WI: the US Navy adopts better Autocannons than the 1.1"/75 in the 30's?

[NothingNow]

Yeah, what it says on the tin.

The Navy already has a decent pair of long-range Anti-Aircraft guns in the 5"/38 and 3"/50, but at shorter ranges. Unfortunately, the 1.1"/75 was well, unreliable, and utterly incapable of doing it's job properly given it's size, and likely contributed to a large number of very preventable sinkings. This was recognized before 1941, but unfortunately, couldn't be remedied in time, so several ships had to soldier on with the terrible 1.1"/75 through the war.

So, what if it was preempted by something better?
Like a combination of a 20-25mm Autocannon (which was a very wide field at the time) and a larger weapon, like the 37mm Gun M1 adopted by the Army, or the 40mm Bofors?

 

[HMS Warspite]

Yeah, what it says on the tin.

The Navy already has a decent pair of long-range Anti-Aircraft guns in the 5"/38 and 3"/50, but at shorter ranges. Unfortunately, the 1.1"/75 was well, unreliable, and utterly incapable of doing it's job properly given it's size, and likely contributed to a large number of very preventable sinkings. This was recognized before 1941, but unfortunately, couldn't be remedied in time, so several ships had to soldier on with the terrible 1.1"/75 through the war.

So, what if it was preempted by something better?
Like a combination of a 20-25mm Autocannon (which was a very wide field at the time) and a larger weapon, like the 37mm Gun M1 adopted by the Army, or the 40mm Bofors?

The USN not only had problems with the 1.1/75 Quad AA guns, but lacked a point defence capability as well, as the currently in use M-2 Watercooled MG was not a capable weapon against aircraft in its single mounting. (The quad was better, but still a bit too lightweight to stop an aircraft with a few hits.) The licence build 20mm Oerlikon was not in use in the needed numbers at the start of the Pacific War, just like the 40mm Bofors.

More important was the shape of the heavy AA as well, sicne the majority of the 5 inch AA guns was of the older 5 inch/25 type, which was a bit shortranged. The newer 38 cal was starting to enter service just yet.

 

[NothingNow]

True on both counts, but the 5"/25s were being replaced through refits as it was.
Meanwhile, adopting a mix of 20mm and heavy autocannons would supplant the Browning anyway, so it's not that big a deal if the money's there. Which it would be if someone killed the 1.1"/75.

 

[HMS Warspite]

The primary problem would have been the entire 30's policy of the US as such in the Depression, lacking funding for most military projects. The standard light AA weapon until the 1.1 inch/75 was the .50 M2 machinegun, which only was available in small numbers and in single mountings. The USN as such completely lacked a short range rapid fire weapon against air targets and was not yet willing to develop it, as such a thing was budgettary problematic. (The British had started their close range weapondevelopment in the early 20's, resulting in the multiple barrel 2pdr. gun in single, quad and octuple mountings, which was quite acceptable, but a bit short ranged and not very well operating in the tropical parts of the world.)

 

[Mad Missouri]

If the funding was there would it be possible for the US Navy to develop a 20mm Browning style heavy machine gun similar to the Japanese Ho-5? A double or quad mounting of those might fill that gap in short range AAA coverage.

 

[HMS Warspite]

If the funding was there would it be possible for the US Navy to develop a 20mm Browning style heavy machine gun similar to the Japanese Ho-5? A double or quad mounting of those might fill that gap in short range AAA coverage.

Technically that is true, however not necessarily politically, given the US policy at the time of isolationalism, despite FDR. The US and most otehr nations had not yet anticipated on the aircraft as major weapon of war at sea, so AA defences were rudimentary at best in most navies, with a possible exception in the Netherlands. Only the Netherlands made deveklopment of short range AA artillery a priority in their own designs. The UK was second, as it already had the experience of her own FAA development and considered the possibilites of airpower at sea, so reacted on it with the later standard mix of both heavy and shortranged light AA guns on her own ships.

The USN and IJN simmilarly mostly ignored their own airpower capabilities at sea, and undergunned their warships with means of airdefence. Although secondaries on both cruisers and partly on battleships as well, were DP in nature, their principle role was anti ship action. Short range Aa was to be a hand full of machineguns only, until the larger refits came in the later 30's.