Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
You are one cool dude, Ryan. FM was a repeat of scotsman's FM for FM Sir Alan Brooke, and he stated that there was a quote on the posting where he placed the cover [remember all that flourishing?], yet there was none...posts later he blithely said he was continuing.

 

But don't let reality intrude on what you think and say I am writing, you have wracked up a pretty clear record of that....

 

'one cool dud' - attitude

 

'flourishing' - attitude

 

Is this really needed? Just drop all the un-needed adjectives...they add nothing to the discussion...and come across as very condescending..

 

I did in fact use FM instead of typing out field marshal....if that helps clear the air....

  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
In support of the information Ryan posted...here is the shot record of second canadian in a segment of the normandy campaign...

 

As you can see they fired far more ammunition against ground targets than they did shooting at aircraft. The data gets even more skewed as the unit approached the Rhine and took part in Opn Veritable...among others...

 

Unfortunately, I don't have a similar level of detail for many of the other HAAA regiments, which is what the RA LTC is now chasing for me...this is about as 'primary' as it gets....and certainly shows just how heavily Allied HAA had begun to skew towards their secondary missions...in part due to LW target starvation...and in part because they were judged to be highly effective when so employed...

 

They were not 'ineffective' in their 'DP' fire support pursuits and had in fact extensively practice in both DF and indirect shoots before they shipped to normandy...with the exact training dates and ranges listed in the source document.

Will you get off your dead horse and think for a moment. HAA firing as arty is not DP. Any gun can be fired at ground targets, w/o regard to effectiveness, and if they have the simplest of arty controls [quadrant and arty sight, + a borrowed aiming circle] can be fired as indirect arty -- tanks, AT, light AA, tank destroyes, and so forth. If the other side is not firing back, the unarmored AA may even do direct fire with some effect.

 

and in part because they were judged to be highly effective when so employed...
...can be just as easily noted as making use of otherwise idle guns. The deciding factor would be some contemporary documents for which you have...none.

 

To say that you have no level of detail remains masterful understatement.

Posted (edited)
'one cool dud' - attitude

 

'flourishing' - attitude

 

Is this really needed? Just drop all the un-needed adjectives...they add nothing to the discussion...and come across as very condescending..

 

I did in fact use FM instead of typing out field marshal....if that helps clear the air....

My discussion with Ryan is none of yours. You were indeed flourishing [and wasting bandwidth] by posting covers. Did not impress me, I actually believe you have the books, howzzat? You did type FM and you did not post a quote from his diary with the cover, and that is what I was waiting for. Turns out it was not worth the wait. AB's comments do not prove the 3.7in was an effective AT gun, and we are still left with the general evidence that it was not so used.

 

You can just get back to the subtopic, instead of grousing about others' writing. You want better discussion, get back to serious writing instead of projecting your own attitudes on others. You have a lot of work to do, if you expect to post convincing evidence that the 3.7in was made into an effective AT gun at some point in time.

 

Posting rds fired during 1944 provides little evidence of employment as an effective AT gun, BTW.

Edited by Ken Estes
Posted (edited)
Is this a primary source in your eyes???

 

Beats me. What is its date? What is its provenance? Is it a collection of sea stories or does it contain the Operations Journal of the rgt? Do you really know what you are doing? Looks more like a child's play of one-upsmanship; in this case, played solitaire. You have a way to go before you gain my confidence.

 

Would this be a sample of the regt 'histories' you allude to? These are homegrown and range from very good to abysmal. There is no way to predict, but in any case official records and official histories form a good basis for review/confirmation.

 

What would be most useful are docs such as this one, from which I quoted, yet you insist [your snarky comments leave me most wary of you BTW] I have not used any primary sources:

 

 

Also of interest would be division and corps level reports of the actions you claim happened but have nothing to show for except tertiary comments by some LtCol in 1940, when a 3.7in HE rd would kill any German tank it happened to hit, by accident or intent.

Edited by Ken Estes
Posted
Did you or did you not make this statement Ken?

 

"we have no quote from Allan Brooke"

 

Were you or were you not in fact provided with his quotes? Not in the post where you said you were doing so. Try checking context/sequence of my comment.

