Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "HSwMS Gotland - Guide 316" video.

  1.  @Cbabilon675  As we know, the Japanese had a relationship with Vickers, covering everything from battleships, to building the 2 pounder pompom under license. The Japanese also had a relationship with Hotchkiss. Besides the Type 96 AA gun, the Japanese Type 92 and Type 3 heavy machine guns were based on the Hotchkiss Mle 1914, changing out the original 8mm Lebel cartridge for the 6.5 Arisaka in the Type 3, and 7.7mm in the Type 92. As these guns were licensed from Hotchkiss, getting them into production was no doubt much easier than trying to reverse engineer captured Bofors. The Russians bought some examples of the 25mm Bofors, which preceded the 40mm version, in 1935. They reverse engineered it, increasing the bore to 37mm, test firing the prototype in late 1938. If the Japanese took as long to reverse engineer Bofors captured in late 41, it would have been late 44/early 45 before they could get it into production. I would venture that, if Vickers had produced a modern AA gun, to replace the pompom, in the mid 30s, the Japanese would have licensed that, rather than the Hotchkiss.
    3
  2.  @gregorywright4918  The IJN was using the Vickers through the 20s and early 30s. Navweaps cites complexity of manufacture, unreliability, (the IJN version was based on the Mk II) low rate of fire and short range, as reasons to look for a new gun. In the mid 30s, 25mm was regarded as adequate to take a plane apart, hence the grouping around that size: 25 from Hotchkiss and Bofors, and 28mm (1.1") from the USN. Thing is, even the twin 25mm mounts were still on a hand cranked mount, like the 40mm guns were, and probably far too slow to track a close-in target, like an Oerlikon could. I have seen pix of a single Type 96 on a free mount. Wonder if the USN ever tried a single 1.1 on a free mount?
    1