AA guns against ground targets

[Samhain]

I use German AA guns of various types for the explicit purpose of engaging ground troops and light armor, and within certain restrictions, it works quite well. I saw there was another thread about the historical accuracy of this, and I'd post this there, but the thread was closed due to an apparently OT flame war. I thought this was an interesting quote from Ian V. Hogg's _The Guns 1939-45_ (Ballantine, 1970.), a book discussing the development and use of artillery, AT guns, AA guns, RCL's etc. during the war. Hogg was a Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery, serving in Europe and the Far East during World War II, later becoming an instructor at the Royal Military College of Science in Shrivenham and the School of Artillery.

Talking specifically about the German 8.8cm FLAK 18 in the context of Cyrenaica:

"Here the tactical situation was such that it was possible to deploy the guns in their anti-aircraft role in positions which would also allow them to be employed as anti-tank guns. Moreover their range and powers of penetration were such that they could dispose of British tanks long before these were close enough to engage with their two or six-pounder guns. But such employment was not considered normal; the desert forced onto guns tasks which would be unnecessary or even impossible in closer country, and, furthermore, German AA commanders didn't like having their precious AA guns deployed as anti-tank weapons. Indeed, in many cases the loan of such a weapon meant a virtual gift, since the anti-aircraft firecontrol equipment would be stripped off, rudimentary shields attached, and the gun generally rendered unfit for its primary role." (p.67)

Hogg goes on to say the British twenty-five pounder field gun was often used in the same fashion, to the great anger of the British field artillery commanders.

According to Hogg, in 1940 both Krupp and Rheinmettal (of Germany ) had both been asked to produce an 88mm AA gun that could double as an AT gun, with Krupp eventually producing 88mm PAK 43 gun from the design, created expressly as an AT gun. (p. 67)

I haven't read the rest of the book yet, so I don't know what more he has to say on mixed gun roles in the war. But, I thought this might be of interest. Certainly an informative book if you're interested in the big guns.

------------------

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Samhain:

Hogg goes on to say the British twenty-five pounder field gun was often used in the same fashion, to the great anger of the British field artillery commanders.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the 25 pdrs I have seen (IRL or pictures) had a shield and a vision slit in the shield that can only have had the purpose of allowing direct sighting. So I would guess they were expected to be used in a dual role. Certainly in Normandy there are a few accounts when the RAC saved the day during German breakthroughs by engaging tanks directly.

But I am sure the gunners did not like it, they seem to have a big chip on their shoulder. Just look at Bullethead (joking!).

BTW, the other thread is well worth reading, just ignore the flamewar, as it is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-06-2000).]

[Samhain]

Thanks, I did read it and found it informative, up until the end Not being even an amateur historian, I don't have an opinion one way or another about the issue, except in terms of gameplay (and my opinion there, in a nutshell, is to employ any tactics that help me win ).

I did find the passage I quoted interesting, though, since the writer was clearly an expert on the topic, with first-hand experience in the matter.

------------------

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[LuckyStrike]

IIRC, the British 3.7" AA gun, a weapon in the same class as the 88mm, was never employed vs ground targets despite on occasion being in a position to do so because of similar reasons ie the role was disliked by the gun commanders, or regarded as not appropriate.

[This message has been edited by LuckyStrike (edited 11-07-2000).]

[Shipmonkey]

I've gained a couple German tank "kills" with 40mm American AA fire. The guns don't have the ability to kill the tank outright, but can immobilize them with track shots. After you immobilize the tank just have the gun keep targeting it, after a couple of turns the tank crew normal bails. This is over course a despairation tactic.

[Olle Petersson]

Recently I had succes with a SdKfz 7/2 (37mm gun) positioned in some scattered trees at a flank.

It knocked out a couple of high grade Shermans using flank shots at about 400m. Almost every salvoe hit, and it took about four savlvoes per tank to knock them out.

Cheers

Olle

[Guest ciks]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It knocked out a couple of high grade Shermans using flank shots at about 400m. Almost every salvoe hit, and it took about four savlvoes per tank to knock them out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those Shermans were sleeping i assume...

[Olle Petersson]

They weren't sleeping, just too keen to move up to the Victory Flag while shooting at the rest of my troops that were in plain sight in front of them.

The FlAK-unit was almost the only intact unit left on my side and I ended the scenario shortly after.

Also, my unit didn't have LOS until they were flanking, and the high ROF produced kills before the Shermans had located and aquired my gun.

Cheers

Olle

[Radar]

I have had success using 20mm AA guns on tanks . The high ROF means more chance of a critical hit. A hit on the track will make even a Super Pershing immobile! The cost is cheap too (a bonus)!

------------------

Run in circles, scream and shout...Brown side in, green side out...

[Samhain]

The 37's are even better (e.g., Ostwind). Mobile, especially armored, AA guns seem to be one of the most versatile and useful units in the game.

------------------

I rode a tank, held a general's rank

When the blitzkrieg raged, and the bodies stank.

