new UberWeapon - 20mm flak

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...in defensive military operations, threats tend to be engaged in orders of degree...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but this just doesn't make any sense. The #1 overriding threat to the Germans on the Western Front was allied air power.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Therefore, firepower must be deployed against high priority threats. Since both Allied Infantry and Armor were most important threats and the 20mm Flak represented a significant amount of Wehrmacht firepower (just look at the production numbers)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you suggesting that they Germans designed and produced such quantities of small caliber flak guns because of the allied infantry and armor threat?!?!?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>..., the gun served (or, was forced to serve) in a variety of roles - and did it well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure it did and I never disputed this. The panzerschrek also severed very well in house to house fighting too. But that was not its primary role and if wargamers are given free reign they will pump every available panzerschrek round into houses because they don't have to worry about that allied tank that this very same platoon of infantry will be facing in six hours...after THIS game of CM is over and they don't have any ammo for their only decent AT weapon or worse still their AT-crew is long dead. THIS is exactly the situation flak gunners and the units they support would be in if flak guns are OVER-used on the front lines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What I am interested in is historical doctrine and its application on the battlefield. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure they found firepower in these weapons. But they were used only when other methods had been exhausted because Allied air power was always a MAJOR threat and using a units ONLY defense against this very real, very powerful threat would be a real act of desperation. Even the mere placement of these weapons in the front lines removed them from their designed task of defending against aircraft.

If you have served (which I have not) imagine YOURSELF in this situation. The enemy has total, overwhelming air superiority. Your unit has only 2-3 weapons capable of even causing the enemy air power any damage and posibly making them 'respect' your airspace. Your supply lines, your medical facilities, your command and control lines and your very lines of retreat are all constantly threatened by this air power. Are you telling me you would be so 'quick' to yank these weapons and put them in the front lines, especially when you DO have other weapons that can defeat the enemy tanks and infantry but these are your ONLY hope agains air attack???

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

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).]

[demoss]

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

If you have served (which I have not) imagine YOURSELF in this situation. The enemy has total, overwhelming air superiority. Your unit has only 2-3 weapons capable of even causing the enemy air power any damage and posibly making them 'respect' your airspace. Your supply lines, your medical facilities, your command and control lines and your very lines of retreat are all constantly threatened by this air power. Are you telling me you would be so 'quick' to yank these weapons and put them in the front lines, especially when you DO have other weapons that can defeat the enemy tanks and infantry but these are your ONLY hope agains air attack???

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 20mm FlaK probably has to be pretty close to what it is defending to be effective against air targets (which can't be flying very high, either) - the small projectile size really cuts the effective range. Given that, if your critical assets are in the front line, you might well have to put the 20mm FlaKs pretty darn near the front. I think heavy AA (like the 88) is more likely to be used than light AA like the 20mm to defend things like supply lines.

That said, it probably IS unrealistic to allow them to be set up with ground-unit ambush in mind. Perhaps scenario designers should padlock their positions....

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

-Doug

[James Bailey]

Scott,

You must be another subscriber to the Allied Airpower won the war in the ETO thesis. I have always believed it was the excellent Allied infantrymen and tankers, with the SUPPORT of the Allied Airforce and Artillery that did the job.

As a former infantry officer, I can tell you my major threat was a combined arms ground attack (or maybe an large '55 artillery mission with Bullethead FO'ing ), everything else is too easy to hide my men from.

Anyway, you apparently are not interested in providing any sources that counter the countless number of primary source AAR's that detail 20mm Flak use in German infantry doctrine.

Thanks for the help and insight anyway,

James.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Sources?

Ahhh...yes. Here we go again. Same tune different person?

Well, I have revealed as much about my sources as you have about yours. I have seen no quotes or bibs from you nor have I asked for any.

Sorry, if this is not the way you intended your last post and you have my apology if it was not. But given the 'history' of the subject of "sources" and "secret sources" with other members of the CMMC I frankly have ZERO interest in providing anything for the "CMMC" let alone my lame, worthless sources.

