Remove ads

Changing Destiny (Kancolle)

Reader mode
Darth Thanatos said:
Don't the aircraft bullets have more gunpowder than same caliber of hand-held or portable weapons?

I suspect you could not load a .50 plane machine gun with rounds intended for a Browning, or the other way around.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What!? No! They're both chambered for the same 12.7x99mm cartridge. You don't build different cartridges in the same diameter if you can help it. Greatly simplifies supply lines. The aircraft weapon is more accurate in-use because it's easier to accurately aim at a plane from another plane moving close to the same speed, so a pilot shooting .50 BMG at another plane can be confident of many more hits from a similar length burst than an air-defense gunner shooting from the deck of a ship. The same goes for a tail gunner with his .30 cal machinegun (or machineguns)

Compounding things, the AA role has a much shorter engagement window, meaning he has a harder time aiming and has fewer bullets to do the job with. That's why we don't see widespread adoption of 20mm in aircraft by the US until postwar, while AA guns quickly grew in caliber, culminating in the 3"/50 RF.
 
There have been some efforts to increase AA defense (Ari notably had her's buffed above what it should have been in her big refit) but nothing along the lines of late-war or even rushing 20mms and Bofors into service.

Most likely you're just seeing improved 1.1-inch mounts thanks to the girls knowing instinctively what is wrong with stuff on their hulls.
 
PAGDTenno said:
Thompson may well know about the overestimated effectiveness of heavy AA (probably does), but he's a tactical commander (a relatively junior one at that), and there are limits to what he can do. From what we've seen in-story, he's been focusing on improving fighter direction and fighter tactics, which is the most effective mode of fleet air defense. And why would requisitioning from Marine Corps stores be ironic? The Corps is part of the Navy, and generally uses Navy equipment. Furthermore, in terms of what's actually available right now, well, that's bunches of .50 BMG and .30 machineguns, neither of which has the punch to knock down a WW2-era aircraft from a ship. (.50 is plenty for a plane because aircraft are generally much more accurate)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Oh, its ironic because marines were the ones that did the moolight requisition, AKA finding a poorly guarded navy or army depot and stealing the supplies for their own use, especially luxury items such as better food or beer but also modern M1 Garant rifles or air cooled machine guns, that weren't general issue. A CV or BB crew who got maximum priority regarding all kinds of supplies stealing from the usually poor marines would get a laugh (and if caught a beating) from them.
 
Last edited:
PAGDTenno said:
What!? No! They're both chambered for the same 12.7x99mm cartridge. You don't build different cartridges in the same diameter if you can help it. Greatly simplifies supply lines.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't disagree. It simplifies logistics. But did the Army, Navy, and (Ch)Air Force share supply lines to that degree?

Also, while the guns for a plane can have longer barrels, which improves accuracy with the same cartridge, a plane is a vehicle, while the Browning gun is man-portable. It should stand to reason that you don't want to burden troops with excessively heavy ammunition, and for simplicity's sake, that ground vehicles use the same ammunition. But the way air combat goes, you are not restricted by the burden on foot troops, so you are free to have a heavier, more powerful cartridge, even if it's the same caliber.

Oh, well. I thought things were that way. I guess I was wrong, then. Thanks for clarifying that.
 
The full designation of the M2HB is the A/N M2HB. A/N stands for Army-Navy. Same gun, whether it's in a plane or on a ship.

Also, this isn't Imperial Japan. The Army and Navy generally managed to remember they were on the same side
 
PAGDTenno said:
The full designation of the M2HB is the A/N M2HB. A/N stands for Army-Navy. Same gun, whether it's in a plane or on a ship.

Also, this isn't Imperial Japan. The Army and Navy generally managed to remember they were on the same side
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, nitpick, but the M2HB and A/N M2 were different versions of the gun. The difference is the barrel. The HB has a heavy barrel designed for sustained firing that replaced the original water jacket, while the A/N M2 has a lighter barrel. The A/N was primarily used for aerial applications, with the HB used everywhere else.

Still the same gun, though.
 
Last edited:
CV12Hornet said:
Actually, nitpick, but the M2HB and A/N M2 were different versions of the gun. The difference is the barrel. The HB has a heavy barrel designed for sustained firing that replaced the original water jacket, while the A/N M2 has a lighter barrel.

