Why did different air threats lead navies to favor Bofors or pom-pom anti-aircraft guns?
Short answerThe choice reflected range, duration of fire, ammunition feed, and how the weapon fitted into layered air defense rather than geography alone.
NotesBofors offered greater reach in a short, sharp attack, particularly when a destroyer or small cruiser faced a few aircraft without extensive supporting air defence. The belt-fed pom-pom suited prolonged attacks because ammunition belts could be extended while the guns kept firing. British expectations included repeated waves of land-based aircraft over engagements lasting half an hour or longer. Fighters and heavier anti-aircraft guns covered other parts of the fleet's defensive envelope, reducing the importance of maximizing the pom-pom's range. Effective range also differed from maximum range: the roughly 1,500-yard figure concerned concentrating enough shells through the target area to make repeated hits likely. Several hits were desirable to destroy an attacking aircraft quickly. Engagement duration, ammunition feed, and the surrounding defensive system therefore shaped the choice.