Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

While I have little doubt that the HAA regts of the BA, some of the bns of the US army itched to get into the fight at times, the technical merits of chamber pressure and range have little bearing on the tactical situation. Logistics dominates war, as well as the battle. Lugging around oversize and unwieldy carriages across varied terrain with roadbound transport plus adding their peculiar ammo requirements does not conform well to the tactical requirements and conditions. The infantry had their handy AT guns, and the armored units had tank destroyers and tanks, all at the battalion level. For the divisional AT regts and bns, the 6pdr/57mm was killing any tank of 1942-43 OK, and the 17 pdr in both towed and mobile carriages ditto for 44-45; a bit less so for the US 3-in gun, not discovered until ashore at Normandy. After Alam Halfa, the British were usually on the offensive, as were the US after Kasserine Pass, The difficulties of hauling HAA forward to contribute to the fight far outweighed any advantage [increasingly marginal] they might have posed. In a nutshell, this probably is why so little use was made of them and why they did not need any conversion to make them more capable as AT weapons. They remained single-use guns, pressed into duty as ordinary arty when idle and a need could be found for them.

 

Had these armies fought for any long period on the defensive and failed to hold the ground, any number of factors might have caused them to employ HAA, as did the Germans, in dedicated AT roles. It is easy to speculate that many more drastic modifications would have been called for [with the shaking out that sustained combat would have provided] than the rudimentary ones that improved 90mm and 3.7in 'direct fire' employment. In any event, such was not the case, and the guns remained well to the rear except for unusual cases, that we can call 'exceptions.' It may seem real neat to put a HAA into action against a tank or two, but ideas of sweeping the Panzerwaffen away with overwhelmingly rapid , heavy, accurate, LR HAA fire just were not going to happen. The war and its combats were not like that.

  • Replies 331
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Lets take a look at just one action with the vaunted 88 in action. That pariah of Dual Purposity.

Operation Sonnenblume 1941.

May 17 1941.

I./Flak Regiment 33

British lost 65 Matilda mk 2s and 29 Cruiser Tanks for a total of 94.

Flak Regiment "claimed" 79 of these Even tho the entire 5th and 8th Panzer Regiments were in action along with the 5th Leichte Division.

But lets say that the 88's did knock out those 79 out of 94 British tanks, they expended 1,680 AP rounds to do it. Not very efficient.

Posted
But lets say that the 88's did knock out those 79 out of 94 British tanks, they expended 1,680 AP rounds to do it. Not very efficient.

 

This is something that always been a problem for me. We read about the 'superior' German gunnery and optics. How they always managed to hit the target with one or two shots. This made me wonder what happened to the MILLIONS of AP shells they fired during the war. Obviously there must have been an enormous number of rounds fired for each Allied tank destroyed.

Anyone have the ammunition expenditure for W Europe 1944-45? The number of US/British tanks lost is known so it should be easy to make a rough calculation.

Posted
This is something that always been a problem for me. We read about the 'superior' German gunnery and optics. How they always managed to hit the target with one or two shots. This made me wonder what happened to the MILLIONS of AP shells they fired during the war. Obviously there must have been an enormous number of rounds fired for each Allied tank destroyed.

Anyone have the ammunition expenditure for W Europe 1944-45? The number of US/British tanks lost is known so it should be easy to make a rough calculation.

Remember, this was with a Flak version of the 88, with tandem gunners. Very awkward to use. You have the primary gunner on the 88 yelling at the Azimuth controller...FASTER!!!!FASTER!!! While he has locked on to the proper elevation and is cringing that the lead angle is not set for a shot. Or vice versa. By the time of Normandy, US tankers (At least the ones I have talked to.) said it only took 88's 1 or 2 rounds to hit. What was the difference? Modifications to the direct fire system which allowed ONE gunner to fully control the gun. This took it out of the AA role. The vets shot down my idea that the Germans had years to pre-range their guns or Bore-site them in their beaten zone.

 

Optics were superior on the 88 (azimuth, and Elevation) it was just being able to maximize their potential to get the best benifit from both settings.Elevation and Lead.

Posted
This is something that always been a problem for me. We read about the 'superior' German gunnery and optics. How they always managed to hit the target with one or two shots.