Again I am sorry if this is not the way you intended your post but that is frankly how I feel about it. Everyone around here knows that only the sources of a select few count for anything.

But, either way I just don't see how you can dispute the common sense that an ANTI-AIRCRAFT weapon was PRIMARILY used to fire at aircraft. I never expected to anyone on this forum to dispute that...

Oh, and yes...I had a real crappy day!

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

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

[Guest Germanboy]

I think we are running into a scope of CM issue here again. To me, the questions are as follows:

1) did the Germans put light AA guns in the frontline at all?

2) if they did, what was their aim

3) given the little effect that fighter-bomber airpower seems to have had on actual frontline combat in the ETO (as opposed to disrupting supply-lines/advancing or retreating columns and communications, would an AA gunner give away his position by firing on something that most likely won't hurt him if he does not fire.

Putting AA guns in the frontline to use them as AA guns seems foolish to me. All you do is attract unwanted attention from above. So if they were in the frontline, I would expect them to be there to be used against infantry.

In my readings of veteran accounts, I have come across one use of light AA gun in a ground-role in the ETO. This was when the 129th Brigade of the 43rd UK Infnatry Division did push out of the Seine bridgehead at Vernon. (Patrick Delaforce 'The Fighting Wessex Wyverns') Close to the bridge they encountered a large number of light AA guns that seriously impeded progress. That would point to Scott being right, because my conjecture would be that the guns were there to originally defend the bridge against air attack, but once UK infantry came in range they had no dogmatic problems in firing on them. IIRC, in no other account in the book do these same veterans mention large numbers of light AA guns opening up on them.

Sorry for the ramble, I just thought it would be an idea to state the real question here. Not sure if I managed though.

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

Andreas

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Well, I THOUGHT the question/debate was about whether or not light AA guns were OVER or UNDER represented in CM (in regards to their use to attack ground targets).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1) did the Germans put light AA guns in the frontline at all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we all agree that the answer to this is "Yes". Hell, the Germans put 12-year-old boys on the front lines...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2) if they did, what was their aim<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If placed on the 'front line of foxholes' (as opposed to 1-3,000 meters behind the front lines) I would have to say that the intention was to use the AA as a ground weapon. Because...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3) given the little effect that fighter-bomber airpower seems to have had on actual frontline combat in the ETO (as opposed to disrupting supply-lines/advancing or retreating columns and communications, would an AA gunner give away his position by firing on something that most likely won't hurt him if he does not fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. To place an AA unit in a 'front line foxhole' to 'defend' against air attack would be dumb. To perform this mission it would be much wiser to place the AA unit 1-3,000 meters behind the 'front line foxholes'.

And for the record I recall several accounts of Allied units encountering light and heavy AA (i.e. AAA and AA units) in the ET. BUT every one of these accounts was when the AA unit or position was overrun during an allied advance. Given the German philosophy of using ATG and infantry guns during their attacks has anyone read of the Germans using any AA guns while the Germans were attacking? If not why would the philosophy be so different for this type of gun when the role it was fulfilling at the time would be basically the same?

Again, I am not saying that AA guns were not used by the Germans in attacking or defending against ground units. I am just saying it is OVER represented in wargames because the side effect of not having these same units (later) to defend against enemy air attacks is not simulated.

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

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 07-14-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Sorry for the misunderstanding Scott - with 'frontline' I meant the front-line of foxholes. So the question would be whether the light AA gun was considered an integral part of that front-line and extensively used.

As for the accounts, I agree, and that's exactly what I tried to express (I was still half asleep when I posted) - the one account I had of the Brits was when they fought over a bridge, in 'Company Commander' and 'Roll me over' AA guns are ony encountered when they try to run over the sites where these guns were posted to defend against air attacks. So from the (admittedly small) evidence I have, it looks as if your point that they are over-represented is correct.

