Best WW2 AA Gun?

Bofors and Oerlikon

Bofors and Flak 88

>>31835850

>37mm Flak 43
>90mm M1
>128mm Flak 40

File: 1-72-2-cm-Flak-38-103-Jaboschreck-ACE-72294_b_1.jpg (79KB, 1000x556px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1000x556px

Jaboshreck.

I always have thought it must be hard af to hit a plane with that. I know frag shells do not require a direct impact, but still.

Type 94 naval gun with sankaidan shell folded over a billion times could take out an entire heavy bomber formation with a single shot.

>>31836796
It is, but when you have numerous guns on many different ships with plenty of targets to go for it becomes somewhat more straightforward.

There's also the idea that they're just there to put the pilot off, as the closer he gets the more chance he has of being hit. If he keeps his distance he stays in the air, but if he stays away then he himself is less accurate in hitting the ships.

It's all fun and games.

>>31836796

You're not wrong. Still, the Bofors was the preferred gun for stopping Kamikazees because one hit was enough to completely stop the target.

>>31835850

> 40mm Bofors
> 90mm M1 with SCR 584 radar
> 5"/38 Mark 12

Any other answers are objectively wrong.

>>31835850
>no ear pro

fug

>>31836943

Actually the 40mm was found unsatisfactory. One hit from a 40 was enough to kill/cripple the pilot and render the plane not combat effective, but it wasn't enough to stop a kamikaze already on a collision path from hitting the ship.

That's the reason the 3"/70 was developed, to knock down Kamikaze from over 3 km away and blow the plane into multiple chunks to prevent a dead stick kamikaze from hitting the ship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICifnf63lCs

go to 1:30.

>>31835850
>Categories:
>>2 in or less (51 mm or less)
>>4 in or less (102 mm or less)
>>Anything greater than 4 inches
Doesn't this just mean things towards the upper end of those "categories" get counted as best?

File: 1475205232783.jpg (47KB, 529x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 529x502px

>>31837264

Holy shit. It's like a super Bofors.

You win this round buckaroo.

>>31835850
assuming pure AA usage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun
fired a heavier shell to a higher ceiling with a comparable rate of fire to the 88mm flak and the 90mm american weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_5.25_inch_gun
a heavier shell to a further range than the 5"/38 and a rate of fire not significantly slower

>>31837388

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3.7-inch_AA_gun

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_5.25_inch_gun

While QF 3.7 inch and QF 5.25 inch were ballistically superior to 90mm M1 and 5"/38, they were worse as complete systems.

QF 3.7 was not mated to radar fire control as effectively as 90mm M1, and British electronics production was strained so they could not be lavishly equipped with VT fused rounds like 90mm M1 could be, since the British production of VT rounds went to the 5.25 inch first. VT alone makes 90mm M1 better than QF 3.7, then SCR 584 was another game changer, because it was accurate enough to track the trajectory of outbound shells. That gave it unparalleled fire correction capabilities.

QF 5.25 struggled with about half the rate of fire of 5"/38, due to the poor mount design. Then what really kills them is the poor traverse rate of the mounts for wartime ships.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_525-50_mk1.htm

Elevation : 10 degs/s
Train : 10 degs/s

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.php

elevation : 15 degs/s
train : 25-30 degs/s

This mean that as planes got closer, the mount would have trouble traversing fast enough to track them.

On the fire control side, the British noted their own systems were inferior, and adopted the American Mk 37 for 5.25 mounts on Vanguard.