new UberWeapon - 20mm flak

[Guest aaronb]

At least, on the defensive.

29 points (in 1.01). You can afford a bunch of them. Take any map with decent sight lines and some trees to hide the flak guns, and Bob's your uncle.

Why?

- high rate of fire

- accurate

- high rate of fire

- small target to spot/hit

- high rate of fire

- lots of ammo

- high rate of fire

- rapid target acquisition

Try it. You'll kill even medium tanks with gun and track hits (around 500 metres), then send your own armour to polish them off without risk. Return fire does not seem to rattle the guns - small targets, dug-in, with a shrapnel shield.

One 20mm can hold off an entire platoon of infantry, and three or four will shred as many troops as you like.

Perhaps the point value is too low? This reminds me of the puppchen thread.

[chrisl]

I've assaulted a few and they aren't very frightening. They have little cover for the crew and a squad of riflemen can make them bail out.

One caveat--I've been doing it in night or foggy scenarios where I can get really close without coming under fire. At long range they could maybe make a mess.

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 07-06-2000).]

[Guest aaronb]

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

At long range they could maybe make a mess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, as I said, "any map with decent sight lines". Under 50 metres things get dicey.

[MacMogul]

I'm not sure about this. I played a QB attack as the Americans against the computer, and the computer had a couple of these placed as you suggest. They had open lines of fire of 250-400 meters. Both were taken out by a single Sherman 105, after bouncing several shots of the Sherman, and I didn't notice that they disconcerted my infantry much at about 200-250 meters in tree cover.

--Bill

[Doug Beman]

I can attest to their utility as emergency anti-tank weapons after one of them disabled the gun of a Sherman in a recent battle.

Range was about 150m; the 20mm fired about 15 shots, hitting with each one, and finally got results. Poor bastards got plastered a few minutes later by a vengeful comrade of the Sherman.

DjB

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Good Lines of Sight or not, any mortar will make short work of these and never even expose itself. Off map arty will slaughter these fast.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Mikester]

The much better "uber weapon" is the German Wirbelwind. It's mobile for one. Probably slightly better protection for crew. And, it's got those nasty quad 20mm cannons. Ouch. I've done some serious damage using one of these as mobile fire support during an attack.

Mikester out.

[Guest Madmatt]

Hehehe, Guys, there is NO Uberweapon in CM. Now be quiet and sit still as I drill a hole in ya with my Greyhound Scoutcar!

Madmatt

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

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[Guest grunto]

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

Now be quiet and sit still as I drill a hole in ya with my Greyhound Scoutcar!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M8 Greyhound... now you're talkin'! nice high-velocity 37mm gun with lots of off-road mobility.

in any case don't consider the 20mm to be a very good anti-armor weapon. that is because of the time i once watched a psw234/1 bounce multiple rounds off of the back of a T8 recon car turret. From then on i decided that the 20mm was about as good as a .50 cal.

i consider the single-barrel 20mm cannon to be a great machinegun/light armor threat, but not an antitank weapon. it probably takes out m3x halftracks but like i said, it has had problems against the _rear_ of a t8.

still that psw234/1 is a fun vehicle to use and the 20mm aa guns are great infantry support weapons.

but as an anti-armor defense... only when you're desperate.

to anyone who thinks these are good for anti-armor, i say, 'good luck trying to use those consistently against buttoned-up shermans.'

in the end though i like and buy 20mm aa guns, and psw234/1s. i also like the light flak vehicle with the quad 20 on it.. the converted halftrack with the crew of 8.

i think 'super weapon' though is a bit strong. everyone knows that the T8 recon car is the real 'super weapon' in this game =g=.

you know what i prefer over the 20mm for use against tanks? the 37mm... now that german 37mm aa is a very nice 'all-purpose' gun... at least it gives you a better chance against allied armor.

btw i find that the 37mm on the greyhound can take out most german tanks in the side at close range.... and it's heck on german armored cars and halftracks, from any direction !!

andy

[Guest aaronb]

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

there is NO Uberweapon in CM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What he said. I was really impressed after the computer picked a bunch of these babies, and used them well against me, that I picked a bunch, and used them well against the AI.

And they do get lots of gun hits against tanks - so what if they won't penetrate the armour?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i think 'super weapon' though is a bit strong<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was employing a little-known literary device called 'hyperbole', which is what MadMatt does, only more bluntly!!!!!!

[Kevin Peltz]

The real "uber weapon" is properly used infantry...

[mensch]

not a real on board super weapon but a FO 300mm Rockets.. *sigh* like a fourth of july fest..well ok its german so its Schutzenfest.. heh. I found the quad 20mm flak does more as a "keep the enemy tanks busy while the heavy stuff takes aim" for infantry I cut up a full rifle squad in one go took about 20 seconds of game play... as for protection Clinton is right lost them real fast to mortar and arty fire, one minute looking to see how my Mark VI is doing and come back to see a smoking crater where my flak was... *sniff*

[James Bailey]

The 20mm Flak gun had become a key weapon in the German defensive arsenal by '44 for a lot of the reasons Aaronb mentioned - high ROF and decent penetration/killing power against a wide array of threats. It could take on enemy infantry, planes, apc's, and light armor - and best of all was cheap to produce in large numbers. As far as guns go, it is also fairly mobile.