 

If No continue...if Yes...'checkfire' in your own words....

 

Your 'discussion' of this is entirely circular I find you're in left field, so?

 

I don't think the gunners of either side would care one iota about your restrictive definition of DP...if someone tells them to drop the barrel and engage (and they are provisioned for it) they are in fact engaging in their secondary roles regardless of how demanding the individual tactical situation might be, or what the equipment of the gun mount is. Effectiveness is immaterial to the immediate tactical imperative... You continue to be silly. I have already pointed out the misnomer DP used in pop and other literature. It is inaccurate, begs correction, just as you seem to think the conventional wisdom on the 3.7in requires revision. Your substitution of DF adds nothing to the notion that HAA could be employed seamlessly as AT [hence, DP]. Fighting tanks appearing in range of a gun position not occupied for AT purposes is mere ad hoc self-protection, just as any cannon unit will do. Does not make it an effective AT gun, even if a tank might have been hit. Improvisation does not equal doctrine.

 

To me that is DP, to you it is not. Your definition is based on primary design intent apparently as it applies only to optics and gunshield etc, while mine is based on actual combat usage. provisioning of complimentary ammunition, and a demonstrated intent to use the weapon in the secondary role. Not true what I only consider valid, except I do not accept reported improvisation and in extremis actions as doctrine and operations.

 

No-one has moved the goal post...contrary to your claim. Yes, you now claim that firing in self defense meets the bill, where I posed no disagreement that the guns can defend themselves, or at last try.

 

To the best of my knowledge all users continually attempt to adapt or improve their guns to the job at hand...in the instance of both 3.7" and 90mm (which is in your Korean assertion above) both guns were on their way out in favor of missiles...and I dont find it surprising at all that mods were proposed to make better use of them in a DF role as that was all that was left. I am quite sure though that the US commanders in and around the bulge would have answered your AT question with 'Damn right! And anything else I can get to kill a German tank with too!' Utter speculation, and you wish discussion?

 

The Allied experience of HAA by the time 1944 rolled around was in fact as you laid out...there wasn't the same tactical imperative to shoot DF as the Germans had in the defense of the Reich...but the guns were heavily exercised in all their secondary missions in DF and indirect... No one has argued the guns cannot shoot in DF. That does not an AT gun make

 

Your original claim in all of this discussion was that the 88mm was not DP ...fine... your opinion. Understand that others have a different one...which I believe to be every bit as well founded as you probably believe you assertion is...'nuff said.... nuff said, I wish

 

Your secondary claim was the fire control of said HAA weapons did not in fact allow for effective usage in a secondary DF or AT role, in defense of which you offered up a rounds/kill data point from Jentz with no tactical context or backing. When provided with opposition evidence for Allied HAA operating in DF/AT in an unmodified state in 1940 (not having their principal AA instruments removed for the sake of DF), you took issue with that. I made no such statement. You can't keep track of who wrote what, yet accuse mye of circular arguments? I have no copy of Jentz. Stop using DF, when we are talking DP in AT.

 

You ask for evidence of Tigers and Panthers and I provided you with the war experience of a 3.7" gunner polled by an RA LTC - not by myself. I still have not gotten around to locating that original scan, but I have written the LTC again personally (today) on this and he is asking for involvement of the RSA in confirming/denying the experience and locating additional records. I'm sure I'll likely be told those records are sufficient in your view as well. Many of the vets are now dead or passing on, and time has been short to collect their experience...once gone...all we are left with is the written records we can lay our hands on. I'm doing the best I can as is an RA LTC, if you can do better, by all means step up to the plate... Spare me, it is a straw man, there obviously were no epic uses of the 3.7in vs tides of German tanks, PzKw VI or otehr.

 

You were provided a picture of the tobruk sight modification (which granted most people unfamiliar with 3.7" do not know even existed)..and yet you question 'some evidence of suitable controls' when its already been provided. Suitable is in the eyes of the beholder and therein lays our disagreement...suitable to me means its on the bloody gun and it was used....suitable to you apparently means something else... I never asked for a pic of the Tobruk. I argue that pointer/gunner is not an effective AT engagement procedure, and the German practice substantiates it. My experience in tank and 3"/50 gunnery confirms what I have read and been told by those who want to get into such esoteric details, including a pesky USMC MSgt turret and tank repairman who I can give you to.

