Battleling KV1 in 1942 on open ground

[Redwolf]

You want lots of the cheapest AA guns, that means multi-round burst guns, e.g. single-barrel 20mm FlaK.

Under the CMx1 mechanisms they get the KV-1 out of the fight quickly, either by gun damage or abandonation for no particular reason.

[JasonC]

Redwolf - in my experience, rounds can be light enough relative to the armor hit that the chance of gun or track damage hits zero, and the hail fire for damage approach simply stops working. I have for instance fired literally thousands of ATR rounds at vanilla German tanks at medium range in tests, without any damage resulting.

My experience with 20mm vs. typical Russian mediums or heavies is equally poor. Basically, a 20 quad can "unload" on a KV or Churchill and not expect to hurt it at all - let alone a 20 single. In order to get damage results, the penetration has to be closer to the armor.

I find that both 37mm AA and 28mm sPzB have enough penetration to routinely cause damage, after enough shots have accumulated. (The 28mm can also get partial pens from side angle, or outright penetrations of T-34 turret fronts - a different point).

The same occurs with Russian 37mm vs. 25mm AA. 25mm AA guns are dirt cheap and have high ammo and accuracy, and if the approach you describe actually worked, could routinely wreck Tigers. In fact they simply don't hurt them at all. Or anything else much beyond a half track, come to that.

Of the 2 German light guns, the 28 and the 37, that can get damage results, the 28mm is far cheaper and is also stealthier, remaining sound at around 400m when in good cover, vs. more like 800m for the 37mm Flak. On the other hand, the 37mm has better accuracy, rate of fire, and anti infantry firepower. It also has better behind armor effect against light armor (e.g. the T-60s in this tactical problem).

Whether all those make the 37mm preferable to the 28mm depends on the ranges and keyhole opportunities one expects. Against very strong overwatch and with limited space, the lower stealth of the 37mm is a killer, and the 28mm has to be preferred as a T-60 stopper. Against weaker overwatch or with a lot more space, the 37mm is going to work better, just as a higher firepower item overall, able to cause damage more rapidly to the heavies, etc.

But single 20s are going to be worse than either.

Quad 20s are useful against light armor, have anti infantry firepower equal to the 37mm, and cost only as much as the 28mm. They also have at least as good stealth as the 28mm, probably better. Their only downside is they won't hurt the KVs. But I can see taking one of them to KO T-60s more rapidly, to hit enemy guns (and their jeeps) with stealthy direct fire, and to help HMGs deal with Russian infantry.

I don't think single 20s are worth it compared to the quad. You give up far too much in anti-infantry firepower, for example, which also extends to worse performance against guns and the like. 2 quads and 3 singles cost about the same, and the 2 quads are vastly more powerful in every way.

This is true in general. The German single 20s and the Russians 25s are simply too weak to be truly effective weapons, despite their low cost. While the 37s and for the Germans the quad 20, are extremely powerful, general weapons.