I have studied lots of German TO&E's from formations in the field and nearly all of they had LOTS of 20mm flak guns. I think a lot of the scenarios that we are seeing in CM are historically light on the 20mm.

And, as far as tank busting goes, clearly it is not the weapon of choice against the heavy stuff, but its accuracy at high ROF meant it could put a lot of hits on a target, rising the probability that one finds a periscope, vent, bend, etc. I once saw a photo of a 20mm gun that had 5 tank kill marks on its shield. The photo was '43, in the steppe of the Ukraine, near Kharkov. 5 tanks (probably T-34's) in open tank country, that's not bad!

-James.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have studied lots of German TO&E's from formations in the field and nearly all of they had LOTS of 20mm flak guns. I think a lot of the scenarios that we are seeing in CM are historically light on the 20mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree.

These weapons were produced for ONE over-riding reason: Allied air superiority <period>

That is the sole reason they were ever designed or produced. Once in the field, sure they were used as the grunts saw fit, but they were never intended to be a primary ground weapon. Hell, I recall reading an account about operation "Goodwood" where an 88 Flak crew refused to fire on British tanks advancing through the German lines. They had standing order to ONLY engage air targets... The officer had to threaten to shoot the gun commander before he would re-lent and engage the British tanks. THIS was an 88 Flak in 1944. This weapon had (by this time) had four full years to prove itself in ground combat, and yet even in the face of a breakthrough the crews were 'reluctant' to use it as a ground weapon.

As for there use in CM...I disagree again ( ) Sure, they were attached to the 'units' that we model. BUT, they were NOT dragged along for every 20-minute engagement with the enemy. Quite the contrary (IMHO). They would generally be stationed slightly behind the front lines (100-2000m) to defend against ground attack aircraft sorties against re-supply columns and the front lines themselves (not to mention the CnC units back there--and who do you think set the priorities... )

They were just too valuable and vulnerable to make it a common practice put them on the front-line IMO.

But because of the defensive nature of the conflict many were over-run in battle or used as last-ditch weapons when other ATGs were not available. But many, many more were over-run after the German MLR had already collapsed and the crews and the guns were just trying to get the hell out of Dodge!

IMO, the are OVER-represented in wargames of this scale. The main reason is that they CAN be so effective against ground troops, and they are 'cool'. In reality sure, you might use your 20mm in a few battles and kick butt...then you lose it (or run it out of ammo!) and you will at the mercy of the Jabos for a looooong time. This is just an aspect gamers don't have to worry about though.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-12-2000).]

[Guest grunto]

i was playtesting a scenario and a 20mm aa took out:

2 chaffee

1 t8

7 infantry casualties

so it can be an effective, 'close-range, side-shot ambush weapon' against certain targets.

i've read that the germans liked this weapon in ground combat. the psw234/1 and pzii used it. it may be that it was simply an all-purpose weapon and good in a variety of roles.

in any case there's 'almost nothing' like taking out a bunch of targets with a psw234/1 or a standalone 20mm.

andy

[Guest Scott Clinton]

FWIW the German "20mm AA" or 20mm Flak is not the same weapon as the gun used in the 234/1 and Pz II (Lynx).

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[James Bailey]

Scott,

I respectfully disagree. The 20mm Flak was certainly orginally produced as an AA weapon. But, as with the 88mm Flak, it served in a variety of roles as the war turned defensive for the Germans. Certainly not the first or second choice against a Sherman, but the 1st or 2nd choice or even the 3rd choice wasn't always available. It was its multiple purposes that was so valuable and explains why it was the most widely produced German "cannon" of the war.

I base this conclusion on "non-scientific" research I have done at the Captured German Documents section of the US National Archives in Washington DC. I have literally read hundreds of AAR's from German company and battalion level engagements in the ETO '44 - '45 and thousands of TO&E's from the same level. I live in Wash, DC and its a good way to keep my German fresh (:

And I have read reports that indicate the oppose of your point - many times, German Flak near the MLR did not fire on Allied airplanes because they didn't want to give away their position. Let the Allied Infantry and armor die finding them was the thinking.

That's just my understanding,

James.

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

FWIW the German "20mm AA" or 20mm Flak is not the same weapon as the gun used in the 234/1 and Pz II (Lynx).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well it looks and sounds like the same weapon to me.. 6-round bursts whether from the 20mm aa or the lynx or psw234/1 gun.

i would be interested in knowing what the difference is.

andy

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Grunto, et al:

Mainly barrel length. The 'true' flak versions had much longer barrel (almost twice the length IIRCC) and thus a much higher velocity and better accuracy. I suspect they had better optics.

I am also sure that the 'true' flak versions would have a much better sustained rate of fire do to the gun's layout and crew manning the weapon not to mention the ammunition load. But that is just my opinion and it would be near impossible to prove either way.