 

Point taken on tactical plans...but it does display tactical intent does it not? It certainly calls into question the supposition that higher HQ were pathologically against employment of said weapon in that role...

 

Finally...Ill post a scan of a document which certainly should meet your primary source criteria...it certainly completely discounts the IWM observations made earlier about the training of gunners in a DF/AT role.

 

Plans are less useful if never executed. In absence of details, we don't know what the stumbling blocks may have been. Nor have we any authority on which the plan is derived. IOW, who ordered it, why, what was the reaction?

 

Any counter to IWM concept needs to match the time and context contained therein. I have no idea what the original IWM statement is; do you?

 

Sorry for the blue zinger notes, not my preferred style, but you are all over the chart, digress too much, pick bones of contention too much, and confuse my statements with those of others, and I am not sure I care, now that you do dumb stuff such as introducing the 40mm Bofors into the debate. WTF are you doing? Do even you know?

Posted

Let me get this straight Ken.

 

So an AAA gun fired at ground targets is not a secondary or dual purpose? aka InDirect Fire

Firing an AAA gun at ground soft/mixed/armoured targets is not a secondary or dual purpose? aka DF

Firing an AAA Gun at tanks could be a dual purpose. aka DP/AT

 

 

What is the definition of "dual purpose" Ken?

Posted

Uhhh

 

I am the one that posted Jentz info, not Ken.

 

If you talk to Jentz, like I have, you will find that he thinks the reputation for the 88Flak is vastly overated. In regards to the AT role. First gained its reputation by firing at tanks which did not have the capability to fight back. 2lber and its lack of HE. Seems that my post of making an 88 a viable AT platform is overlooked. Gun was way more proficient after modified away from its AA role.

 

So let me get this straight.

1.We have reports of two tanks destroyed in 1940.

2. A supposed dual with Tigers.

3. We have gunners receiving AP shot the day before action. Refresh my memory, did they see action with those AP rounds.Against Tanks.

4.Horizontal firing on soft ground calls for extreme recoil guard. Sorry Rm, but on snowy ground like the photo's would have made them very cumbersome to set up in the Winter of '44. That one photo on snowy ground which you claim is low level aim is like 40 degrees.

5. Number of rounds fired by 3.7 in France...How many were AP? Against Tanks.

 

Dual Purpose is a stupid designation. Implies that the guns we are discussing was proficient in both roles...they were not.

Posted
Ken, you're doing the board a disservice by throwing the insults when you can't get agreement with your own position. Stop resorting to Paul's, 5150 and Phil Golins tactics.

....

 

So far, where it comes to meat of discussion, you're coming up woefully short. It really is quite pathetic. You want to continue to throw insults, please, by all means, start a thread over on the FFZ. I'd rather talk with CG and Argus and others on the various points of tactical employment of AAA in the ground role than argue with you about what ever tiny nit you disagree with and then get it all blown out of proportion.

 

 

On the contrary, Ryan, you are the first to resot to uncivil FFZ tactics with me these days, as well as becoming unhinged, viz:

 

Perhaps you miss how a LOT of people consider Jon Stewart to be an accurate gauge of morality?

Of course you're utterly discounting the PTO invasion casualties up to that point and setting that aside for cynical reasons. How very liberally noble of you. Perhaps you can go on to explain how the white devils continued to rape Japan after the war ended? <_<

 

….

 

Use, sometimes not the actual intended purpose is what something is. Based on your strict adherence to dogma, I'd say you'd make a fine state level DMV bureaucrat or perhaps a code enforcement officer. ;)

 

What in the blazes is this then? Looks like an argument that AA guns have to fire thousands of rounds to hit aerial targets and if that's the case then they can't possibly shoot at a ground target like a tank. You're not comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing apples and nuts (not the vegetable type either).

 

....

