soc.history.war.world-war-ii

"Keith Willshaw" writes:

> "a425couple" wrote in message
> news:LeudnQVJoLeQWGLanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Fred Zimmerman, Nimble Books LLC" wrote ...
>>> On Apr 4, 2:10 pm, "a425couple" wrote:

/../

> In fact post war analysis showed that the small calibre guns
> were ineffective

Really? How small is small-calibre? I know the 12.7 mm MGs were seen
as ineffective for reasons of stopping power, and probably similar for
20 mm against heavily armoured aircraft. However, I would have thought
the 40 mm Bofors flamed many an IJN plane at close range, or damaged
planes in general. Even damage must count as effective, as does
distraction value.

/../

>> So the main guns fired at 13 miles. But at least partly
>> due to inaccurate altitude estimate by the on shore
>> AA spoters, were below correct altitude.
>> (the BB's radar FC had been diminished by earlier--)
>> Tallboys, 12,000 pound bombs, do tend to shake
>> things up, and mess up a day, or a ship!
>
> The major reasons for not using BB main guns is that
> they cannot be elevated sufficiently to bear on high level
> aircraft and they couldnt track quickly enough to
> target low level attackers. The beehive rounds were a sign
> of desperation.

For low level, as in torpedo bombers, does that still apply: level
run-ins at least to some extent (until maybe early 1945)?

--
Gernot Hassenpflug