Akin to the reknowned omnipotence of the 5"/38 Cal for shooting down Japanese aircraft. I think I read that for every Japanese aircraft shot down by the 5", thousands of rounds were expended.

Posted
This is something that always been a problem for me. We read about the 'superior' German gunnery and optics. How they always managed to hit the target with one or two shots. This made me wonder what happened to the MILLIONS of AP shells they fired during the war. Obviously there must have been an enormous number of rounds fired for each Allied tank destroyed.

Anyone have the ammunition expenditure for W Europe 1944-45? The number of US/British tanks lost is known so it should be easy to make a rough calculation.

I think Jentz in his books states this as practice vs actual combat. Practice is nothing compared to the actual fear involved in gunnery. Can make any gunnery commander sh*& his pants and bark out fire commands in a totally incoherent manner.

Posted

But if it only took 1 or 2 rounds to get a hit where did all the other AP ammo go? Regardless of it being AA or Pak, 75mm or 88mm the number of issued shell MUST be greatly in excess of knocked out vehicles.

You can't have it both ways. Deadly accurate with the first shot v hundreds of rounds used. The two are not compatible.

Posted
But if it only took 1 or 2 rounds to get a hit where did all the other AP ammo go? Regardless of it being AA or Pak, 75mm or 88mm the number of issued shell MUST be greatly in excess of knocked out vehicles.

You can't have it both ways. Deadly accurate with the first shot v hundreds of rounds used. The two are not compatible.

I think it safe to say the 88 gained its reptutation primarily because it could reach out and do damage. It might take several rounds to achieve the hit, but once had, the hit did the target no good whatsoever. Victims never talk about the rounds that miss, only those that hit. And the 88 gunners wouldn't do anything to disabuse the victim's terror stories of deadly accurate 88 fire.
Posted
But if it only took 1 or 2 rounds to get a hit where did all the other AP ammo go? Regardless of it being AA or Pak, 75mm or 88mm the number of issued shell MUST be greatly in excess of knocked out vehicles.

You can't have it both ways. Deadly accurate with the first shot v hundreds of rounds used. The two are not compatible.

You are trying to compare direct fire with "Dual Purpose" guns. AT guns by definition have relative Direct Fire ranges for their ammunition type. They are not expected to shoot down aircraft. They are dug into the ground, to better hide themselves in the mirage of distance. Reducing their effective rate for the ability to inflict damage while still hidden. Michael Whittman prided himself on the destruction of AT guns as opposed to Tanks.

 

The difference in deadly accurate vs an Artillery barage is "Aimed" fire. How many guns are employed to ensure a "soft" or hard target is destroyed.

Posted

I only wonder how much AP ammo was issued for the '88'. Was it on the same scale as AA rounds? I have seen figures that say the average 1944 AA usuage was over a million rounds a month.

Maybe I am not making myself clear enough. If say 100,000 AP rounds were issued and 15000 armoured vehicles hit then somewhere along the line a lot are going astray. Surely it took more than one or two rounds to get a hit.

Posted
If say 100,000 AP rounds were issued and 15000 armoured vehicles hit then somewhere along the line a lot are going astray. Surely it took more than one or two rounds to get a hit.
6.5 rounds per vehicle hit wouldn't be bad at all when you consider that not all rounds will destroy said vehicle therefore multiple hits are used and there are always the supply vehicles being lost. I know you pulled 100,000-15,000 out of thin air but the ratio would have to be much greater than that to catch one's attention.
Posted

How many 75mm AP rounds were issued vs German and Japanese tanks/Bunkers killed?

 

:(

Posted
Akin to the reknowned omnipotence of the 5"/38 Cal for shooting down Japanese aircraft. I think I read that for every Japanese aircraft shot down by the 5", thousands of rounds were expended.