--Rolling Stones

[Bad Unit]

To me, 20mm flak gun is an unreasonably powerful weapon for the price, especially as compared to a 50 cal. The historical accuracy of using flak guns against ground targets doesn't concern me much, I just want to be able to win against them in CM. In a mechanized battle, the Axis seems to have a terrific advantage. The Allies, to my knowledge, have no vehicle (no armor in a mechanized battle) that will withstand the 20mm flak gun and no weapon I've found to effectively take one out other than a lucky mortar or arty round. Any other unit capable of firing upon the gun is in the uneviable and unhealthy position of being in it's LOS as well. Yes, it is possible to take one out at serious sacrifice of troups but the loss of men shows how powerful a weapon it is for the cost. And, at the small price, the Axis player can afford a great number of these guns. Add to that the capabilities of German vehicles, which are well armed and appear to be nearly untouchable without the use of allied vehicles (or a prime gun placement and some luck) and you have a lopsided battle.

When you move up to an armored battle, the Germans again appear to have the advantage. German tanks are superior (which is realistic) and the only effective way I've found to beat them is with lower cost tank killers like the Hellcat. You can afford a number of them and pit several on a single target. I've not been able to afford enough allied tanks to do the same, especially since their mortality rate is just as poor as the cheaper tank killers. But when the flak gun is added into the equation, tank killers are no longer a viable option.

Can anyone out there provide some tips or tricks? That one unit, the 20mm flak gun, is driving me up the wall.

[Horncastle]

I think the British 40mm Bofors gun was used regularly against infrantry, i have read a book following the british 3rd Division and they deployed them against dug in inf and buildings etc.. As they sedolm had air threats and towards the end few armour threats I suppose using them in this way was very effective

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Horncastle:

I think the British 40mm Bofors gun was used regularly against infrantry, i have read a book following the british 3rd Division and they deployed them against dug in inf and buildings etc.. As they sedolm had air threats and towards the end few armour threats I suppose using them in this way was very effective<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

49th 'West Riding' ID AA Rgt (towed and SP Bofors) was issued with ground sights after the taking of Le Havre. They were no longer needed in an AA role, so they got the equipment to contribute to ground combat.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Gremlin]

Bad Unit, many Allied tanks have more than enough armor to withstand frontal hits from 20mm flak. You run the risk of a gun hit, but that's always true. If unbuttoned, your TC might suddenly become half a foot shorter. Otherwise, 20mm AP rounds usually just bounce off if your tank isn't right next to the flak gun.

It's an oversimplification to say that German armor is better, since many of the most powerful German tanks are also the slowest, most likely to bog, and are equipped with slow-traversing turrets.

Re: Allied AFV usage, many if not most Shermans, AFAIK, were largely intended for an infantry support role, similar to the German use of many StuG's. To take out the big cats, you'll want TD's as you said, with Shermans, Cromwells, etc. for dealing with softer targets. You can hunt with Shermans in packs and try to flank or get behind enemy tanks, of course. A well-positioned zook team can easily take out almost any German AFV.

------------------

To refrain from imitation is the best revenge. --Marcus Aurelius

[This message has been edited by Gremlin (edited 01-08-2001).]

[John Kettler]

Samhain,

The German 20mm. flak is, as the Brits say, a nasty bit o' kit. In a recent QB one of mine killed an M-5 HT, a Bren carrier, and a Cromwell close support tank, all from the flank and at a range of 300-400 meters. It also managed to inflict several infantry casualties. I suspect the actual casualties it inflicted were far higher, but since we don't get an accurate casualty breakdown by weapon, it's impossible to say for sure.

The gun essentially stopped the main enemy advance. I think it killed the light armor outright and immobilized the Cromwell, leading to its abandonment. Quad 20s are even nastier, though for some strange reason the graphic is gigantic compared to the actual size of the weapon.

Until such time as the M-16 Gun Motor Carriage (quad .50s) or its cousin with a single 37mm and two .50s, both on haltracks, appear, your best bet is probably .50 cal MGs. The gun is a serious threat to everything including the side of a Hetzer. It may not have quite the punch of the 20mm, but it's far cheaper and more numerous, appearing both on AFVs and ground mounts.

I have no advice to offer concerning the British, since I've never had an AA tank or a 40mm to play with. This is because I almost invariably play QBs, preferring to avoid the inevitable escalation which occurs when people can handpick their forces.

Hope this helps.

John Kettler

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On the history, light AA was regularly pressed into a front-line role. With the allies, that was because of lack of air targets, and often they were mounted on halftracks or even the backs of trucks. Quad 50 cal and 40mm Bofors were both used this way. Each U.S. armored division usually had a light AAA battalion attached to it, and so could parcel out these guns to every mobile column, with some to spare for reserve or HQ/Supply AA protection just in case.

With the Germans it is a somewhat different story. They made lots of light AA, most of it 20mm single mounts, some larger guns or multiple mounts. Very few of those were the actual purpose-built Ostwind and Whirlewind on the fully tracked chassis. Those were assigned to armor divisions, and typically meant to provide air defense to the forward columns.

