Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "IJN Shimakaze - Guide 284" video.

  1. Primarily, it was that the light AA consisted entirely of the 25mm Type 96. Which which was too heavy and not fast-firing enough to be a counterpart to guns like the 20mm Oerlikon or Flak 38. Not only was the cyclic rate of fire lower, the 15-round magazine (compared to 40 for the Flak 38 and 60 for the Oerlikon) was way too small and left it with an effective rate of fire similar to the 40mm Bofors (which had much better range and more explosive filler in the shells). While the Bofors used 4-round clips, the fact that loaders could constantly drop more clips in while the gun was firing made up for that. There was no mid-range AA weapon comparable to the 40mm Bofors, 2-pdr pom-pom, 37mm Breda, 37mm 70-K, etc. For larger AA guns, the 10cm/65 Type 98 (used on the Akizuki-class destroyers and the aircraft carriers Taiho and Shinano) was quite good. The 12.7cm/40 Type 89 on most battleships, carriers, and cruisers was pretty decent. Neither was a truly dual-purpose weapon; they were dedicated AA guns with limited utility against surface targets. And since destroyers (with the exception of the Akizukis) had surface combat as their primary role, most of them had the 12.7 cm/50 3rd Year Type, which had only nominal AA capability. Meaning that while American destroyers with their 5"/38 main guns and 40mm Bofors were legitimate AA escorts, the vast majority of Japanese destroyers could only protect the capital ships from air attack by offering an alternate target to soak up some of the bombs and torpedoes. And even the Akizukis (the only Japanese DDs with proper AA guns) were limited by having only timed fuses instead of a proximity fuse for their 10cm guns.
    3