How to use aa guns in world of warships Videos

+Matthew ReynoldsI enjoyed reading your posts more than any others here due to my background of being a naval nut. However this video is about a video game, not a historical recount.Taken all into account, if Wargaming was going for historical accuracy then I agree the Yamato in-game that AA stat is OP compared to its real life counterpart.However as I stated before, if historical accuracy is to be followed, a mere Gearing-class destroyer in-game would be just as or even stronger in the AA department (e.g. VT rounds, Mk37 GFCS, excellent 5"/38 ballistics etc.) than a same tier battleship. I don't think I need to explain further at the balancing problems this would have for the game.

+Matthew Reynolds I am saying that no sane man would waste their life making the aa on their pride ship sucks ass in real battle."So a ship class which in real life was almost completely unable to defend itself versus planes, in the game has great AA?" Wargaming said them itself,the legend lives in the game.You got a problem with Yamato having great aa in the game? cry in a corner and sue wargaming .

What's from my perspective only?  The count of aircraft that attacked the Mushashi?  The number of aircraft that the Yamato or Mushashi shot down when under attack?  The configuration and design of the AA?  The Japanese own assessment of their weapons?  Other elements historical record of the ships in action?  The analysis of WW2 era AA fire I have just made is well sourced and consistent with expert opinion by engineers and historians that have studied these things.  So, unless you are saying truth is something that is just from someone's perspective, then I have no idea what you are talking about.

+Matthew Reynolds Isn't that from your own perspective? onnlyyy.

Read the thread.  I have defended my case with concrete numbers and actual historical events.  Everybody else is defending their case based on their feelings, and what they want to be true.

a) I've already listed the number of aircraft that attacked the Musashi, and it was far less than 300.b) The Yamato was sinking long before the 300th plane made its attack run.  In fact, probably it would have sank after the 50th or 60th plane made its attack run, just more slowly.  When the 20th bomb hit, the ship was already a flooding hulk.  Remember, Yamato's other sister ship the Shinano went down to a single submarine launched torpedo.c) The number of planes that hit the ship isn't a factor of the Yamato's AA, but of the Yamato sheer size.  It took a long time to flood it.d) The number of planes that hit the ship isn't a factor of the Yamato's AA.  The percentage of planes that the Yamato shot down does tell us something about the AA.  The Yamato did not shoot down many planes.  In particular, when my claim was challenged, it was challenged on the grounds that if only 5-10 planes had attacked at a time, it would have shot them all down.  But we know that isn't true, because we have historical records of the Yamato and the Musashi being attacked by 5-10 planes at a time, and the planes usually went away unscathed.e) If the planes weren't focusing on the Yamato or the Musashi alone, it only makes my case stronger.  Again, we have a complete record of every single plane that made an attack run on the Musashi leading up to her sinking.  We can count every single attack.

+Matthew Reynolds are you stupid,the Yamato and her fleet just survived 300+ planes in 2 hours.And you call that weak aa? Listen Cunt 300+ planes are hardly focusing on the yamato and musashi alone.For 2 fucking hours!

If we were to judge things on fighting capabilities alone, the Bismark would be tier 7, the Yamato would be tier 8, the South Dakota tier 9, the Iowa tier 10, and if the US had bothered to build an expensive obsolete ship like the Yamato then the Montana would have been tier 11.  Yes, it is true that BB's in general were reduced to powerful carrier escorts and shore bombardment vessels and not surface combatants, but then again the Japanese BB's didn't exactly cover themselves in glory during surface combats.  In fact, they lost.