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

Andreas

[Guest grunto]

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

Flaks primary role was always AA and its use in any other role would tend to detract from this VERY important mission IMO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott, do you know if the 20mm from the psw234/1 was ever used as a standalone weapon? if so, that would explain a lot of the confusion on this thread.

I agree that flak was supposed to fire at aircraft and not simply let other units get bombed. Take a look at the footage from some of these allied fighter-bomber cams and see all of the tracers coming from the ground.

a documentary i saw said that 25% of all american casualties in the war in europe were in the air war. now a lot of this was in the b-17 raids and whatnot but from the footage that show was presenting (it was a show about a certain fighter-bomber pilot), it looked like fighter-bomber duty was dicey. up until then i'd thought that the ground-attack p-47s and whatnot'd had a relative cakewalk by 1944 and later.

in some of that footage the amount of tracers coming from the ground was staggering.

now i don't know if a lot of that was mg42 fire but it looked terrifying either way.

andy

[Guest grunto]

i think that the 20mm and 37mm flak and the halftracks and trucks with the same were all on the front lines. the had to be near the location being attacked by air because they (especially the 20mm) had limited range. a kilometer back, that's a reach... 3k back, no way. those guns and trucks and halftracks were there supporting their ground formations... at least that's the way i'd always pictured it in my head.

admittedly this could be a bias borne out of countless hours of playing squad leader as a teenager.

andy

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scott, do you know if the 20mm from the psw234/1 was ever used as a standalone weapon? if so, that would explain a lot of the confusion on this thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, none that I know of.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i think that the 20mm and 37mm flak and the halftracks and trucks with the same were all on the front lines. the had to be near the location being attacked by air because they (especially the 20mm) had limited range. a kilometer back, that's a reach...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think a definition of what I am talking about when I use the phrase "Front Lines" is in order. I am using this as a general term representing the area extending form no-man's land to the CnC elements of the most forward troops. Using this definition that is quite some area, well over 3k. This is why I used the phrase 'front line foxholes' in a previous post to represent the most forward troops--those in CM. I think Germanboy and I are both talking about the same thing I was just trying to be clear.

Ground attack against units in the first 1000m of the front line (i.e. 'front line foxholes') was real tough to do in WW2, especially in the ETO where AFAIK the combatants never achieved the level of close cooperation between air and land units that the USMC pioneered in the Pacific.

The main targets for ground attack aircraft would be (IMO) units between 1000-10000m behind the 'front line foxholes'. In this area the aircraft could attack supply columns, supply dumps, CnC centers, road nets, rail nets, assembly areas, etc. All much more vulnerable and easier to spot and identify than an infantry platoon dug in on the front line. These areas would STILL be under the control of the very same units occupying the 'front line fox holes'; thus their AAA assets would have to be used to protect these areas.

BUT, even when you wanted to defend your units manning the 'front line foxholes' I would STILL place my AAA units 500-1000m behind the front lines. At this range you will still get a nice shot at the dive-bombers as the strafe your units. Remember dive-bombers don't just appear overhead, then drop down to the deck and fly strait up. You would get shots as the came in and as they left and all without having to expose your AAA to enemy direct observation or fire. Remember that all the enemy has to do is SEE where your AAA is located and it either has to be moved (fast) or its dead because a short volley of artillery will most likely do in any light gun and will surely destroy its attached transport and ammo hualers.

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

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

[Fionn]

James,

It's not even worth trying to discuss things with Scott using archival evidence. The fact that you have spent hours researching the use of weapons on the Western Front for the CMMC and have actual German Bn and Company defensive deployments marked out on maps which CLEARLY show how 2cm FlaK were sited PURELY for the ground support role means nothing to Scott.

I think his second-last post really shows his disdain for engaging in a "debate of sources" in such a manner as you'd wonder if he even knows that PRIMARY RESEARCH is the backbone of historical discussion.

