Comments by "Steve Valley" (@stevevalley7835) on "IJN Fubuki - Guide 165" video.

@bkjeong4302 Long range multiplies the challenges. The torpedo plane pilot, or sub commander, has to estimate distance to target and target speed. While a sub commander has some technical assistance, a pilot had to eyeball everything. This was one of the problems the Brit torpedo plane pilots had hitting the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in the channel as they were used to shooting at freighters steaming at 10kn, while the warships were steaming at 30, and the pilots didn't lead the ships enough. Another problem is how slow a torp is. The Brit Mk 12 ran at 40, the USN Mk 13, only 33kn. The slower the torp, the longer the time to target, amplifying errors in range and speed estimates and the more time the target has to maneuver. I suspect another factor is the pilot's ability to press on through intense AA fire. Consider the USN's success at Coral Sea vs the Shoho vs the same pilot's lack of success against the more heavily defended Shōkaku. It is harder to get in close when your plane is being shot to bits around you.
16
@Philistine47 iirc, the 1.1" was generally replaced by the Bofors. The 1.1" outranged the Oerlikon and threw a much larger shell. By the end of the war the Oerlikon was worthless as the shells it threw were so tiny that, by the time a kamikaze was within range, an Oerlikon couldn't do enough damage to shoot the plane to bits before impact. The 1.1" didn't actually disappear before the end of the war. As Bofors became available, the 1.1s were moved to lower priority ships, like minesweapers.
3
@kemarisite Yes, the 13 was improved dramatically by late 44, so improved it was used on PT boats in place of the Mk 8. Small consolation to the men who were trying to use it in 42-43, when taking out an IJN fleet carrier would have more impact on the balance of power.
2
@StE-m8w On the other hand, from my readings, the Type 96 was reasonably reliable. The USN 1.1" did not have to stop firing to reload, and vibrated less, but jammed frequently. In the color USN film about Midway, there is a view of a pair of 1.1" mounts shown several times. In the first couple shots, all four guns of the mount in the foreground are firing, but in the last shot, only the far right side gun is firing. Additionally, with the largest Type 96 mount being a triple, the loaders had room to work, while, in the quad 1.1" mount, the loaders were absurdly crowded.
2
@StE-m8w that seems to be the real issue with any "last ditch" close in defense gun. It needs to be light enough to be freemounted, so it can be handled fast enough to track an aircraft close in, but a gun that light can't fire a round heavy enough to do real damage, and the magazine is small, so it spends almost as much time reloading as it does firing. The Type 96 was available as a single gun free mount, but, again, the small magazine limited it. The German and Italian 20mm guns had small magazines. Seems the Oerlikon's advantage was the 60 round magazine. One wonders if the original 1pdr Vickers, which was freemounted, could have been developed into a more useful last ditch weapon.
2