The best of the best and Worst of the worst

The USN really wanted a dual purpose 5"/51 gun, but settled for the 5" /38 as a compromise between the 5"/25 AA gun and the 5"/51 surface fire gun. The 5"/38 was accepted because it improved the lethality in a surface action over the 5" /25's performance. It wasn't because it was a better AA gun, but because it was an acceptable surface action gun. The later 5"/54 postwar variant was the gun the Navy really wanted to begin with.

As for the Japanese 5" DP destroyer guns, these as AA weapons were truly pathetic. The Japanese wanted a surface action gun and got it, tacking on AA capacity as almost an afterthought. The guns used bagged charges and had a fixed loading angle. This resulted in an AA fire rate of about 6 to 8 rounds a minute, at most. The 100mm on the Akizuki class started life as a design for destroyer flotilla leaders, not as destroyers per se. That is, they were to provide AA defense and space for an admiral and staff. Their torpedo armament was limited because that was normal for such ships. As surface action ships, the 100mm was really too small and lacked the hitting power necessary.
Interestingly, the US went in the exact opposite direction with their destroyer leader classes. They upped the surface action firepower significantly with the Porter and Somers classes installing 4 5"/38 single purpose (eg., no real AA capacity) gun houses on them. Their AA was to be provided by a pair of 1.1" mounts the regular DD's didn't get.

The British too wanted a good DP gun for their ships but interwar couldn't afford to fully develop one. Instead, their destroyers got improved versions of their existing 4.7" SP gun that was supposed to also provide some long-range AA capacity at its highest elevation (usually about 40 degrees). This was all just a sop to a need rather than a solution. The 4.5" was supposed to be the new DP gun but development was protracted, and the first BD (Between Decks) mounts went to battleships and carriers. The 4" was considered adequate as an AA gun but unacceptable as a surface action gun as it was seen as lacking hitting power.

The US also spent the time and money to develop excellent fire control systems for their guns. The Japanese systems weren't bad but weren't quite as good either. The British on the other hand, spent the entire war trying hard to develop a DP fire control system that wasn't some halfcocked lash up of a travesty. They hadn't bothered with a DP system interwar and trying to do it on the fly didn't pay off. They had decent to good surface fire and separate AA fire directors but one that did both roles eluded them for the most part.

On AA fire, the US alone--having the cash to do it--incorporated full size drone aircraft into their live fire AA exercises in the late 30's and found that their whole AA training and doctrine pretty much sucked. They made major changes just before the war, improving results dramatically. Other navies found out the hard way...

 

Thank you T.A. for an excellent, informative post on the late war "best" fighter!!! Which would you pic as best? For early war, I think you're leaning towards the BF-109 or Spit, but your comments on the Zero make me wonder if you don't consider it better. (I know different operating environments, but...)

If I'm tracking votes for "best" late war fighter-- it's Biak-P-47, harolds for P-47
"best" early war fighter==it's Ricky FW-190, harolds FW-190

Good comments from several others on different types but, not a definitive vote.

I had already listed the 5"/38 with Mk. 37 director as the best DP naval gun in the initial post (8,180 produced during WWII but the gun served from 1934 to 2008). I welcome any arguments against it as a choice. I think the German 88mm Flak 18/36/37/41 series would be an excellent candidate for best multi-purpose land-based artillery piece (21,310 built). If you are talking a DP naval gun the 88 doesn't even come close. The 5"/38 could be loaded at multiple angles, a well-trained crew could put out 22 rounds per minute, it had a range of 18,200yds or a ceiling of 37,220ft (the 88 was 16,250yds/26,000ft).

As far an overall naval AA suite, the US combinations of 5"/38, powered, with Mk. 37 director, 40mm bofors Mk1/Mk2, powered mounts, water cooled, mated with the Mk. 51 director and the 20mm Oerlikon was head and shoulders above what anyone else fielded.

 

The German problem with their naval AA guns were two fold:

First, the guns themselves, both the 8,8 and 10,5 had relatively short barrel lives due to the high velocity. The longer barrels also exhibited droop and vibration reducing accuracy. You should note that the 88/71 (Flak 41) as an AA gun was produced in relatively small numbers (556) compared to over 20,000 of the 88/56 models.

Then there was the gun mount. In typical German fashion, these were grossly over-engineered with the whole mount being hydraulically stabilized on three axes. The stabilization system was a major maintenance headache and the mounts frequently broke down. The loading crews stood on the ship's deck rather than being on the mount so they had to try to load as the mount moved in a seaway. Platforms were later added to the mount to allow the loader an easier time placing the shell in the breech as he now moved with the mount.

The Japanese 5"/50 found on most of their destroyers was truly, as an AA gun, worthless. The gun housings had a very slow rate of traverse, fixed loading angles, used bagged charges and hand ramming, resulting in a very low ROF and inability to track an aerial target. Worse, there was no centralized fire control for AA purposes. The earlier 5"/40 AA gun, which was designed as an AA gun, was a good design. It had about double the ROF of the destroyer weapon.

The British 4.5" BD mount was a good design. The 4.5" shell size was predicated on it being the largest round that could reasonably be handled as a complete round (right at 90 lbs.). There was a separate version too. Either way, the mount and gun were good designs. The gun design was good enough that the British have stuck with it right up to today.

The widely used 4"/45 was a decent if pedestrian AA gun. As a surface action weapon, it was really too small. On the whole, it was widely used because it was available. Barrel life was noted as shorter than desired mostly caused by the design of the shell used.

 

Good post with good information, I do have a couple points/questions to make though.

I thought the "todays" gun is a different gun, 4.5"/55 Mk8, from the QF 4.5"/45 of WWII era up until the 1970's. That is like saying the 5"/38 is the same gun as todays 5"/54 Mk.42, 5"/54 Mk.45 because it's a 5" gun. It's my understanding that the current 4.5 is a completely new type from the WWII QF 4.5". If I am wrong, please correct me.