Ken, why is it that in every bloody discussion you get into, it devolves into you getting foul and ill tempered. You really can't stop yourself from descending into snide comments and thinly veiled ridicule. Just stop it ok?

 

....

Posted
Let me get this straight Ken.

 

So an AAA gun fired at ground targets is not a secondary or dual purpose? aka InDirect Fire

Firing an AAA gun at ground soft/mixed/armoured targets is not a secondary or dual purpose? aka DF

Firing an AAA Gun at tanks could be a dual purpose. aka DP/AT

What is the definition of "dual purpose" Ken?

The def of DP has already been discussed and disagreed.

Any gun can fire and hit the ground. So, no, it is not DP for an artillery piece to also be able to do indirect fire or unload itself through the muzzle at some thing.

Firing a gun at tanks does not make the gun an AT gun.

Direct Fire is not DP.

 

Howzzat?

Posted
On the contrary, Ryan, you are the first to resot to uncivil FFZ tactics with me these days, as well as becoming unhinged, viz:

 

So complaining about your indeciferable logic is polite tactics?

 

And I hardly came unhinged. Typed quickly yes. As to the rest, I don't suppose we could go back into the archives and find where you've been inconsiderate to other members eh?

 

 

I'll leave off the jabs if you do Ken. How's that?

Posted
The def of DP has already been discussed and disagreed.

Any gun can fire and hit the ground. So, no, it is not DP for an artillery piece to also be able to do indirect fire or unload itself through the muzzle at some thing.

Firing a gun at tanks does not make the gun an AT gun.

Direct Fire is not DP.

 

Howzzat?

 

Still unclear. Firing and hitting hte ground isn't at question. Firing at German Targets and either killing them or neutralizing them is at issue. You've not proven that they cannot do so. Contrary, Scotsman has shown how they did do so.

 

Dual Purpose. Two Purpose. Engage Air Targets. Engage Ground targets.

 

Acting as either Anti-Aircraft Artillery AND acting as ground artillery would strongly imply two purposes or uses.

 

You cannot expect to see a 5.5 or 3.7" BL howitzer to engage airtargets to any appreciable effect. Using a 3.7 HAA gun battery as conventional artillery would certainly support a dual purpose role for the guns.

 

What did you suggest before by way of US Military terms:

dual-purpose weapon

(DOD) A weapon designed for delivering effective fire against air or surface targets.

 

Is neutralizing fire against German Batteries effective fire against surface targets?

 

Either way, I'm tired of arguing over the meaning of the term Dual Purpose. I'd like to see a new 3.7 thread that actually discusses the weapon system and history and leave the jabs and arguments over precise minutia as "dual purpose" out of it.

Posted
So complaining about your indeciferable logic is polite tactics?

 

And I hardly came unhinged. Typed quickly yes. As to the rest, I don't suppose we could go back into the archives and find where you've been inconsiderate to other members eh?

I'll leave off the jabs if you do Ken. How's that?

I can identify many unwarranted posts by you. There was a natural escalation.

Posted (edited)
Still unclear. Firing and hitting hte ground isn't at question. Firing at German Targets and either killing them or neutralizing them is at issue. You've not proven that they cannot do so. Contrary, Scotsman has shown how they did do so.

 

Dual Purpose. Two Purpose. Engage Air Targets. Engage Ground targets.

 

Acting as either Anti-Aircraft Artillery AND acting as ground artillery would strongly imply two purposes or uses.

 

You cannot expect to see a 5.5 or 3.7" BL howitzer to engage airtargets to any appreciable effect. Using a 3.7 HAA gun battery as conventional artillery would certainly support a dual purpose role for the guns.

 

What did you suggest before by way of US Military terms:

Is neutralizing fire against German Batteries effective fire against surface targets?

 

Either way, I'm tired of arguing over the meaning of the term Dual Purpose. I'd like to see a new 3.7 thread that actually discusses the weapon system and history and leave the jabs and arguments over precise minutia as "dual purpose" out of it.

OK tell me the exact expenditure of AP vs tank. Seems they counted HE. Why not AP. US Tank Destroyers can give you exact expenditure of HE vs AP.