Much more common were ad hoc SP AA versions made out of halftracks or trucks, in the mobile divisions. These protected the supply columns, and the rest of the forces besides the armored spearheads. They were certainly pressed into a firefight support role, especially on defense.

The line infantry generally could not afford to use up its vehicles that way. But they did have light AA gun mounts - they were supposed to be assigned 12 single 20mm and 4 heavier or multiple mounts in a division, as its light Flak battalion. But that means a front line battalion-level fight might have 2 20mm AA guns, not 10 of the things.

On the eastern front in particular, the Germans pressed light artillery of every description into the forward combat role, to try to hold off more numerous Russian infantry attacks in particular. It is not uncommon to read of fights in Russia with the Germans defending, with the line infantry supported by infantry guns, anti-tank guns, light AA, and mortars, with 2-4 of each type sometimes, supporting a single understrength infantry company. More commonly, 1-2 types with 2-4 guns of each type.

To understand why, each of those items was present in battalion strength (3 4-gun batteries or thereabouts) in a typical infantry division. The guns tended to live while the infantry took higher losses, because of the range differences. The guns would keep firing until the Russians got reasonably close (500-1000 yards), then pull out and survive, while the infantry often did not manage to pull out. As a result, after a while a division in heavy action would be 1/2 or 1/3 rated strength in infantry, it would be more like 2/3rd or 3/4s of its rated strength in the light artillery.

The thing to avoid over expoiting in CM QB terms is purchases of more cheap items than a force of a given size could actually be expected to have. 4 guns of any type in the game is perfectly reasonable, as a regular battery. In larger fights, 4 each of two types might happen. Not counting mortars, which might be present in numbers up to 6, or might be represented by an FO. Taking more guns than that for a battalion-sized battle is not realistic.

Naturally, if people like no-holds barred QB fights, that is their preference and their own affair and fine. But if you are after some degree of realism, then put some mutually-agreed limits on buying tons of cheap effective units, by purchasing them in realistic numbers for the overall size of the battle.

As for how to actually deal with the light AA guns, the most effective way to suppress them is artillery or mortar fire. Being indirect, that can be delivered by something they can't shoot back at. Next is to shell them with real tanks that are facing them and buttoned - Shermans not M-8s or Stuarts or M-10s. The front armor on a Sherman is quite completely proof against actual penetration by 20mm rounds, although exterior damage is certainly possible. There is nothing proof about an AA gun vs. 75mm HE. Third best is to suppress the crew with MG fire, especially 50 cal fire, from numerous sources and different directions. They can fire back at you then, certainly, but both sides are vunerable in that kind of shoot-out.

For what it is worth...

[Gremlin]

Beware though that 37mm AA, at least, can take out some Shermans frontally, though not often.

------------------

War does not determine who is right--only who is left.

--Bertrand Russell

[Firefly]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gremlin:

Re: Allied AFV usage, many if not most Shermans, AFAIK, were largely intended for an infantry support role, similar to the German use of many StuG's. To take out the big cats, you'll want TD's as you said, with Shermans, Cromwells, etc. for dealing with softer targets. You can hunt with Shermans in packs and try to flank or get behind enemy tanks, of course. A well-positioned zook team can easily take out almost any German AFV.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a difference in doctrine between the Americans and British on the use of tanks. The British had cruiser tanks for fighting tanks and infantry support tanks. The Americans believed that all tanks were for infantry support and TDs were to be used for anti-tank work and it was with this in mind that tne Sherman was designed. When it first saw action, however, with the British in North Africa, it was employed as a cruiser

as were the Lee (US Grant) and the Honey (US Stuart) before it. This is why the British developed the Firefly and the Americans turned it down.

As with most plans the American doctrine did not survive contact with the enemy and the Sherman was used in what nowadays would be described as a MBT role causing the Americans to bring in their own developments such as the Jumbo and the Easy Eight.

Interestingly most historians believe the TD to be a mistaken concept; given their efficacy in CM, perhaps Steve and Charles diasagree.

[LongLeftFlank]

If you can track down Cajus Bekker, "The Luftwaffe War Diaries", it contains a chapter on Flak as a Field Weapon, including a blow by blow description with map of the "Night of Ilza", where a Luftwaffe flak unit (20mm and 88mm) singlehandedly turned back a Polish counterattack in 1939. The Germans were so impressed with these experiences, their Flak units became a standard part of the Blitzkrieg package and unlike the Allied gunners, did not put up a fuss when pressed into the ground role.

Of course, the 88 figures just as prominently in the memoirs of many GIs and Tommies as the Tiger, especially in Italy where many Luftwaffe field units were deployed. I recall stories of 88s being used as super long range sniper rifles to pick off individual Allied soldiers.

"Why they couldn't hit an elephant at this r--" (Last words of a Union general whose name escapes me, U.S. Civil War)