Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "World War 2 Anti-Aircraft Guns - Enforcing the No-Fly Zone" video.

The 20mm Oerlikon was produced in absolutely massive numbers during the war. somewhere between 125,000 and 150,000 barrels, and some variation of the original gun are still being produced and in use in 2020.
80
@michaels.5878 Not very good. The were set up for power operation, but the turrets proved to be not watertight, so the systems shorted out whenever there was water over the turrets, and even very heavy rain. The basic concept, with the turret and gun stabilized in four axes, but the actual operation showed the concept was too advanced for 1940. The ROF was low compared to, for example, the US 5"/25 or 5"/38, and the Italians didn't have a good light AA gun to back it up. The same 90mm gun was developed for use by the Italian Army, and it performed well on land, where all that stabilization wasn't needed.
43
@Arthion Other nations did not have extra time to spend working on their stuff. They had either started working sooner on correcting faults with guns or manufacturing new kinds of guns. The Italians didn't. They either behind the power curve, and their manufacturing capacity just didn't let them ramp up once they figured it out. Instead, Mussolini decided to blow over a year and half of lead time to make those improvements by staying out of the war until Germany declared war on the US. Instead, I though Germany had the war wrapped up, so he decided not be late to the party and declare war on France in June, 1940. The Gufo radars is a good example of Italian foolishness. They had developed the Gufo as a workable surface search radar back in 1937, but the RM refused to fund development until the Italian naval defeats of 1941. Even with a crash program for developing Gufo, there were something like ten actually in service at the time of the surrender in 1943. Even that program wouldn't have developed if not for the Navy's defeats in night actions. No, it wasn't a matter of Italy needing more time. It was a matter of needing better strategic vision and the ability to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
7
@Arthion Well, the single barrel model RM 39 was a decent gun because it included an equilibriator, so the severe vibration problems with the twin mounts didn't affect the accuracy like it did with the 1932 and 1938 models. By the time of the Italian surrender in 1943, moist of the more serious problems with allied antiaircraft guns had already been worked out. The Italians may have been able to improve what they had if they weren't being bombed around the clock. Two more years would have just meant that much more bombing. The time for the Italians to work out the kinks in their guns was prewar, or certainly no later than the middle of 1942. After that, the tide of war was going to prevent Italy from making any substantial improvements, and they didn't have the industrial capacity to come up with any replacements.
4
That would be one heck of a book, though. "An illustrated guide to every naval antiaircraft ever used in WWII". It would probably cost something like $300, but I'd use part of my rohna money to buy a copy. :-)
1