Now, as for the other stuff...

Yes the 2cm as mounted on the 234/1 WAS produced as a stand-alone weapons system BUT James is certainly not confusing it with the 2cm FlaK portee. James is an ex-US Army officer and KNOWS what he's talking about.

Now, I try not to get involved with threads involving Scott since I firmly believe that no amount of pointint to sources and research etc will change Scott's position. Scott is Scott and Scott is ALWAYS right because if he THINKS it was so then it WAS so regardless of whether or not you have 15 or 20 references showing it wasn't so.

Scott, good luck to you.

James, there's no point discussing such issues with Scott. He has to be right and will simply belittle your sources time and again. It isn't worth entering into it.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's not even worth trying to discuss things with Scott using archival evidence. The fact that you have spent hours researching the use of weapons on the Western Front for the CMMC and have actual German Bn and Company defensive deployments marked out on maps which CLEARLY show how 2cm FlaK were sited PURELY for the ground support role means nothing to Scott.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as always Fionn, you have missed the point ENTIRELY. The thread is about whether or not its use in a ground defense role is over or under represented in CM and other wargames of this scale. Even the fact that this has been clearly stated several times you continue to miss the point and slander and misrepresent me...yeah, somethings never change. Why don't you try actually READING people's posts for a change?

No one ever said they were never used in a ground role. As a matter of fact the last several posts talk about this...or didn't you read those?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think his second-last post really shows his disdain for engaging in a "debate of sources" in such a manner as you'd wonder if he even knows that PRIMARY RESEARCH is the backbone of historical discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, I have a strong "disdain" for ALL secret, undisclosed sources such as those you always seem to quote Fionn. But, I never asked nor belittled James' sources or James, did I????? No, Fionn that is YOUR style. Again, somethings never change.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, as for the other stuff...

Yes the 2cm as mounted on the 234/1 WAS produced as a stand-alone weapons system BUT James is certainly not confusing it with the 2cm FlaK portee.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this from your "secret sources"? That is great because I have a news flash for you the 234/1 mounted the 2cm KwK L/55 while the 20mm ground mount I assume you speak of mounted a (generally) 2cm FlaK38 L/112.5 I must admit that have twice the barrel length is a small difference...

If this is the quality of your great sources then no wonder you want to keep them secret!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James is an ex-US Army officer and KNOWS what he's talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, I try not to get involved with threads involving Scott...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, I see. That is why you posted the last post of yours, right? You are such the victim Fionn...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...since I firmly believe that no amount of pointint to sources and research etc will change Scott's position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOU ARE SO FULL OF IT YOU STINK! When some research is ACTUALLY POSTED it will have an effect. Until then all the posts are just opinions. Since when is saying "I have this secret source that says..." research?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Scott is Scott and Scott is ALWAYS right because if he THINKS it was so then it WAS so regardless of whether or not you have 15 or 20 references showing it wasn't so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, like your 'secret sources' that NO ONE EVER EVEN ASKED TO SEE? These same sources that have been refuted by others...WITH OPEN SOURCES?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>James, there's no point discussing such issues with Scott. He has to be right and will simply belittle your sources time and again. It isn't worth entering into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull****. I have belittled NOTHING of James'. As a matter of fact YOU are the first on in this thread to belittle anyone or anything. I have never in my life met anyone more hypocritical as you Fionn, you take the cake!

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

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 07-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-14-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

To try and bring this back on - since James has seen the AARs and has done a lot of research, maybe he is in a position to answer the question that we are trying to deal with here. Were significant numbers of light AA guns consciously integrated into the front-line with the idea to use them against ground targets. Or were these AARs referring to their use in containing breaktroughs, by either being brought up to shore up the 2nd line of defense, or be used once the enemy had reached the rearward areas where they were stationed to provide AA cover.

