Talk:Type 96 25 mm AT/AA gun

This article needs some serious work.
I'd like to help out, but I have absolutely no knowlege of these things.

Attempted copyedit
I have attempted a farily radical copyediting of this article, but I fear that, due to my inibility to comprehend some of the language, some of the intended meaning may have been lost. This may not be a problem, though, since this is a Wiki and will tend toward correction over time anyway. --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Some further issues to address
There are still some really serious issues to address with this page: I intend to keep working on what I can. I hope that the copyediting I did has made the article at least a little less intimidating to the community. --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
 * The most glaring and serious problem is that the title uses the convention "25 mm" (i.e., with a space) instead of "25mm" (without). The article title should be changed (or moved to an appropriately named page).
 * The article needs some serious Wikification. In fact, I think I will throw that tag up there as well.
 * There seems to be a lot of duplicate, irrelevant and extraneous information in the article. Since I am no military expert, I cannot trim it down and clarify it myself.
 * Due to the language of the original article, there may be a lot of factual inaccuracies due to misinterpretation. These should be addressed as well.
 * The article is still confusing and awkward to read. The cleanup tag is still there for a good reason!
 * It seems that the title problem may not be a problem at all, since most pages about cannon seem to use the number-space-units convention(e.g., "25 mm") rather than the traditional notation (e.g., "25mm"). Maybe we need to do nothing, or maybe we should create a page with the alternate notation that re-directs here? --InformationalAnarchist 8 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

The bottom photo entitled "A triple-mount anti-aircraft installation" is obviously a scale model and not a very good one at that. I would recommend it be removed.RZid (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the specifications/values are different than those given in U.S. intelligence reports, see http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/handbook-japanese-military/japanese-antiaircraft.html TM-E 30-480: Handbook on Japanese Military Forces Technical Manual, U.S. War Department, October 1, 1944 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abacabgenesis (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

hit rate
"Japanese military estimated that it required an average of 1,500 rounds to down an aircraft at a height of 1,000 meters and a range of 2,000 meters and that fire beyond that range was completely ineffective. Later in the war when ammunition supply was restricted, firing was held until the targets were within 800 meters range this dropped to a low as seven rounds per aircraft according to Japanese sources [3]." That's incorrect, for sure. Maybe it took seven hits to down one aircraft, but it took CERTAINLY more than seven shots to down one. Maybe seven bursts. 22:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastdingo (talk • contribs)
 * That is, surprisingly perhaps, exactly what the US reports state, "7 round per aircraft"
 * See here (page 6, center) http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200F-0370-0383%20Report%20O-44.pdf -174.79.0.29 (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Designation
I'm not sure about the AT/AA designation for this weapon. I know that there was a Japanese 20mm weapon so designated, but I've never heard it applied to this weapon. Just because it may have been used as an anti-armor weapon does not mean it should be so designated.--172.190.50.79 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Type 98 100 mm anti-aircraft gun
I don't think this is correct: "…second in effectiveness to the Type 98 100 mm anti-aircraft gun." The Type 98 was a 20mm gun. The Type 14 was a 100mm gun. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The Japanese Navy introduced a dual purpose 100mm (3.9in/65cal) gun on its later destroyers, often mounted in double turrets, called the Type 98, a superb weapon. It is this model weapon being referenced. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki_class_destroyer_%281942%29174.79.0.29 (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Combat Effectiveness

 * The deficiencies of this weapon cannot be overemphasized. The Japanese Imperial Navy literally put all of most of their AA eggs into the Type 96's basket (as it were), and while it seemed adequate prior to the outbreak of hostilities, it would fail them again and again in providing effective defense of their naval vessels. Attacks that should/could have been beaten off with a better system were pressed home, with decisive results.174.79.0.29 (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * a) The weight (and presumably cost) should not be overlooked. It was 2145kg for a triple 25mm, compared to around 11 tons for a Bofors quad 40mm. Accounting for weight, the 1650 rounds per minute of five triple 25mm compares favourably with 560 of a quad 40mm. This would mean it achieved greater kills per minute per ton of gun than a Bofors 40mm, albeit at shorter range.
 * b) According to the technical mission to Japan (O-47) "It is said to be a very effective gun against U.S. aircraft."
 * c) The Le Prieur sights were back up sights, in case the type 95 director failed.
 * d) A traverse rate of 18 degrees per second makes it inadequate to track close range targets, but should have no issues at planes further than 700m. Free swinging single mounts were used for point defence. 120.17.134.210 (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * At last - someone who knows what they're talking about and talks some sense.
 * At no point during any discussion of this weapon (and this 'encyclopedic article' veers horribly close to being a pub discussion of the subject, full of opinions, vague 'comparisons and weasel words) is the actual combat effectiveness ever discussed in terms of percentiles, or even comparing the single mounts (fully equivalent in function and purpose to an Oerlikon, not a Bofors) with the multiples.
 * All we ever see is "excessive vibration" and "slow triple mounts", along with "inferior to (significantly larger) Bofors".
 * A weapon in the same category, by dint of calibre and projectile, as the 20mm Oerlikon cannon or the 20mm Breda, this light autocannon is forever being compared with a heavy autocannon. Rather than simply addressing the fact that the IJN lacked a heavy autocannon for the medium-range AA role, and their close-range light AA gun had to make up for this by stepping into the role, which could never work of course. (Machine-guns are moot, since all nations found them equally ineffective, even if the IJN continued using them in moderate numbers).
 * What was the true effectiveness in terms of US aircraft shot down by the single mounts? How many rounds per aircraft kill, etc?
 * One is left wondering how any US aircraft were ever shot down and what was the tool which was actually doing this?
 * I am afraid this article is still very apparently shot through with a certain brand of bias. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:5C4:8742:1241:3AAE (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Title.
I don't like the title. At the very least, "Gun" shouldn't be capitalized. Whenever I link to this article, I'm forced to write (bracket)Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun|Type 96 25 mm gun(bracket) so it doesn't look stupid. Other articles don't say "20 cm/45 3rd Year Naval Gun", they say "20 cm/45 3rd Year naval gun", because the designation is "20 cm/45 3rd Year", which is a naval gun.

Next, I dislike the "AT/AA" (notice I left that out as well). I doubt that is the official designation of the gun. How about "dual-purpose gun". I am sure it was not designed as an anti-tank gun (where does the Navy fight tanks, anyway?), and therefore would not be designated as one. Perhaps it was USED against tanks, at some point, but not designated "AT/AA". The German 88 was always a "Flak" gun, even though it was used as an AT gun). Personally, I wonder if the person who made the article isn't confusing it with one of the Armies 20mm (or maybe 25mm) guns, which would be an entirely different gun, as the two services never shared weapons.

Next, is the official designation "25 mm"? Other Japanese naval guns are measured in cm, not mm, just like German guns are. Shouldn't it be "2.5 cm"? Also, other naval guns list the caliber of the weapon after the bore size (12 cm/45). Perhaps it was officially a "machine gun" and thus classified differently? I've found articles that appear to have been written by someone, possibly Japanese, with a poor grasp of English, which repeatedly referred to it as a "25mm machine gun"; perhaps they know something? Or maybe they just translate badly. I'd like to see "2.5 cm/60(?) Type 96 dual purpose gun" or "anti-aircraft gun", as that is likely the official purpose and designation..45Colt 01:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)