AA artillery

Started by Borys, December 07, 2008, 01:11:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Korpen

Quote from: Carthaginian on February 05, 2009, 05:47:14 PM
Basically, having the tech progress too fast would do away with the aircraft carrier as a viable weapon of war and would ensure the continued dominance of naval gunfire.
I do not think that is a issue of AA tech, but one of ship design. A late ww1 battle ship had like 3-4 AA guns and a similar number of Pom-poms. There are already several Navalism countries that routinely fit two or three times as many AA guns on their ships.

Card-carrying member of the Battlecruiser Fan Club.

Korpen

Quote from: guinness on February 05, 2009, 06:56:18 PM
Here's a revision with calibers removed, with the exception of the minimum size of gun that can fire a proximity fused shell. I don't think it suffers to much...
Thoughts?
Far too many levels too slow progress.
Looking as the pattern of historic development it went quite fast up to a point beyond which progress was very slow for decades. Most AA development really started around 1910, and beyond 1920 it did not really happen much.
As early as 1916 France had electro-mechanical (Brocq tachymeter) equipment for tracking an aircraft and automatically calculate fuse and sight settings. In a way I guess one could call them directors, but it would not be fully correct.
So I think P3D got a point that it should not really be allot of tech levels in the AA tech, as progress in the basics happen very fast; and beyond that the improvement in AA was largely an issue of adding more guns.

So my suggestion would then be:
1900: Baseline: Guns capable of firing at high elevation, normal field gun ammunition (time fused shrapnel & impact HE). Hand trained machineguns and Pop-Poms.

Generally a case of taking what one got available and pointing at the sky.

1910: Purpose designed guns and ammunition: fused HE shells and tracers for single shot guns. Tracers for MGs and Pom-Poms.

Tracers was not in service at the start of WW1 IRL, but there have been a conflict were aircrafts served in Navalism, so it could happen a bit earlier.
This tech level is when AA stop being a matter of improvising.


1918: Central post systems on land and at sea, improved fuses. AAA fire plans.

Basically the tech level of mid-late ww1, could be 1920 as well.

1930+ Clip fed guns, stabilised mounts, integrated FC

I do not think there is a risk that AA tech as such will make aircrafts inferior vs. ship. But if all ships start carry the kind of AA suite the latest UNK BB or Orange BBs then aircrafts would have a hard time making any impression.

Card-carrying member of the Battlecruiser Fan Club.

Sachmle

If anyone should be 'worried' about aircraft/airships attacking ships, it would be the DKB. Afterall, they were the ones attacked by an airship. And IC, we consider it a fluke and don't really worry about it.
"All treaties between great states cease to be binding when they come in conflict with the struggle for existence."
Otto von Bismarck

"Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the world."
Kaiser Wilhelm

"If stupidity were painfull I would be deaf from all the screaming." Sam A. Grim

Guinness

I'm giving this thread ze bump!

Desertfox

I have to agree with Korpen that the issue here is not of gun quality but of gun quantity. After all why are ships being packed with 'useless' AA guns when planes have done zip against ships? Is there ANY N-verse example of a successful attack by a heavier-than-air aircraft on a ship? A couple of 3 inchers and a few MGs is all the AA armament a ship currently needs.
"We don't run from the end of the world. We CHARGE!" Schlock

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20090102.html

Valles

If other people want to spend mass and effort on AA mounts, I don't particularly care. I probably won't do the same for a while yet.

When I do get around to it, 'Maori AA' will be spun off from Project Whai, probably starting with 35 or 50mm single mounts, which'll be upgraded to twins when planes get better, and so on.

My vision of a Maori Battleship of the 1940s will be very scary for attacking aircraft (triple 150mm DP/AUTO and octuple 50mm AA mounts), but I honestly see no reason to be in a hurry about getting there.
======================================================

When the mother ship's cannon cracked the signal to return
The clouds were building bastions in the swirling up above
Poseidon the King and the Wind his jester
Dancing with the Lightning Lady Fair
Dancing with the Lightning Lady Fair

Tanthalas

Quote from: Desertfox on September 08, 2009, 10:14:51 AM
I have to agree with Korpen that the issue here is not of gun quality but of gun quantity. After all why are ships being packed with 'useless' AA guns when planes have done zip against ships? Is there ANY N-verse example of a successful attack by a heavier-than-air aircraft on a ship? A couple of 3 inchers and a few MGs is all the AA armament a ship currently needs.

I tend to agree with ya DF, I wont put more then 6-8 AA guns on a ship.  I also mount heavy MGs, but I view them more as anti light craft weapons than actual AA at this point
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

James Graham, 5th Earl of Montrose
1612 to 1650
Royalist General during the English Civil War