Depending on if it was a UD or BD mount, the rate of fire was like 55% to 70% that of the 5"/38. Wasn't ROF a critical factor for an AA gun? I do think the QF 4.5"/45 was better than most of the DP guns mounted on other nations ships, but not in the same league as the 5"/38.

 

When I said "dual-purpose", I meant multi-purpose-sorry. This would include land or sea usage. The 88mm flak 18 was used successfully in AA, AT, and even as an indirect fire anti-personnel/soft target weapon. All AA guns intended for use against high altitude targets had to have high velocity. Not only did they have to have range, but also the higher the velocity, the easier it was to get the projectiles on target. AA guns also had to have high rates of fire so that the maximum amount of fragments could be put into the air during the short time the planes were in range. High rates of fire and velocity were also desirable in the AP role. In the AT role, only velocity (and accuracy) really mattered. However, it was realized that these guns would have a short barrel life, so the designers put in provisions for this. The 88s barrels were made in two pieces and screwed together. Since barrel wear starts at the chamber throat, the Germans would mostly have to change only the back half of the barrel instead of the entire thing. I believe the 5" 38 had a sleeved barrel and only had to have to be resleeved. (Am I right here, Gardner?)

As noted by another poster, the 5"38 didn't have the high velocity of most AA guns, but I don't think it needed that velocity. To hit even a stationary ship from say, 20,000ft. was very hard. A moving ship would have to be damned unlucky to get hit. Therefore, enemy aircraft had to get close to achieve hits with bomb or torpedoes. This meant that shipboard AA guns had to have a high rate of fire-which with their highly trained crews, the 5'38 delivered.

A note on AA fire direction computers: I read a book about the problems of getting heavy AA navel guns on target. Trying to hit moving aircraft from a moving (read wildly evading) platform was quite a feat. I gained the impression that the best systems could put the flak burst in the general area of the enemy and then had to be adjusted to get bursts close enough to do damage.

 

Unlike light AA guns, with heavies the fire control system is the most important thing. A good fire control system with an average gun is far better than a perfect gun with lousy fire control. Light AA weapons were generally optically aimed by the crew locally and ROF was critical as they were essentially a bullet hose.

 

Just a few notes on the points raised

Firstly, and apologies if you all knew this, the Naval 88s were not the same as the land-based Flak / Pak / Kwk guns.
They were the SK C/31 & SK C/32 (71 calibres, AA only) and the SK C/30 & SK C/35 (45 calibres, dual-purpose)
According to the book I have, they were "passable performers compared to their Luftwaffe and Heer counterparts"

T. A. Gardner's point about fire control systems is an interesting one. For example, the British 3.7in AA gun was comparable to the German 88 but was very rarely used in the same Dual Purpose way simply because the mounting was designed with all the AA fire control bells & whistles plus various mechanisms to assist with loading etc all built in, making it massively unwieldy. The 88 had a very simple carriage making it easily adaptable to any situation

 

Rate of fire was still important with larger caliber AA weapons. The more bursting shells you could put near enemy aircraft the greater the chance of a kill. I do understand the value of fire control as well, (and agree a good gun with poor targeting is useless) that's why I normally mention the 5"/38 with Mk.37 director as "best" naval DP

That said, a couple of good videos from Drachinifel (a good youtube Naval subjects channel).

This one is long but covers the five largest navies light, medium and heavy AA weapons. United States, Royal Navy, Japan, Germany, Italy. Ricky, the German 88's are covered.


This one is just on the 5"/38.


The following links are to the discussed weapons at the NavWeapons website. An absolutely great resource with accurate information on naval weapons.

5"/38: USA 5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 - NavWeaps
40mm Bofors: USA Bofors 40 mm L/60 Model 1936 - NavWeaps
German 88/78 C31: Germany 8.8 cm/78 (3.46") SK C/31 - NavWeaps
German 88/76 C32: Germany 8.8 cm/76 (3.46") SK C/32 - NavWeaps
German 88/45 C30: Germany 8.8 cm/45 (3.46") SK C/30 and KM41 - NavWeaps

 

My impression is that heavy AA guns didn't become a really major casualty causer until we got the proximy fuse.

 

The B-29 was clearly the best heavy bomber of the war.

 

The B-29's problems were, aside from engine overheating, mostly solved by the time LeMay turned them loose. Look at speed, range, bombload, too. No other heavy bomber in the war can compare. Aside from the two cities eliminated by A-bombs, there's also the other, oh, 45 or so erased by conventional formations (much smaller than B-17, -24, or Lanc over ETO) as well. There's also that whole mining the interisland trade thing.

The question was which was best. But I ask you, how many B-17s or B-24s are you using from the Marianas to burn down Japanese cities? That's right: none. Hard to be the best when you can't even get there.

If you want to consider which was better, consider which bomber was kept post-war, and which were scrapped. (Spoiler: they kept the B-29). The question was not which did the most statistical damage. And for logistics, there's virtually no U-boats patrolling sea lanes between Oahu and Tinian -- certainly not sinking tankers by the score. The hardest part of logistics for the -29 was keeping it supplied with incendiaries.

Thanks for the welcome, I'm not new but don't post much.

 

True. It's not surprising that the last major bomber of the war was superior to the previous generation; it would be surprising if it wasn't. The USAAF designated the -29 (and -32) as "very heavy bombers", not even in the same class as the -17 and company.

 

Of course progress marches on. That's precisely why the B-29 was the best heavy of the war. Its timing doesn't change the fact that it was far superior.

 

Hiyas, figured it was you, this is your handle at Tully's Port too.