That is the nub of the argument as I see it, and I think it is quite relevant to CMMC. If I were to command a German BN, I would like to be able to put as many of these as possible where they can hurt my opponent's infantry. If I was an allied BN CO, I would be very unhappy if they just pop up everywhere. As I stated before, I am not qualified to make any statement either way, due to my limited exposure to relevant documents.

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

Andreas

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Another important aspect to consider (IMO--of course) is who is doing the AA work when these units are in the 'front line foxholes'? Was there an independent AA unit in the sector? Were there Luftwaffe AA units in the area?

Bottom line: who was going 'pick up the slack' when the Jabos appeared on top of your Divisional Arty, Divisional CnC centers, etc?

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

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

[Fionn]

Ah Jesus Scott will you give it a bloody break for once. I merely came by because in an email conversation James referred to his frustration at your behaviour in this thread. I came by to say that he DID know what he was talking about and give him a little support in the face of your accusations. Listen dude, if you're fighting about sources etc do it with James.

And as for sources. Umm, Scott, I DID share my sources with others AND YOU. When you cyber-stalked me by sending emails to my home address etc that's when I stopped sharing any sources with you. If you can't understand why someone who feels he was stalked by you would refuse to engage in friendly discussion with someone he views as "dangerous" ( in the full sense of that word) then you should reflect and try to gain some understanding.

As for James. I happen to have seen one defensive deployment laid out by Kraft. All the other CMMC GMs have seen it also. This isn't some "secret" source. OTOH it is no wonder that people don't feel like giving you their hard-earned research when you simply belittle it etc.

And as for the 2cm L55 vs the other one.. Yeah, I DO happen to know the difference. And it is not from any secret source. Just pick up ANY book on the Afrika Korps or early Soviet or Italian campaigns and you'll see 2cm PaKs in operation. Jesus you're unbelievable going on about "secret sources" etc when I never even mentioned anything of the sort. Get a book on any of those periods and you should be able to find 2cm PaKs. This isn't anything secret at all.. It's bloody common in almost every book on the Afrika Korps I've seen.

Oh and quit throwing terms like slander around will you? Saying " It's not even worth trying to discuss things with Scott using archival evidence. The fact that you have spent hours researching the use of weapons on the Western Front for the CMMC and have actual German Bn and Company defensive deployments marked out on maps which CLEARLY show how 2cm FlaK were sited PURELY for the ground support role means nothing to Scott." isn't slander. It is exactly how James, I and several others feel about the way you have dealt with James in this thread.

Also I'll note that my post which referred to German plans showing the use of 2cm FlaK in the ground role DOES deal with the issue here ( which is whether or not CM and other wargames over or under-represent 2cm FlaK in the ground role).

By SHOWING that the Germans habitually had a good half-dozen 2cm FlaK in support of even company-sized strongpoints I am setting a BASELINE from which comparison can begin. I am setting a baseline based on the Western Front in 1944 from which one can extrapolate and determine whether or not 2cm FlaK in the ground role is over or under-represented.

Now, as for, " When some research is ACTUALLY POSTED it will have an effect. Until then all the posts are just opinions. Since when is saying "I have this secret source that says..." research?"

Umm, James told you where you can get the info. He told you exactly which library to go to and which section of it to do your research in. Quit asking to be spoon-fed facts etc. Why on earth do you think James ( an ex-officer and succesful businessman) would BOTHER lying to you about some source? I think it is quite obvious that neither James nor I feel all that well-disposed to you after being called liars by you AND I think you're pretty naive if you expect people you've just insulted to turn around and spend hours gathering and scanning documents to "prove" they aren't lying to you.

If I called you a liar about something and said that in order to PROVE to me you were tellign the truth you'd have to go and gather documents, spend a few hours scanning them in, translating them from the German ( since you probably can't understand German well enough to read the German records and AARS) and explaining what you're sending you'd probably say to yourself " What? This guy wants me to spend an entire afternoon and evening collating sources to show him after he's just finished raving and calling me a liar and every name under the sun? Hmm, Somehow I don't think that someone who has just gone loony on me in a thread and hurled abuse at me is worth one evening of my time."

