the 50 cal and they got that in place. So it would appear that the team on the 40mm didn't have the support to get the materials, and that answer is political, not technical. Did they think the 40mm not needed? or simply NIH? Don't know. Wasn't there and neither is anyone else alive from there to tell us now. So all we can do speculate.

My opinion: they simply loved their 25mm weapon and thought the loss of op's due to a changeover would cost more than staying with what they had. Kinda like the US and her 50 cal. Difference is that the US wasn't really hurt by the 50 cal (never had to face hvy 4E in the war) and IJ really needed a higher ceiling light AA. In hindsight, most would choose the changeover to the 40mm and push the LBA up another 5000 ft to really impact the bombing accuracy. But then we don't know all the logistics (even in this detailed of a game) to effect that changeover.

Oh well.

My personal mod has IJ focusing on the 40mm and getting it earlier in the war. Noticeable impact in the game. LBA at 6K vs +10K, there are clear differences in the long haul on AA/Ops losses and the ground losses are less. Not to mention more weather effects .... all neg's to the Alllies and pos for IJ.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 8/28/2010 7:13:20 PM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 4

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/28/2010 7:16:04 PM

viberpol

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
At least one late war submarine will use it, but submarines doesn't use guns from pool...
I think there might be a database error? "Type 4" indicates to a year 1944, so I guess 37 mm type 4 is late war AA gun. I know that one japanese submarine brought german 37 mm AA guns from Germany during the war.

Hmm... Looks a bit strange. Maybe this was meant to be the upgrade available for device 726/727?
It seems that small 25 mm T96 cannon upgrades with the "Japanese Bofors" (ID729) in 9.45 BUT ID728 downgrades to ID726?

Maybe these T96 (ID728) cannons are those collected by Japanese army in Malaya (Singapore) and that's why they're eventually exchanged with older versions?

As the only mid-war AA weapon seems to be 120 mm T03 (ID732), maybe ID726 should upgrade to ID1706 and then in 9.45 to ID728?
As this is somehow "alternative" scenario (2nd), maybe, let's say in 1.44 Japan should get German FlaK 43 which is this ID1706?

< Message edited by viberpol -- 8/28/2010 7:26:29 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 5

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/28/2010 11:58:25 PM

akdreemer

Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

Hogg's points out that no nation during WWII really solved the medium altitude auto AA problem for land based units. The British were designing a 6pdr(57mm) weapon and the Germans were designing a 50mm weapon. The German design eventually became the 57mm S60 gun of post-war Soviet Union.

As I understand it the problem with the 7-10K foot elevation for AAA fire was that the heavy guns could not fire a useful quantity of shells before the target was out of range again, and as elevation went lower could not traverse fast enough to engage the target.

For small caliber guns, even the 40mm Bofors lost its effectiveness at around 5000 feet, although trace burnout at around 14k feet would self destruct the round. The 25mm, however, was a effective round, however the mountings and fire control methods left a lot to be desired.

< Message edited by AlaskanWarrior -- 8/29/2010 12:03:15 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to viberpol)

Post #: 6

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/29/2010 12:20:05 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
As I understand it the problem with the 7-10K foot elevation for AAA fire was that the heavy guns could not fire a useful quantity of shells before the target was out of range again, and as elevation went lower could not traverse fast enough to engage the target.

This is also my understanding of the issues. Servo systems weren't that well developed yet, and big guns couldn't be moved by hand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
For small caliber guns, even the 40mm Bofors lost its effectiveness at around 5000 feet, although trace burnout at around 14k feet would self destruct the round. The 25mm, however, was a effective round, however the mountings and fire control methods left a lot to be desired.

This I was not aware of. Thanks for sharing. I (had) thought the 40mm effective to ~9000. Very interesting. Can you share a source on that ... like to read up more and make some changes to my mod.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to akdreemer)

Post #: 7

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/29/2010 4:52:03 PM

GreasyLake

Posts: 206
Joined: 11/1/2007
Status: offline

Gen Curtis LeMay figured this out at one point and sent his bombers in at a lower level against the most vehement complaints of their pilots. Results proved excellent!

Not sure if the game was made to reflect this but I do remember the US exploited a flak gap IRL.

_____________________________

Per U.S. Grant; Logistics, Logistics, Logistics.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 8

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/30/2010 4:23:52 PM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

Paxmondo: You are correct about the 40mm limit of 5,000 feet. Though note that this would be when firing at -say- 75 degrees so the 'actual' figure was closer to 6500. This incidentally matches the 'effective range' of SP 40mm Bofors firing at ground targets from Crusader AA tanks in NW Europe (highly illegal but---). However - maybe a big HOWEVER in real life the 'effect' was at least double this as pilots were thrown off (ran away from!) the highly visible tracer and end-detonation trails of the Bofors. Indeed there are some Bomber Command accounts of pilots being ordered to fly above 15000 feet to avoid 'light flak'. I have no idea whether the 'morale' effect is present in AE so pass on the final answer.

The two best sources are the books by Ian Hogg (he was a Master-Gunner of the British Army so qualified). One is "allied guns of WW2", the other "anti-aircraft guns" - apologies if titles are not quite correct - they vary by side of Atlantic.

(in reply to GreasyLake)

Post #: 9

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/30/2010 4:29:23 PM

Canoerebel

Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline

Wow, this thread is an eye-opener for those of us who find pilot-training and similar micromanagement distasteful. If we wonder whether there are folks unlike us - folks who really enjoy delving into the minutae of the game - the fact that players pay attention to Japanese flak device upgrade paths provides the answer.