Still the same gun, though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Right, sorry. I should have said the original acquisitions program was for the A/N M2, and then the Navy and Army wanted it to be a bit more portable,so they asked John Browning if he could please make a version that wasn't water-cooled. He said "sure", made the HB, and thus we have the 100-year-old machine gun that's still in service today.
 
Last edited:
PAGDTenno said:
Right, sorry. I should have said the original acquisitions program was for the A/N M2, and then the Navy and Army wanted it to be a bit more portable,so they asked John Browning if he could please make a version that wasn't water-cooled. He said "sure", made the HB, and thus we have the 100-year-old machine gun that's still in service today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Of course, their is actually a M2 Browning that's damn old. Serial number 324, it still works, goes to show just how dependable and rugged the Browning design is.
 
as far as Atlanta's concerned the only things in danger of being dumped in New York Harbor are the torpedo mounts.
 
Spectre said:
as far as Atlanta's concerned the only things in danger of being dumped in New York Harbor are the torpedo mounts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think you mean deck bombs (because "scuttling charges" is a gross understatement for the danger and combat ineffectiveness of that torpedo family right now).

By the way, how are BuOrd holding up against the ships themselves rioting over the shit torpedoes?
 
Guardian54 said:
I think you mean deck bombs (because "scuttling charges" is a gross understatement for the danger and combat ineffectiveness of that torpedo family right now).

By the way, how are BuOrd holding up against the ships themselves rioting over the shit torpedoes?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh, American torpedoes aren't nearly the explosive hazard Japanese torpedoes are. No compressed oxygen, y'know?
 
Thorthemighty said:
True, but a direct hit would still likely set the warhead off, which while it's no Type-93 it'll certainly do major damage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

TNT is so insensitive you can blow it up and it won't explode. Tests were done.

That wasn't good enough for the USN, so they replaced it with Torpex in 1942, which was just as insenstive but half again as powerful. Then they replaced that with HBX, which is as powerful as TPX, but much less sensitive. Unlike Type 98 filler (I know, shit ton of "Types"), which is extremely sensitive. Though not as bad as Type 94, which was rather powerful but far too sensitive even for Japan. And by "too sensitive for the IJN", I mean "prone to spontaneously exploding".

No, the concern is the fuel (methanol), which is a wonderful way to get a big ol' fire going. Or, if you're unlucky, a fuel-air explosion.

Wobulator said:
Not as dangerous, but they'll still go boom if they get hit and given how they're pretty much useless anyways... what's the point in having them?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well, no, they're not "useless". First, the IJN thinks they work, so they're going to maneuver to evade them. The biggest problem with the Mark 15 (and most common problem) is failure to explode on impact. Until it smacks into the ship and doesn't explode, it will have every appearance of running straight, hot, and true, which means that IJN ships will be frantically maneuvering to dodge them. This is because when they work they have a five hundred pound warhead (or, later, a 800 pound HBX one that's basically a 1200 pound TNT warhead). It's not the thousand pound warhead of the Long Lance, true, but that's more than enough to ruin anyone's day, and, critically, the IJN does not know that American torpedoes are flawed, and even if they did they do not know which specific torpedoes are going to fail. That means they have to treat every fish in the water as if it's going to ruin their day, because if that's the one torpedo that everything goes right on and it hits because they didn't maneuver to evade it, their ship is in for a really bad time.

Now, this doesn't mean the mounts on Atlanta should stay - they shouldn't. They don't contribute at all to her role of bullying destroyers and enemy aircraft, she's extremely unlikely to have opportunities to employ them, and her torpedo mounts take valuable deck space that could instead have more guns, not to mention adding topweight to a ship that already has stability issues.
 
Last edited:
PAGDTenno said:
Now, this doesn't mean the mounts on Atlanta should stay - they shouldn't. They don't contribute at all to her role of bullying destroyers and enemy aircraft, she's extremely unlikely to have opportunities to employ them, and her torpedo mounts take valuable deck space that could instead have more guns, not to mention adding topweight to a ship that already has stability issues.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also, they take up space that could go towards gun directors for the prodigious anti-aircraft armament of the Atlanta-class cruisers. Although, you'd probably find that dropping the wing turrets is still a better way to add directors.
 