Scott, that is EXACTLY how I ( and presumably now James) think when you hurl abuse at us and then demand we spend hours collating and scanning stuff for you. IF you were being nice and not calling names etc then you might get the stuff but being a prick about it means no-one's going to drop everything and gather info to show you.

As for belittling... That's not how James sees it I assure you.

And I quote from one of his emails ( James, hope you don't mind this but Scott just rubs me up the wrong way with all these accusations and protestations of interest...) " (Fionn) I know you have had a problem with Scott Clinton in the past (I don't know over what). I tried to have a rational conversion on the forum with him regarding German Infantry Doctrine and Flak Guns. The guy just pushed his "opinion" at me without any historical grounding, and in an offensive manner. I tried citing primary AAR's and sources that I have seen but got no where with the guy. I ended it by politely thanking him (for wasting my valuable time) and moved on."

Scott,

One simple closing comment...

Listen, we ALL sometimes get a little pissed off at others on the net ok? I think you need to just take a step back and reflect on the possibility that you MAY just get a bit too defensive when challenged and that you DO come across to a lot of people ( not just me here) as someone who pushes their "opinions" and simply refuses to accept it when the other person responds with research etc since you then, habitually, call the other a liar and accuse them of making the research up.

Obviously, after being called a liar etc by you no-one is willing to spend an evening putting together their research for you.

All I'm saying is that you should try to:

a) realise that people really have no motivation to lie about their research.

have a little more faith in the integrity of others.

c) realise that if you call someone a lying cheat and a piece of **** that it is NOT surprising when they turn around and say "hell no I'm not going to show you my research... Get off your lazy ass and do it yourself." ( In effect that's what both James and I have said to you after your verbal hammerings).

Now IF you would just hold back on the "calling people liars" bit then I'm sure that people WOULD be willing to put in a couple of hours to send you some of their info.

Honestly, you really can't go around on a historical forum calling everyone who presents evidence which doesn't uphold your viewpoint a liar. That simply is unsustainable.

Please think about that a little ok? I HAVE shared my evidence on the Nahv with many other people, including several Q&A sessions on the chat and not one person whom I've explained the interlocking chain of evidence to has felt it to be lacking ( even though a few were initially sceptical ). IF you can calm your discourse down and stop simply calling me and others liars and cheats etc etc then I would share it with you too. OTOH I have no desire to share info with someone who is calling me a liar. If you can't understand that then you have a lot to learn about social interaction.

Now, bite back the first reply ok? ( I had to delete my first reply in favour of this, more constructive, reply....) THINK about this. You've alienated a NUMBER of people who habitually do research in US and European military archives by calling them liars. I think you might want to change your tack before this alienation goes to ridiculous lengths.

[Fionn]

Germanboy,

One of the defensive deployments I saw showed 2 or 3 2cm FlaK guns being utilised to provide support to infantry units in a city-fight.

These were on the front-line and were not ad-hoc. The 2cm FlaK were situated a bit like HMGs. They were obviously present in order to provide long-range grzing and suppressive fire.

The very fact that they were integrated into the company fireplan in a manner quite reminiscent of HMG positions says a lot about how the German Bn commander viewed them. I think James has a map of this.. He sent it to me at one stage for a look and comment... I deleted it since though.

Basically I think every GM is quite satisfied that 2cm FlaK were utilised as part of the MLR and used as "super-heavy MGs" and also as units capable of taking out the enemy's recon units.