Whether or not any ship would have survived an attack by 112 aircraft is irrelevant.  Certainly no ship would have survived 19 torpedo hits and 17 bomb hits.  Indeed, the Yamato class ships would have certainly eventually sunk with far fewer hits.  Most of those hits were overkill on a ship that was doomed for the bottom already.   But I don't have to prove that any ship would survive 112 aircraft, which was never my contention.  My contention was that the Yamato class ships had largely ineffectual AA and largely were unable to defend themselves from air attack.  Someone tried to argue that if they were only attacked by small groups of planes they would have shot down most of them, but I countered that with my list of 112 aircraft by showing that in reality the Yamato class ships were attacked by small groups of planes and only shot down a small fraction of their attackers and were not able to disrupt the attack in a meaningful way.So I consider my original point made.  As far the AA capabilities of late war US battleships, it's worth noting that after Jan '43, the US lost no capital ships to air attack - not even as much as a heavy cruiser.  Some DD's and some light carriers got sunk, and various transport ships, but the fighting ships of the fleet proved capable of protecting themselves from air attack.  Now, granted, part of this was because the US had so many ships that the Japanese weren't able to concentrate forces on capital ships, but during the Battle of Okinawa, the US fleet was repeatedly attacked by waves of 400 planes out of a total attacking force of 1400 planes.  And of that, 1100 planes were destroyed for the loss of 20 light vessels.  In addition to having across the board superior arrangement of AA defenses and superior weapons and superior AA fire control, the US had an advantage of a super weapon that it had spent almost as much effort on as the B-29 or the Nuclear Bomb - proximity fused aerial shells.  The US BB's had the capacity feed fire control data to the 5" dual purpose turrets and fire shells that would explode in the vicinity of the targeted aircraft without the need to properly time the fuses.  For these reasons, the AA of any Japanese ship in the late war was probably no more than at best half as effect its US counterpart.As for the other capabilities of the Yamato, she was equally obsolete.  She would have been the most powerful ship afloat in 1920, but by 1942 she had serious defects.  Her steel was not of particularly good quality.  Her water tight compartments leaked.  Her damage control capabilities were poorly thought out and inadequate.  Her guns were inaccurate, and suffered from rapid barrel wear that made the problem worse.  She lacked an adequate AA screen that relied on too many small and inferior weapons of the sort the US abandoned as largely useless.   Perhaps most importantly, she was more or less completely untouched by the two most important mid-war advances in Naval surface ship technology - radar and computer assisted fire control - both of which the South Dakota's and the Iowa's had in spades.  US radar was roughly 10 times as accurate as the next best radar in the world, and allowed the US to calculate speed, bearing, and heading of target accurately out to 40000m, and they'd developed mechanical computers that could automatically plot firing solutions real time.  The Yamato was still relying on the old tactic of observing the splashes and adjusting fire, which was largely useless at the ranges that the US ships could engage targets at - to say nothing of night fighting.  Now the Japanese were really good at using those old WW1 methods - better than the Americans certainly in the early war - but the thing is, that they were just technologically outclassed.  And the penetration capabilities of the long 16" American guns were with the newer shells comparable to the 18's and much more accurate.It's not even close.  The Yamato never achieved any sort of meaningful military success, and was driven from battle by a few destroyers, crippled by a few aircraft, and was generally completely militarily useless.  Her sister ships were just as bad, and the one hull they tried to make a CV out of went down to a single torpedo hit.

"to just 112 aircraft"Your ignorance is showing. No battleship would have survived air attack from 112 aircraft. Not even the Iowa. A single Essex-class or Taiho-class carrier (or anything equivalent) would have been enough to sink any battleship of WW2, no matter how good its AA defence was back then. Even Iowa's good AA defence wouldn't protect her against 90+ attacking aircraft, even if they came in small piece group attacks. Aircraft carrier doomed any battleships in WW2 that's a fact, so stop blaming it on the Yamato purely. She was still the finest battleship built and if she had cover from jap carriers and CAP (carrier air patrol) she would have been a fearsome ship. But U.S. American industrial superiority won the war by outproducing the Jap fleet.

+Trades46 yep the inj only have light and heavy aa gun on they ship 25mm 13mm 128mm 100mm . befor ww2 they used some 40mm 2pdr english aa gun but they find out that the 40mm aint that good ( it actualy have the same range at the 25mm that why they replace the english with the 25mm ) which later the british during ww2 aslo find out that they 40mm are bad and cant shot plane down . the best 40mm and on the same lv the russian 37mm which is aslo verry good aa gun too bad the japanese dont have any medium aa that they can put on they ship . but well yamato should have load with the 100mm aa + 128mm and only keep few 25mm 

+Matthew ReynoldsYes, eventually the 'wall of metal' strategy was rendered obsolete when radar-directed FCS started to mature. The Americans were arguably the first ones to figure this out (the 5"/38s matched with the mk38 GFCS made a deadly combination). As you stated, add to that the VT proximity fuse and the US easily had the best late-war AA capability bar none.However, during most of the early parts of the war (remember, this is when most admirals believed CVs as support units & BBs were still the queens of the sea) the 'wall of steel' strategy still prevailed. AA guns were still not as accurate to be able to knock down a plane in one hit, so the combined throw-rate (especially light-medium caliber guns) still played the most important aspect of stopping an incoming TB, SB or Kamikaze.However the Japanese never saw the importance of any of these breakthroughs (radar, good central-directed FCS, no medium-caliber AA gun, no VT shells).Taken into account, the Yamato would (in theory) only have a slight AA edge (throw-rate only) when compared to a Gearing-class DD (which has all the thing I mentioned above). I can't wait to see how the IJN fanboys on Wargaming will respond to that.