Edited by C.G.Erickson
Posted

Well, since you can take regular field guns and shoot them at aircraft (or at least shoot them into the sky) does that make all field guns dual purpose?

 

See: http://www.earlyaviator.com/archive/image3/imag1594.jpg

 

Both the British 3.7 pack howitzer and the American 75mm pack howitzer were provided with heat shells, does this make them dual purpose anti-tank guns? I have no doubt that either of them, or both, did actually hit and destroy tanks during WW II. the American gun inparticular, having a covered arc of about 90 feet at 300yds range before the gun has to be shifted to track a moving target, seems a poor substitute for a real AT gun. The 300yds is about their limit for anti-tank work given their muzzle velocity. Maybe 360 yds?

 

A true dual purpose weapon should have some design features to suit it to both roles vrs just adhoc use or even improvised modifications. And a true dual purpose weapon might have made sacrifices in one area to suit for working in the other area.

Posted
A true dual purpose weapon should have some design features to suit it to both roles vrs just adhoc use or even improvised modifications. And a true dual purpose weapon might have made sacrifices in one area to suit for working in the other area.

Finally a statement of wisdom. Versatility is the enemy of excellence. A gun that can do both is a gun that is excellent at nothing. AA guns must be quickly deployable in order to at least try to keep up with shifting aircraft attacks. That requires a light chassis. An AT gun must be capable of steady repeated fire at zero or near zero elevation which requires a heavy stable mount making it difficult to transport quickly. Those requirements are in conflict and will probably never be resolved.

Posted (edited)
OK tell me the exact expenditure of AP vs tank. Seems they counted HE. Why not AP. US Tank Destroyers can give you exact expenditure of HE vs AP.

CG, perhaps we all ought to cut to the chase and count the numbers of tanks KO'd by this most deadly 3.7in in all of WWII? I guess it is likely c. 10? That does not prove it a capable AT system although certainly capable of killing if it gets a hit. It is far easier to count the reasons it was not so employed.

 

A J Smithers noted [Rude Mechanicals] that after Dunkirk, the Armaments Cmte [not sure of name] offered Whitehall the choice of receiving 200 6-pdr or 600 2-pdr AT guns in the next production cycle. It chose the 2-pdr, delaying the entry of the former into service. In 1940, there was no need for 3.7in AT to kill tanks, but considerable in AAA, as the BOB was about to begin. This is why a visit by Alan Brooke to see AT trials around then that included up to 3.7in has little value. By the time the German heavies showed up, 6-pdr was issued and the new 17-pdr would solve the problem best.

 

The problem of split gunner/pointer and other less than adequate features limited the usefulness of medium/heavy AA guns in AT role. So the pundits who have written that these were DP weapons remain in error. That all types of arty have fired, usually in self-defense, against tanks, sometimes with issued AP/HEAT ammo, makes them neither good AT weapons nor DP guns. That all types of arty can usually fire in direct fire [since 1453] mode amounts to their modern secondary mission [exc for AT and Inf Guns], and nobody has ever called that DP.

 

It was not only the Germans who solved the dual gunner problem via conversions. Amid all the useless heat and discontent we have experienced, I plumb forgot the case of the Hybrid M3 light tanks and the 8th Army workshops.

The Army had decided to install power turret traverse in the M3 series and the turret “basket” already proven beneficial in British designs.... This action resulted in the delivery of many M3 “hybrid” tanks at the end of the M3 production run, fitted with the new flat-top turret and gun mount but without power traverse and basket. But the mount designed for the missing power traverse also lacked the 20 degree gymbal movement formerly used by the gunner to lay on target. The tank commander-loader handled the manual traverse, but had no gunner’s sight, while the gunner had elevation but no final traverse control.... Dubbed “flat-tops,” the Hybrids were condemned as unfit for combat and useless even for training. Apparently, similar tanks went to the British Army as part of scheduled lend-lease shipments. Their ordnance shops in the field changed the manual traverse to the gunner’s position to solve the immediate problem, but the [Marine]Corps of course lacked any such field capability in 1942
Edited by Ken Estes
Posted (edited)
....As to the rest, I don't suppose we could go back into the archives and find where you've been inconsiderate to other members eh?