Of course, Scott will tell you that everyone is lying about this and making up all of this . *sigh*.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as for sources. Umm, Scott, I DID share my sources with others AND YOU. When you cyber-stalked me by sending emails to my home address etc that's when I stopped sharing any sources with you. If you can't understand why someone who feels he was stalked by you would refuse to engage in friendly discussion with someone he views as "dangerous" ( in the full sense of that word) then you should reflect and try to gain some understanding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bull****. Not only did you not 'share' your sources I NEVER ASKED TO SEE THEM. What fantasy world do you live in?!?! Would you care to list these sources that you "shared with me" because I never saw or asked to see them. And don't start your lies again about me sending you emails that is pure crap. For every one I sent you (THREE IN TOTAL!!!!!!) you sent me one back...plus another two when I called it quits!!!!!!! But of course you never mention this little FACT do you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as for the 2cm L55 vs the other one.. Yeah, I DO happen to know the difference. And it is not from any secret source. Just pick up ANY book on the Afrika Korps or early Soviet or Italian campaigns and you'll see 2cm PaKs in operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you are a real piece of work. I assume NOW you mean the 28/20 PaK. Hell, if that is the case you are even more WRONG than before! That weapon was a sqeezebore anti-tank gun. It had ZERO in common with the 20mm FlaK gun!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh and quit throwing terms like slander around will you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you read? Where did I write this? I don't see it. Why don't you have someone read my post to you as you seem to be seeing things that are not written...again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...maps which CLEARLY show how 2cm FlaK were sited PURELY for the ground support role...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MY GOD MAN! YOU REALLY CAN'T READ CAN YOU!

Read this slooowly...

THE POINT OF THE TREAD WAS WHETHER OR NOT LIGHT FLAK GUNS WERE OVER OR UNDER REPRESENTED IN GROUND COMBAT. NOT WHETHER THE EVER TOOK PART IN GROUND COMBAT OR NOT, THAT WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also I'll note that my post which referred to German plans showing the use of 2cm FlaK in the ground role DOES deal with the issue here ( which is whether or not CM and other wargames over or under-represent 2cm FlaK in the ground role). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so you do understand...then what was all the crap about you wrote above? Trying to cloud the issue again?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Umm, James told you where you can get the info. He told you exactly which library to go to and which section of it to do your research in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, he named a 'library' in vague terms and used the term AAR. Not what I would call quoting a source. But then again I think your standards are lower than mine are. But the fact is I NEVER asked for his sources. If he says he read it in (in an AAR) that is good enough for me. BUT BECAUSE MY OPINION DOES NOT SWAY WITH THIS POSTING DOES NOT MEAN I AM CALLING ANYBODY ANYTHING.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think it is quite obvious that neither James nor I feel all that well-disposed to you after being called liars by you AND I think you're pretty naive if you expect people you've just insulted to turn around and spend hours gathering and scanning documents to "prove" they aren't lying to you...If I called you a liar about something and said that in order to PROVE to me you were telling the truth you'd have to go and gather documents...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I call James any such thing. Don't answer this very simple, point blank question because you can't Fionn. No, you just want stir up crap again. Make accusation as always then slink away without backing any of them up. What's new! Why don't you JUST FOR ONCE try to back one of them up.

I have NEVER ASKED ANYONE FOR ANY RESEARCH. Just because I have a differing opinion does not mean I am demanding anything. Like I said above: why don't you just show me where I called James a lair? Should not be too difficult. Or is it easier to just slink away from this accusation as you have done so many times in the past?!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for belittling... That's not how James sees it I assure you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then let the man speak for himself. Who died and made you his guardian.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...you MAY just get a bit too defensive when challenged and that you DO come across to a lot of people ( not just me here) as someone who pushes their "opinions" and simply refuses to accept it when the other person responds with research etc since you then, habitually, call the other a liar and accuse them of making the research up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I say it again: Bull****. Where did I call anyone a liar? Where did I say this...again I ask you to point it out. Try it. Or slink away...I think I know what you will do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You've alienated a NUMBER of people who habitually do research in US and European military archives by calling them liars. I think you might want to change your tack before this alienation goes to ridiculous lengths.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! ME!! I have alienated a number of people! That is rich, real rich! If I was like you Fionn I would just post a few PERSONAL emails I have received from others, but I'm NOT like you.