I just find it difficult to believe that a two man gun crew closed up in an armored vehicle (even the 234--it looks damn cramped in there) would be able to maintain the same SUSTAINED rate of fire that a crew manning an 'open' flak mount could maintain. Especially when the flak crew would have an extra man or two and lots more ammo...

And as for Flak units ignoring enemy aircraft while the strafe and bomb their assigned units... Sorry, I just find it very hard to believe this happened with any regularity. If your flak is not going to defend you against air attacks what will?!

Flak was designed for anti-aircraft fire. Any other use was just a bonus and if the unit was lost WHO would fill its primary role as AA defense?? Nobody will.

I nice little possibility for the "Metacampaign" (which I am not in btw) would be to allow free use of flak units on the front...but if you lose them the allies would get EXTRA ground attack missions or the Germans have much reduced supply. Would you risk it? Maybe, but I am sure you would think twice!

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-13-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Grunto, WRT what Scott said about sustained rate of fire: I was trained as loader on the Bundeswehr 20mm twin AA gun in 1988. I believe it is reasonably similar to the WW II version, but that is conjecture. The main difference should be the IIRC electrical adjustment system, I believe in WW II it was mechanical.

The modern gun is belt-fed. Each barrel has an ammo container sitting on the gun chassis with IIRC 240 rounds each. These containers are quite large. The gun is operated by a five-man team, gunner and two loaders per barrel (one of them would be the driver of the prime mover). Taking this, it is IMO impossible to put the belt-feeder and ammo containers into an armoured car or small tank like the Lynx. You also only have one loader, operating in crammed conditions. Total ammo supply would also be a lot lower, I am sure.

Accuracy and muzzle speed, I am not sure whether that would matter at the engagement ranges we are talking about. The Lynx is not supposed to take on fast-moving targets at 1500m. And the killing power in the modern gun at least is derived by the combo ammo of HE/Incendiary (Sprengbrand), I don't think that impact speed matters a lot. And as I said above, taking on armoured targets like a Mi-24 Hind was a non-starter anyway with our gun, according to our instructor. Use it on soft targets air or ground.

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

Andreas

[James Bailey]

One interesting resource to actually see German doctrine and weapons in use at the front is film footage from "Deutsche Wochenschau" - film from German news crews.

The US National Archives has hours and hours of captured footage - some of its better than Saving Private Ryan.

Anyway, I remember seeing some footage of German street fighting in a Russian village. The grunts were wheeling a 20mm Flak around on its carriage, emptying entire cartidges of rounds into Russian strongpoints at near point blank range. Now you could only do this if you had the enemy pretty well suppressed, but it was absolutely brutal to see those large shell emptied at such a rapid ROF into those Russian houses.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...it was absolutely brutal to see those large shell emptied at such a rapid ROF into those Russian houses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and that makes for some real good propaganda footage.

That is my point. Its a 'cool' weapon to see used and to use. Thus, IMO Flak tends to be over-represented in ground based wargames. Flaks primary role was always AA and its use in any other role would tend to detract from this VERY important mission IMO.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[James Bailey]

Well,

in defensive military operations, threats tend to be engaged in orders of degree - you don't have the initiative and therefore the opportunity to choose your targets. During the German retreats of '44 - '45 this was the order of threat:

(1). Infantry - only threat capable of holding ground. Best LOS.

(2). Armor - supports infantry in ground taking role.

(3). Air - not capable of taking ground, only supporting advance. Moreover, if TAC can't see you, they can't hurt you (that's why flak didn't always fire at TAC).

(4). Artillery - tough to kill off FEBA, can't take ground, very limited LOS without infantry.

Therefore, firepower must be deployed against high priority threats. Since both Allied Infantry and Armor were most important threats and the 20mm Flak respresented a significant amount of Wehrmacht firepower (just look at the production numbers), the gun served (or, was forced to serve) in a variety of roles - and did it well.

I am not agruing that it is a 'cool' weapon - having served in a hostile envirnoment, I don't ever want to consider any weapon as 'cool' - no weapon is. What I am interested in is historical doctrine and its application on the battlefield.

The primary source AAR's that I have read don't support the thesis that the gun didn't serve in a wide number of roles. By '44, the Germans were forced to find firepower to deal with (1) and (2) and they found it in the 20mm Flak (and the 88mm Flak).

[James Bailey]

Scott,

Let me explain why I am interested in this topic.

As you mentioned CMMC, I am involved with CMMC - in fact, very involved. I researched and built the German OoB for the battle we are doing. I didn't just look at OoB and carbon copy them, I tried to analysize the unit by reading its AAR's and other secondary research.

If you have some good sources regarding doctrinal application of the 20mm Flak, I would really love to see them. As we both agree, it will have a important impact on the battle.

Thanks,

James Bailey.

[James Bailey]

Scott,

Let me explain why I am interested in this topic.

As you mentioned CMMC, I am involved with CMMC - in fact, very involved. I researched and built the German OoB for the battle we are doing. I didn't just look at OoB and carbon copy them, I tried to analysize the unit by reading its AAR's and other secondary research.

If you have some good sources regarding doctrinal application of the 20mm Flak, I would really love to see them. As we both agree, it will have a important impact on the battle.

Thanks,

James Bailey.