Numbers of rounds per claimed kill with 5"/38's employing VT fuzes in 1944 were in a range of 60-240 rounds per kill depending range, or day v night, very low ratio for WWII heavy AA guns. For time fuze firing it was much higher (order of 3-4 times less efficient) but that was still quite low relatively. In 1944 the Germans calculated that the ratio for 88mm in the flak role had deterorated to 16,000 per kill from previously lower levels. However besides real effectiveness of the gun, there's the ammo (VT fuze made a big difference), tactical circumstances (target coming to the gun for most USN engagements, though OTOH smaller a/c and moving in three dimensions), and accuracy of the count of kills (US Army 3" AA batteries on Corregidor in 1941-42 claimed 500 rounds per kill despite using mostly obsolescent powder train fuzes, but that's based on a large overstatement of bomber losses compared to Japanese records).

 

Most of those same factors need to be kept in mind evaluating round per kill ratios in the much easier problem of hitting a slower moving tank in two dimensions. The ratio quoted for Sonnenblum is high compared to what? It's not realistic to compare it to ideals in training conditions for later generations of anti-tank systems where one or a few rounds per kill might be expected. Besides the technological differences, the later systems don't really achieve those ratio's in combat either (even besides missing, there's the issue of hitting the same dead tanks again and again, which may make tactical sense to make sure they're dead but drives the raw ratio up). I suspect if we compared the Sonnenblum numbers to rounds per real kill for Allied tanks and TD's in WWII they wouldn't look high at all. And the bottom line is that desert strongpoints featuring 88 Flak could devastate tank attacks of the sort (not well coordinated with other arms) the British tended to carry out for much of the NA campaign. I don't think there's myth there, but a fact that 88 Flak was quite effective in AT role in North Africa, though more so when optimized by changes to fire control that removed its AA capability.

 

Joe

Posted

I recognise all the above but the basic point remains unanswered. Much is made of the 1st shot accuracy of the 88. If this is true then the ammo expended must be low because we are talking about 6000 Allied tanks lost in NW Europe. If they only needed 2 shots per victim then ammo expenditure must have been pretty low.

If anyone had the 88 AP numbers them at least we would have somewhere to start. Looking at the AA rate I suspect we are in for a shock.

Theoretical example. A Tiger has 50 rounds of AP. Does this mean each time it re-loaded it had hit 25 armoured targets? Every Tiger every time? Was it 10? Perhaps 5?

Posted
I recognise all the above but the basic point remains unanswered. Much is made of the 1st shot accuracy of the 88. If this is true then the ammo expended must be low because we are talking about 6000 Allied tanks lost in NW Europe. If they only needed 2 shots per victim then ammo expenditure must have been pretty low.

If anyone had the 88 AP numbers them at least we would have somewhere to start. Looking at the AA rate I suspect we are in for a shock.

Theoretical example. A Tiger has 50 rounds of AP. Does this mean each time it re-loaded it had hit 25 armoured targets? Every Tiger every time? Was it 10? Perhaps 5?

 

How do you know it's the first shot? The trajectory is sufficiently flat that a miss could be right on the correct elevation but not quite for lay or be sufficiently off that while not far off, the target doesn't realize they're being shot at until AP shot has drilled through the vehicle. Did the 8.8cm AP shot have a bursting charge?

Posted
I recognise all the above but the basic point remains unanswered. Much is made of the 1st shot accuracy of the 88. If this is true then the ammo expended must be low because we are talking about 6000 Allied tanks lost in NW Europe. If they only needed 2 shots per victim then ammo expenditure must have been pretty low.

A gun having the inherent accuracy to hit a target after one (or few) ranging shots, doesn't mean you'd except the overall ratio for a whole battle or campaign to be 2 or few per kill. I don't see a contradiction there. The (potentially immense) increase from 2 to dozens of rounds wouldn't be properly aimed shots at fresh targets which missed because of dispersion. They'd be misses due to misaimed shots (combat stress), multiple hits on the same target by the same or different guns, and it might be worthwhile in totally open desert terrain, but where heat mirage often concealed a dug in AT gun, to open fire at very long range, with little chance of any effective return fire from the tank. The goal was to knock out tanks or defeat tank attacks, subject to logistical contraints on shells (or gun barrels), but not particularly to try to achieve very low rounds per kill.

 

I do agree that the point you responded to compares apples and oranges, US tanker first hand account impression of '88' (which notoriously meant pretty much any tank/AT gun, anyway) accuracy in typically closed terrain in Normandy v. real 88 ammo expenditure and real British losses in North Africa. But there's still no contradiction in flak 88's inherent capability to hit at a certain range in a few shots, with an overall expenditure per enemy loss being much higher than that. But it would surely vary depending on the typical range and circumstances of engagements, among other things.