The 1945 'upgrade' was quite possibly actually a downgrade.  The Type 96 25mm was a terrible weapon.  It was too heavy to function as a short range weapon effectively, because it's traverse speed was too slow, but it lacked sufficient punch to effectively work as a medium range AA weapon.  They were also inaccurate and required frequent lengthy reloading that halved their effective rate of fire.  Despite being intended as a medium range AA, they were more comparable to the US 20mm and 1.1" short range AA weapons.  The US stopped using those whenever possible because they didn't work.It doesn't really matter if you have a 'boatload' of guns all blasting in the air if every single one of them has a gun sight that gives inaccurate information to the gunner and traverses too slowly to correct the fire.  What you end up with is a whole boatload of guns all firing at the wrong part of the sky. By moving to add more and more short range weaponry, the Japanese were actually moving in the opposite direction of the Americans who were at the same time stripping off more and more of their short range weaponry in favor of more and more 40mm quads because the 25mm, 20mm and 13.7mm weapons were found to be ineffective.  The Japanese were actually moving in the opposite direction not only of the American practical experience, but the practical experience of their own crews - who correctly felt that larger guns were more effective.The truth is that the 'wall of metal' strategy did not work.  It seems intuitively like it ought to work, which is why everyone tried it, but it just doesn't.  It didn't work in WWII any more than it worked in Gulf War 1.  What actually worked was well aimed flak - that is to say, explosions designed to happen at the same height as the aircraft that they were fired at. Flak, unlike the points of steel shells, cut out an effective 3D area of space allowing you to intersect an object moving rapidly in 3D space.  Hitting a bullet with a bullet was just luck and rarely happened.  The trick then was making those calculations to figure out what height a plane would be at when the shells intersected it and then timing the trigger to explode at that moment.  This was hard, but it worked.A lot of people think that the A bomb was the only superweapon that the Americans invented during the war.  It wasn't; not remotely.  Militarily more important than the A bomb to winning the war was proximity fuses and practical analog computers.The proximity fuse alone means that the AA rating of every American ship ought to be about twice as high as the ship of every other nation that didn't have it.  What the proximity fuse gave you is one less step required for making a successful kill.  You didn't have to calculate the burst height of the shell and set the fuse accordingly.  If the shell went near the target, it would burst at the appropriate point because each shell contained what was effectively its own little radar.And getting it near the target was the job of those analog computers, that allowed the guns to be corrected in real time for the speed and bearing of the target, meaning that the American gunners always had a firing solution for putting the shell where the target was currently heading instead of where it was at now. Add to that the fact that the Americans developed sub 2cm wavelength radar with about 10 times the watt output of anything else in the world, and the Americans had the ability to accurately judge range, speed, and bearing of individual targets even in the dark, the ability to compute those inputs real time into firing solutions, and the ability to put a shell up that if it got close would detonate, and well it's not even close.  The Japanese were still basically using stuff derived from WW1 technology. The end of war US ships are a couple of tiers more advanced than anything any other nation built during the war.  The size of the technology gap was similar to the gap at the beginning of the war between Japanese torpedoes and American torpedoes.  It wasn't just a little gap; it was vast. 

+Matthew Reynolds He has the 1945 upgrade, which (if you can't see from the actual ship itself) replaced the entire length of the superstructure with a literal boatload of Type 96 Triple 25mm guns. Sure they weren't the best AA guns used in WWII but accuracy be damned: the most easy ways to nail aircraft back then was to throw as much lead into the air as you could, and if all the guns started to blast at ~5 to 6 planes at a time then something ought to hit.For Operation Ten-go the US were using 10~15 CVs all coordinating their attacks on the Yamato at the same time while the fighter escorts (which can't damage ships with their .50cals) instead strafed the superstructure, preventing the AA crew from doing their job while the TBs did their runs unmolested by AA fire.Obviously the Yamato doesn't hold a candle to the Iowas (or even the NCs or SoDaks) in terms of AA capability. But for the sake of game balance, the game probably gave a boost to make the tech trees fair in both sides. If they kept true to history, the Montanas (US Tier X counterpart) would be untouchable by any aircraft.

