soc.history.war.world-war-ii

eunometic@yahoo.com.au wrote:

> On Jan 29, 6:17 am, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> wrote:

> The Japanese had superior optics to any othe combatent.

Better than German optics? That sounds pretty surprising, since in
general Germany was the world leader in optics at the time.

> I have not problem with acknowleging the poor rate of fire of the
> German 37mm gun.. The German naval single shot 37mm gun was the
> German disaster as it was another factor that may have cost the
> Bismark. A good powerfull round with good ballistics in a reliable
> weapon that however had to be individually loaded and so could only
> fire 30 rpm. It was on a gyro stabilised mount.

The Germans probably believed that the excellent ballistics would
compensate for the poor rate of fire. This is understandable from a
theoretical point of view (lower time of flight makes calculations
easier), but it did not work very well in practice.

> However German system were fully tachymetric to start with:- it should
> have been relatively easy for them to inject the range data from their
> Hohtenweil or late model Seetakt radars in lieu of the optical range
> finder thus achieving the same effect as HACS (no GR or GRUB ie
> Gyro's needed to be added as thety were already integrated.)
> Photographs show FuMO 26 antena on the Prinz Eugen with a height
> finding antena added to the directors radar.
>
> I have no source of whether this is indeed what was done, but it is
> highly plausible as the radar was warning of airborn threats and
> providing range and bearing information.

Some ships were fitted with Würzburg-C or Würzburg-D for AAA control.
Well, at least the Tirpitz was. It was also fitted to the dedicated AAA
ships and floating batteries (most of them could not move under their
own power). The AAA radar setup of the Prinz Eugen was probably
experimental and may not have worked very well, since it was later removed.

> The ideal placement of the fuze setting machine was as an integral
> part of a power feeding system. I know of only 3 guns that achieved
> this; the US 90mm, the German 128mm FLAK 40 and the latter versions
> of UK 3.7 inch from the Mk 3a onwards.

Interestingly the Germans still concluded that simply firing shells with
simple contact fuses at maximum rate of fire was the most effective way
even for the 128 mm guns. That was never fully implemented at doctrinal
level, since it was a relatively late conclusion, but in 1945 there were
plans to stop using time fuses in heavy AAA guns.

> The Narvick class destroyers 6 inch 150mm guns had sufficient
> elevation for them to be used in the FLAK role.

But not training rates or rates of fire.

> Doctrinally the German navy believed that radar would disclose the
> position of a ship and should only be used for ranging in combat or as
> a navigation aid.

And they were right, but ahead of their time. In WW2 the possibility of
being detected by passive radar detectors was not very significant, but
of course today it is extremely significant part of naval tactics. It is
notable though that the Germans developed many passive radar detectors
themselves.