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 10

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 8/30/2010 5:41:42 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Well, in my game vs viberpol, I like to send my heavy bombers in at about 7-8,000 feet. But I had no knowledge about the flak gap. I just did it because you get more hits at that altitude and that is what I wanted. However, it is my experience that I actually lose a few more bombers flying at that height for whatever reasons than if I were flying higher. Morale, fatique and plane fatique seems to be higher as well. But I think it is worth it for the hits. I really don't think Japanese flak is an issue at most any altitude except perhaps very low. This may be the one part of the game that they got right..

Naval flak is different as that seems to be more effective.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Canoerebel)

Post #: 11

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 10:24:44 AM

Schatten

Posts: 35
Joined: 10/3/2009
Status: offline

germany has try to solve this problem gainst tight 4E-Formations with Anti Aircraft Missles that could be ready late 1944 but again the best man of the Allied, Adolf Hitler has stopped the devlopment and send ressources into the, military, useless V1 and 2 even if they were possible to build thousands of those missles with the ressources of 1 V2

some were only Projects but some were nearly full Operation, at the end of the War
radio controlled, joystick (some versions radar) guided like the Henschel HS 117 Schmetterling or the shoulder fired (like a today Stinger) Fliegerfaust B against Fighter Sweeps and Strife.

Most of those Projects started 1941 but were stopped until 44 as it was alredy too late.

Sources: German Wiki http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugabwehrrakete and international: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antiaircraft_weapons#Missile_systems

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 2:44:17 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreasyLake

Gen Curtis LeMay figured this out at one point and sent his bombers in at a lower level against the most vehement complaints of their pilots. Results proved excellent!

Not sure if the game was made to reflect this but I do remember the US exploited a flak gap IRL.

There was no established "Flak Gap" that was exploited during the war. See Westermann's exhaustive study on German Flak defenses. LeMay sent the bombers in lower because they were attacking at night and dropping mass incendiaries. He also stripped the bombers of defensive armament to even bigger howls of protest from the pilots so that they could load up more ordinance. Yes.....very effective against Japan's paper cities after traditional high level precision attacks failed repeatedly to get the results demanded. Against Germany's much more mature night defense systems, it would have been a costly move.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreasyLake)

Post #: 13

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 4:00:24 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was no established "Flak Gap" that was exploited during the war. See Westermann's exhaustive study on German Flak defenses.

So, in your opinion, should the 40mm altitude be tweaked down from 9800 to about 6500 or left where it is?

The real difference is that it would say that IJ's decision to stay with 25mm wasn't that bad. Granted 25mm dosn't have the punch of a 40mm, but if the effective altitude is similar, that would greatly detract from a changeover.

Interested in your opinion here for my personal mod. PM me if you want. Thanks.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 14

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 4:05:52 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Given how the code works, your probably better off just leaving it as is. AE did change things for Heavy AA, which in stock "did" have an artificial minimum altitude factor which created a static (and gamable) "Flak Gap". This has been partially eliminated by inserting a die roll that mucks up this minimum altitude setting so sometimes Heavy AA may fire at the low alt the bombers come in at, sometimes not. Another change was that now AA impacts bomber accuracy to a degree whereby before in stock, it didn't.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 15

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 4:14:34 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Given how the code works, your probably better off just leaving it as is. AE did change things for Heavy AA, which in stock "did" have an artificial minimum altitude factor which created a static (and gamable) "Flak Gap". This has been partially eliminated by inserting a die roll that mucks up this minimum altitude setting so sometimes Heavy AA may fire at the low alt the bombers come in at, sometimes not. Another change was that now AA impacts bomber accuracy to a degree whereby before in stock, it didn't.

Thanks. Much appreciated. I will leave as is in terms of the max altitude settings on the 40mm.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 16

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 4:16:44 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

There was no established "Flak Gap" that was exploited during the war. See Westermann's exhaustive study on German Flak defenses.

So, in your opinion, should the 40mm altitude be tweaked down from 9800 to about 6500 or left where it is?

The real difference is that it would say that IJ's decision to stay with 25mm wasn't that bad. Granted 25mm dosn't have the punch of a 40mm, but if the effective altitude is similar, that would greatly detract from a changeover.

Interested in your opinion here for my personal mod. PM me if you want. Thanks.

9800 or 6500 doesn�t really matter because a smart (better say not total stupid) PBEM player will just stay above the small/medium calibre AA guns anyway. And in the long run, you won�t see much difference between bombing at 7000ft or 10000ft IMO. The 20mm and 40mm more or less will only come into play if you are attacked by dive bombers but also here, a smart player will probably avoid a dive bomber attack against target with lots of flak.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 17

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/2/2010 4:28:54 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

9800 or 6500 doesn�t really matter because a smart (better say not total stupid) PBEM player will just stay above the small/medium calibre AA guns anyway. And in the long run, you won�t see much difference between bombing at 7000ft or 10000ft IMO. The 20mm and 40mm more or less will only come into play if you are attacked by dive bombers but also here, a smart player will probably avoid a dive bomber attack against target with lots of flak.

Understood. My question was more in the way of design than op's.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 18

RE: Japanese flak weapons - 9/3/2010 2:00:36 AM

GreasyLake

Posts: 206
Joined: 11/1/2007
Status: offline

Re checked my sources, no flak gap mentioned at all. After looking at the data available LeMay deduced there was littler low altitude flak over Japan and sent the stripped down B-29's in at 5 to 7 K at night vice previously used daylight 30K. He also rated the threat of night fighters as negligible.

Japan sure got caught with the proverbial pants down on that one. Again a whole nuther story in Europe, where LeMay served previously.

I just like hearing about where someone tries something completely Gamey IRL and it ends up working. Not bad seeing it happen on an AAR either, unless it exploits some kinda known game mechanic and pisses off everyone.

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 19