I'll leave off the jabs if you do Ken. How's that?

Consider it done. As I mentioned the day before:(

Ken Estes @ Thu 7 May 2009 1326) .... keep your opinions about me to yourself. You don't know me, and we can keep it that way.
The Moderators, not you, have the unenviable task of deciding what is "inconsiderate to other members."

 

....

I'd like to see a new 3.7 thread that actually discusses the weapon system and history ....

 

That was, in fact, your idea for Scotsman:

 

Welcome aboard.

 

You need to start a 3.7" HAA thread. Post your stuff. The guys here will eat it up.

 

…and we do like this stuff!

Edited by Ken Estes
Posted
AA guns must be quickly deployable in order to at least try to keep up with shifting aircraft attacks. That requires a light chassis. An AT gun must be capable of steady repeated fire at zero or near zero elevation which requires a heavy stable mount making it difficult to transport quickly.

JWB, you've got that exactly backwards.

 

A heavy AA gun is sited by an important target and waits for the enemy aircraft, because the enemy aircraft can shift targets much faster than any ground-bound gun can move. That's why many AA guns over 100mm caliber don't even have mobile mountings (look at the British 4.5inch and 5.25inch AA guns and the US 105mm AA gun).

 

On the other hand, a tank is intrinsically slower than aircraft, and will almost never be driving straight forward at maximum speed when advancing against the enemy. So at least in theory, it is possible to concentrate antitank guns against a major enemy armored attack, and this in fact was the doctrine of the US Tank Destroyer Command.

 

And when it comes down to actual engineering design, the requirement that an AA gun have high elevation and true 360 degree traverse (both at high speed) plus high rate of fire, means that an AA gun will inevitably be heavier than an equivalent antitank gun. Compare the weight of the US 90mm AA gun (19,000lbs for Gun M1A1 on Mount M1A1, 32,300lbs for Gun M2 on Mount M2) with the weight of the 90mm antitank gun developed from it (6,800lbs for Gun T8 on Carriage T5E2).

 

Hojutsuka

Posted
JWB, you've got that exactly backwards.

 

A heavy AA gun is sited by an important target and waits for the enemy aircraft, because the enemy aircraft can shift targets much faster than any ground-bound gun can move. That's why many AA guns over 100mm caliber don't even have mobile mountings (look at the British 4.5inch and 5.25inch AA guns and the US 105mm AA gun).

 

On the other hand, a tank is intrinsically slower than aircraft, and will almost never be driving straight forward at maximum speed when advancing against the enemy. So at least in theory, it is possible to concentrate antitank guns against a major enemy armored attack, and this in fact was the doctrine of the US Tank Destroyer Command.

 

And when it comes down to actual engineering design, the requirement that an AA gun have high elevation and true 360 degree traverse (both at high speed) plus high rate of fire, means that an AA gun will inevitably be heavier than an equivalent antitank gun. Compare the weight of the US 90mm AA gun (19,000lbs for Gun M1A1 on Mount M1A1, 32,300lbs for Gun M2 on Mount M2) with the weight of the 90mm antitank gun developed from it (6,800lbs for Gun T8 on Carriage T5E2).

 

Hojutsuka

That is what happens at late night posting. :lol: But it remains true that no gun and carriage can be excellent at both AT and AA.

Posted
That is what happens at late night posting. :lol: But it remains true that no gun and carriage can be excellent at both AT and AA.

 

AT Carriage vs AAA Carriage, most certainly, but if you have the most well designed AT gun carriage and your gun cannot penetrate the enemy's tanks consistently except all but the most optimum cases (ass end shot at 100 yards) then is that really all that effective?

 

What made the various AAA guns most effective at AT gun function is that when they could get a round on the target at very long ranges for normal direct fire work, the guns would usually make mincemeat of the tanks they were shooting at. What makes them excellent for hurling large heavy shells at high altitude with a high rate of fire for such a large gun also makes them excellent at hurling large AP rounds at tanks at long range at a high rate of fire. The high rate of fire allows VERY fast followup shots that would otherwise mean the inability to adjust on a miss quickly enough.