The reason that the US Navy sent 300 aircraft is simply that it could.  Fewer would have done the job, but why use less than overwhelming force if you have the opportunity? Again, while the name 'Yamato' gets romanticized, the Yamato was part of a class of almost identical ships.  The Musashi was almost completely identical to the Yamato and went down to just 112 aircraft.  And again, that wasn't 112 aircraft attacking at once.  No more than about 30 ever attacked at once, and most of the planes that found the Musashi did so by accident and weren't looking for her.  She was just as target of opportunity.  When the US sunk her, they weren't entirely sure if they'd sunk a battleship or a large cruiser.  And if you look at the record of the Musashi's sinking, it didn't actually take 112 aircraft to sink her.  She was already probably doomed to death by flooding long before the last wave of aircraft reached her.  The additional attacks just eventually convinced the crew to give up what was probably already a lost cause.  Both ships had very significant flaws in their damage control and in both ships after being holed it was found their flood barriers leaked in multiple places.  Both ships were much like the Titanic - much more sinkable than their designers thought they were.The strike wing from a single Essex class carrier, the so called 'Sunday Punch', of 75 airplanes probably would have been enough to sink either the Musashi or the Yamato.  And provably do so with relatively little loss of life, since both ships had suffered air attacks multiple times and never been able to convincingly defend themselves.

+Wayofkicks The U.S. Navy sent 300 aircraft to down the Yamato. You know how many of those got shot down? 10. The Yamato took 11 torpedoes and 7 bombs before it sank. The reason why the U.S. Navy put up so many planes was because the rest of what was left of the IJN was out in force at Okinawa. They were participating in Operation Ten-go, where the IJN was supposed to beach their ships on Okinawa and act as artillery until they were destroyed. However, the Americans sunk most of the IJN's remaining ships before they could do this.

Actually, the US air power required more than usual amount of planes to overwhelm the Yamato. You're putting words into your mouth. Maybe look up history a little more. :)

As built, the two had identical AA protection.  Both received upgrades.  The Musashi's upgraded AA was almost the same as the Yamato's upgraded AA.  The Musashi's AA screen was:6 15.5cm 3rd Year Type Guns12 12.7cm Type 89 Guns130 25mm Type 96 Guns4 13.2mm Type 93 MGsThe only change in the Yamato's armament was they took out some of the Type 89's and put in even more Type 96 Guns, but the Type 96 had several unrecognized and never corrected defects that made it nearly useless as an AA gun.  As such, the Musashi's AA was probably superior to that of the Yamato, and at the very least they are comparable.  In any event, the Yamato didn't score significant air craft kills either at Philippine Sea, Leyte Gulf, Sibuyan Sea, Samar or during operation Ten Go.  This despite the fact that at Samar it was being attacked by ground attack aircraft armed with nothing more than MG's and high explosives, that were so desperate they were reduced to close range strafing attacks. Again, in real life this ship class was almost completely unable to protect itself from air attacks.

+Matthew Reynolds lol pls musashi aa are less than the yamato it sitll keep 4 155mm turret while on yamato after upgrade it only got 2 on front and end the 2 side turret are remove and add in 25mm + 128mm aa gun yamato got 2x aa gun then musashi 

No, actually it can't.  And that's not speculation.  That's provable, because the Yamato's sister ship the Musashi was destroyed by piece-meal largely uncoordinated attacks at Leyte Gulf. She was attacked in separate attacks by the following:8 dive bombers 6 torpedo bombers (2 planes lost)8 dive bombers (2 planes lost)9 torpedo bombers29 total planes in a coordinate attack9 dive bombers6 torpedo bombers37 total planes in a coordinate attack (6 planes lost)That's the real life.Most of the above attacks were separated by hours of time.  All of the attacks were separated by several minutes, and only two were deliberate coordinated attacks (and small ones at that) rather than small flights that were operating on seek and destroy orders and attacked the Musashi as a target of opportunity.   The ship had been attacked by 112 total planes, destroyed 10 of those, and taken about 19 torpedo hits and 17 bomb hits.   At no point had the Mushashi been attacked by more than half the force of a single Essex class fleet career - which was normally 90 attack aircraft. 

+Matthew Reynolds Actualy if the real life yamato get attack like 5 plane a time it can easy shot down 90% of them but in real life the american used 300 plane to attack it at once no chance to do any thing mate after those plane drop bomb they shot they 50 cal on the desk + fighter escot aslo join by shoting the deck vv so yhea if player send 5 plane a time or 1 squad a time yamato can easy def it self

Quadruple 1.1 inch gun is best AA gun. And Navweaps is best info site :3

Also i cant wait for you to do a video on the japanese 25mm.

+Gaanja Mon Is that why she is your ex?