 

Joe

Posted

I don't want to get into the semantics of "dual-purpose" - there's quite a lot of dancing on pin-heads going on!

 

Here is, however, what I thought is an interesting quote illustrating the use of 3.7-inch AA guns in an artillery barrage, in this case that which preceeded the attack on the Reichswald

 

What enemy outposts and first-line troops are going through is almost inconceivable. You try to imagine the stunning effects of the airbursts alone, 50,000 from ninety-six 3.7-inch heavy anti-aircraft guns firing on flat trajectories, filling the air with savage showers of shell fragments.

 

Source:

 

Blackburn, George G. The Guns of War. Robinson, London, 2000. ISBN 1-84119-210-4

Posted
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.

 

There really is no doubt that the 3.7, with a few exceptions, was under less tactical pressure than the 88mm as regards AT performance. Thats a ntural function of the material superiority enjoyed by the Allies. The 6pdr production delay was directly affected by the outcome in France...some guns of any type were better than no guns at all...and the trade (pulling from memory) was only one to one if the shorter barreled 6pdr was opted for. (There wasnt much difference in performance between the two variants)

 

I do believe this thread has worn me out...not worth the effort...

 

Posted
Lets take a look at just one action with the vaunted 88 in action. That pariah of Dual Purposity.

Operation Sonnenblume 1941.

May 17 1941.

I./Flak Regiment 33

British lost 65 Matilda mk 2s and 29 Cruiser Tanks for a total of 94.

Flak Regiment "claimed" 79 of these Even tho the entire 5th and 8th Panzer Regiments were in action along with the 5th Leichte Division.

But lets say that the 88's did knock out those 79 out of 94 British tanks, they expended 1,680 AP rounds to do it. Not very efficient.

 

In terms of ammunition expenditure...very few WWII guns were efficient as range increased. Thats probably true of all armies I should think, given the quality of WWII FCS...

Posted
Akin to the reknowned omnipotence of the 5"/38 Cal for shooting down Japanese aircraft. I think I read that for every Japanese aircraft shot down by the 5", thousands of rounds were expended.

 

Until the advent of proximity ammunition...the book 'The Deadly Fuze' has excellent tables regarding 5"/38 AA performance as a function of fire control and ammunition type...

Posted

Further to my post above, here is a table of the ammo expenditure at the beginning of Op Veritable (based on figures from Blackburn).

 

Posted
....

 

I do believe this thread has worn me out...not worth the effort...

 

http://www.rants.us/CMImages/Rants/white_flag_surrender.jpg

I don't think that option is allowed. In my limited experience on TN, topics are resurfaced, dead horses frequently revived and service

must be rendered by all. History may not repeat itself, but topics and threads surely do. That is our fate. There is no escape!

Posted

There is a passage in Schneider's 'Das'Reich Tigers' that recounts an operation (17/3/44) where 4 Panthers knocked out 3 T34's.

After the Soviet Infantry retreated (in the usual 'panic' that is ascribed to every Allied retreat East and West!) they found that ammo expenditure was 28 AT rounds and 93 HE.

  • 3 months later...
Posted

Jentz, in his Panzer Tracts book on the 88 "'Dreaded Threat 8.8cm Flak" has detailed ammo expenditure tables for various actions in Russia and the Desert.

At normal combat ranges 11 shots per tank was average.

Long range it rose to 23 AP rounds per tank

Posted

As you are discussing ammunition expenditure the following tidbit I came by might be interesting.

 

(I was trying to find some other information in a book on a Berliner Divsion. )

 

Therein is an account of Stfeldw. Warvel earning himself a Knights Cross in August 1943.

 

10 T-34 and 2 KW 1 were observed preparing to attack. Warvel sent one Pak 41 to a deversionary position and placed his Pak 41 in another. In the encounter the 2 KW1 and 8 of the 10 T-34 were knocked out, of which 7 burned and 1 lost its turret.

 

 

Ammunition fired were 300 rounds (in 20 minutes) ! ( Pr.Gr 41 , which is s strange round BTW ).

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...