 

The axiom of "there's no replacement for displacement" in engine horsepower concerns is certainly still valid for AT guns where it concerns the bore of the gun and a nice large chamber (displacement in and of itself).

Posted

What you say is quite true.

And it applies to many armies of the time.

Why did the Germans use the 88 as an anti-tank gun? Maybe because in 1939-40 and part of 41 their standard 37mm AT gun had a performance that made the 2pdr look like a real power house. There are stories that even in France it was nicknamed the "armies door knocker" or something close to it. Having trouble with Renault R-35s and Hotchkiss light tanks let alone Somua's and Char B1s is going to lead to desperate measures. The Pak 38 may not have been all that good against T-34s and KVs either, at least without APCR ammo.

 

the problem with using AAA guns instead of "proper" AT guns is the size and weight makes them very difficult to move, dig in, hide/camaflage and retreat with. The much larger tow vehicles might also be a consideration against more "universal" emplyment.

 

"proper" AT guns being ones that are at least powerful enough to do the job. So for your consideration a few numbers from an old Jane's Armour and Artillery book. New information may change things a bit.

 

Russian 85mm M1939 AA gun and Russian D-44 Divisional gun. The AA gun weighed 4300kg vrs 1750 for the Feild/AT gun. Rates of fire were the same (20 rpm) max range was the same at 15,650 meters (divisional gun had 35 degrees of elevation.) Axis of bore is given as 1.55 meters for the AA vrs 0.825 meters for the D-44. Or compare the british 17pdr and the 3.7in AA which curiously had very similar armour piercing performance.

 

Could AAA guns shoot at tanks? Yes.

Could AAA guns hit tanks? yes

Could AAA guns destroy tanks? Yes.

Should AAA guns be employed as standard procedure against tanks?

Should AAA guns be employed against tanks instead of fielding proper AT guns?

Posted
Should AAA guns be employed as standard procedure against tanks?

Should AAA guns be employed against tanks instead of fielding proper AT guns?

Well I'd say the Wehrmacht is the final arbiter regarding the duality of FlaK18 and 36. Were they truly DP weapons there would be no reason to field, much less employ PaK43s, along side their AAA cousins.
Posted
Well I'd say the Wehrmacht is the final arbiter regarding the duality of FlaK18 and 36. Were they truly DP weapons there would be no reason to field, much less employ PaK43s, along side their AAA cousins.

 

I'm puzzled a bit here...

 

ISTR that the PaK43 was the L71 gun as used in the JagdPanther and Tiger Ausf B - although I do concede this is purely from memory and it isn't infallible. The FlaK 18 and FlaK 36 definitely used the L56 tube as in the Tiger Ausf E

 

There may also be 'ownership' issues at work as well - the AAA guns were likely to be Luftwaffe owned, even when attached to wehrmacht units as I understand it. The wehrmacht would own and man any artillery or AT weapons however. It wouldn't be the first or last time that duplication of effort was allowed to happen where not necessary in order to serve politics.

Posted

According to Ian Hogg's Book "German Artillery of WW II" the 88mm Flak 41 weighed 7800 kg in action while the Pak 43 of similar but not identical performance weighed 3700 kg. both had 360 deree traverse. The Pak gun had elevation limits of -8 to +40 compared to the Flak gun's -3 to +90. The Flak gun achived it's low silhouette in part by trunnioning the gun behind the breech block. The more conventional appearing Pak 43/41 was heavier at 4380 kg and had elevation limits of -5 to +38 and a traverse of 56 degrees. Since much of it's carraige was cobbled together from existing bits and pieces perhaps it can be excused.

It is interesting that for an increase of under 10% in weight over that of the 3.7in AA gun the Germans were able to construct a prototype 12.8cm AT/Field gun with 360 degree traverse. It may have been a bit too lightly constructed. This is not a commment of the skills/abilities of British and German gun makers but rather a note on the cost, in size and weight, of the extra elevation that AAA guns needed.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...