+Papon Wangsaturaka because it's already the closed beta of this game

+Andrea Pacifico Not at all.

jh v vm

+Andrew M It's that size so it covers the chat window

They should branch it out by OBT but, don't quote me on that as it may not happen till final release. Cleveland gets moved to Tier 7 I believe or 8 in the CL line. We are waiting on the USN BB's and IJN CV's and some changes in mechanics that are in the next CBT patch which should be within the next 2 weeks.

Shoot, why didn't I think of that. Its still beta, of course they are going to add more lines.

+Tom Peters Cleveland will take up its place in the Light Cruiser line this will open up the tree more for more ships. Light Cruisers were noted for their AA power and High ROF armed with 6inch guns where Heavy cruisers carried 8 inch with slightly less AA. although higher tier Cruisers were very well stocked with AA

+Yu Takeda How are they going to do that? What will fill the slot? Move Pensacola down? Bring in Brooklyn? Brooklyn and St Louis were more fragile and had weaker AA armament but on the other hand their main batteries were even more OP.They already have nerfed the ROF and training speed of their turrets from real life, by a lot.

You should do more, I'm interested in the aa capabilities

+Jade West I'd doubt putting favor of one in front of the other, the 16" Mk 7 L/50 is capable of penetrating the Yamato's main armor belt with the Mk. 8 "Super-heavy" shell. The Yamato was renown for being horridly innacurate, it could not hit a 600ft long (almost) stationary escort carrier at 4 miles (6km). Speed is almost not worth mentioning, it does not keep shells from hitting you. US (radar assisted) gun director equipment was coined "superior" throughout the world, so undoubtedly the Montana (even the Iowa) could HIT Yamato. Citadels are somewhat made up. In real life there is no such thing a citadel on the ship. Ammunition and powder magazines are critical targets, and the engine compartment are coined "machinery spaces" in naval terms. US torpedoes are renown for being unreliable, especially considering aerial torpedoes (significantly weaker than ship launched), mainly the reason why it took so long to sink her. If we per say had a lighter copy of the superior Japanese type 94 torpedo (24") meant for aerial launch, it would of took per say 5-10 rather than the the 19 it actually took for the Musashi to sink. Ship launched torpedoes, such as the 21" (still unreliable compared to the rest of the world) that sunk the half-sister Shinano (rebuilt as an aircraft carrier) with 4 hits. Japanese damage control on top of that was considered terrible when compared to the rest of the world. On a somewhat unrelated topic, the Yamato was obsolete in regards to anti-aircraft defense, she destroyed only 10 planes out the 400.

+Critical Tvau It's a edited version of the Navyfield game trailer with the Instrumental Core Remix-Time version of Hans Zimmer's piece time in the background.

thx

+egoistaX Time by Hans Zimmer, this version however is remixed by Instrumental Core Remix.

You guys are so illogical , I can't believe it..

german idea i believe

+Raging Melon American railgun ._.

zumwalt is viable for the railgun

And the railgun

i see.

+iceberg789 thats because it is retro the video is form 1994.

Because it's Russia.

+Joey James War might be horrible, but it's needed for balance. Unfortunately nuclear war is the most disgusting, immoral thing on this planet. Another reason why I despise the US Government for bombing Hiroshima, even though Hitler wasn't going to use it because it was too inaccurate to do no harm to civillians.

+Wolf212 lol...im not mad...an i had a feeling u were gonna call me out...lol...but whats great is we can debate like this without shooting each other...war is terrible no matter what...an yes nuclear war is a horrible thing...an i will say amarica does provoke alot of these arms buildups...its cool im not blind i see both sides...lol...good talkin to u

+Joey JamesI have a good feeling you're white, and you're not "American" though xDOnly "American Citizen".

+Joey James Was pointing out, not attacking. Had a feeling you'd be extremely butthurt, sensitive american. x3

+Wolf212 go read my response....russian

im from south caralina..dumbass...an i turned my phones auto correct off...its called texting allso...we dont give a shit if the punctuation is perfect...but if this is the only thing u can attack about my post an the standard genaric response from your side has been given...lol...(usually not attacking my thought but rather my spelling or my character.)..then i believe u fail sir...if u knew what i know ur tinny little head would explode..an for ur info..im white..an amarican.....probly more amarican than u..lol...i have eyes to see..an im educated more than u im sure...i call b.s...when i see it...dont be mad cause ur blind...just go open ur eyes dick...the truth is right in ur face.."but since u say u see...u remain blind"

+Joey James I see an idiot, a young boy, or a forgeigner who can't speak english right.