Ash19256 said:
Also, they take up space that could go towards gun directors for the prodigious anti-aircraft armament of the Atlanta-class cruisers. Although, you'd probably find that dropping the wing turrets is still a better way to add directors.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
the only problem with that is you need to rebuild the entire back end of the ship to do so, and while this is easy to do for the yet to be put down Oaklands, Atlanta and company are to far along to do so unless you want to stick them back in drydock for another 6 months when they're needed right the hell now.
 
PAGDTenno said:
Well, no, they're not "useless". First, the IJN thinks they work, so they're going to maneuver to evade them. The biggest problem with the Mark 15 (and most common problem) is failure to explode on impact. Until it smacks into the ship and doesn't explode, it will have every appearance of running straight, hot, and true, which means that IJN ships will be frantically maneuvering to dodge them. This is because when they work they have a five hundred pound warhead (or, later, a 800 pound HBX one that's basically a 1200 pound TNT warhead). It's not the thousand pound warhead of the Long Lance, true, but that's more than enough to ruin anyone's day, and, critically, the IJN does not know that American torpedoes are flawed, and even if they did they do not know which specific torpedoes are going to fail. That means they have to treat every fish in the water as if it's going to ruin their day, because if that's the one torpedo that everything goes right on and it hits because they didn't maneuver to evade it, their ship is in for a really bad time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Unless, you know, they decide to go in a circle and hit you.
 
Wobulator said:
Unless, you know, they decide to go in a circle and hit you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1) Circular runs were rare. Out of the thousands of torpedos fired during the Pacific War, only three actually hit the launching submarine.

2)That's a problem for subs, because they're slow. Circular runs don't endanger destroyers nearly as much because by the time the fish has turned around the launching tin can is far away from where it fired the torpedo.

3) The problem with the Mark 14 and 15 wasn't that it didn't work, it was that it worked often enough that BuOrd thought the problem was user error, not a problem with the torpedo itself.

Thor, a nitpick. USN munitions are designated with Arabic numerals, RN munitions with Roman numerals.
 
Last edited:
Thorthemighty said:
True, but a direct hit would still likely set the warhead off, which while it's no Type-93 it'll certainly do major damage.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I can't think of any examples where that happened. American torpedoes just didn't blow up as easily as oxygen torpedoes.

PAGDTenno said:
Well, no, they're not "useless". First, the IJN thinks they work, so they're going to maneuver to evade them. The biggest problem with the Mark 15 (and most common problem) is failure to explode on impact. Until it smacks into the ship and doesn't explode, it will have every appearance of running straight, hot, and true, which means that IJN ships will be frantically maneuvering to dodge them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
25 October 1942 USS Mustin was ordered to scuttle the USS Hornet. She sat a mile off the wreck's beam and deliberately fired eight carefully aimed torpedoes. Not even target practice, so easy.

One Mk15 broached astern of the carrier, another circled but thankfully exploded by itself 300 meter from Mustin, one exploded ... somewhere ..., but not against the carrier, two more just disappeared. Three exploded against Hornet's hull.

This wasn't enough so USS Anderson was called in. Another eight fish were fired, of which one somehow missed the stationary target and one prematured. Six hit, but on the high side so the hulk settled more on an even keel.

BuOrd's reaction was a minor change to the spring in the contact exploder and admonishments to better perform maintenance.
 
Thorthemighty said:
I don't think that was an issue with the MK XV but it was certainly an issue with the MK XIV
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I couldn't find any hard and fast sources, but they shared many of the same flaws.
PAGDTenno said:
1) Circular runs were rare. Out of the thousands of torpedos fired during the Pacific War, only three actually hit the launching submarine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But that doesn't count all the ones that did go on circular runs but just didn't hit the firing subs.
PAGDTenno said:
2)That's a problem for subs, because they're slow. Circular runs don't endanger destroyers nearly as much because by the time the fish has turned around the launching tin can is far away from where it fired the torpedo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's still fundamentally a torpedo that is now going at you(ish) rather than your enemies.
PAGDTenno said:
3) The problem with the Mark 14 and 15 wasn't that it didn't work, it was that it worked often enough that BuOrd thought the problem was user error, not a problem with the torpedo itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...no.
That is definitely not true.
The contact detonator alone had a 70% failure rate. I couldn't find anything for all the other faults, but I think it's fair to assume that it was pretty awful.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top