Furthermore, I ask ANYONE I have called a lair to post here NOW! Come on! Now is the time folks Lord Fionn has called me out because I have alienated some many people by calling everyone a lair.

Anyone??? Hell, anyone want to just show me where I say this?

Please, anyone because I know Fionn won't. No, actually backing up his accusations is not his style.

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

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 07-15-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

The very fact that they were integrated into the company fireplan in a manner quite reminiscent of HMG positions says a lot about how the German Bn commander viewed them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Fionn, that should settle it then. I was just surprised that they don't get a lot of mention in the stuff I read on the allied side (not that I have read a lot, admittedly), but then again, many of the vets probably had better things to do than wonder about what kind of shells were incoming at that point. Digging in fast or getting out of there comes to mind.

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

Andreas

[Fionn]

Scott,

I was referring to the fact that up until the time you cyber-stalked me I was willing to share with you and over the previous months had no problem telling you exactly what my sources were etc.

And as for the number of emails.. Dude, if I sent you three emails and reading them made your wife cry at the hurtful things contained in them then it wouldn't matter to you that I'd onyl sent three. That's like saying you ONLY raped someone 3 times and being unable to see why you're in trouble since you ONLY raped them three time.

As for the 2.8cm Panzerbusche.. Mistaking that for a 2cm PaK would be a real rookies mistake . And I'm not so much of a rookie as to mistake them. No, I'm referring a 2cm portee PaK.

Scott, you said you'd NEVER mentioned slander and that my bringing it up was "missing the point"..

Dude, on this VERY PAGE you said " you continue to miss the point and slander and misrepresent me".I'm going to avoid the abuse and questioning as to whether or not I can read except to note that it is EXACTLY that sort of belittling of other people that I and others find so objectionable. I responded to something you wrote and you respond by denying you said it and saying "Can you read?" Way to foster discussion Scott.

And your abusive language continues "MY GOD MAN! YOU REALLY CAN'T READ CAN YOU!

Read this slooowly...

THE POINT OF THE TREAD WAS WHETHER OR NOT LIGHT FLAK GUNS WERE OVER OR UNDER REPRESENTED IN GROUND COMBAT. NOT WHETHER THE EVER TOOK PART IN GROUND COMBAT OR NOT, THAT WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE."

I'm not going to dwell on the insulting use of the phrase "read this slowly" etc except to point out that the ONLY way to establish whether 2cm FlaK guns are under or over-represented in the ground role is to establish just HOW MUCH THEY WERE USED IN THAT ROLE IN WW2.

I stated how many FlaKs were utilised to support ONE COMPANY in the defence in order to establish a BASELINE from which we could say " In CM it would appear that more/less 2cm FlaKs are used than WW2 defensive deployments show were used during this same time period on this same front in reality.

You CAN'T discuss over or under-representation without establishing how many were used in this role in WW2. I tried to do this and got belittled for it by YOU because YOU MISSED THE POINT due to letting your anger get the better of you.

E.g. If we see 4x 2cm FlaK being used to support a company in a CM scenario then HOW can we say if this is over or under-representation unless we know how many were habitually used to support a company in WW2? Answer: we can't. ALL I did was provide a historical reference as to the number of 2cm FlaKs which one could often find in the front lines.

" I have NEVER ASKED ANYONE FOR ANY RESEARCH. "

Sure Scott. And the times you've said to me and others " Show me the AAR (or document) " weren't calls for showing you research? Scott, calm down for a minute ok? You're starting to just say stupid things which can't be supported by facts because you're angry. CALM down for a minute.

Scott,

As for letting James speak for himself. He has absconded himself from this thread seemingly. He absconded himself because of the attitude you took against him and his research etc. As for me being his guardian... Nah, I just don't like to see someone who has a lot to contribute to the community being bullied out of it ( or feeling that he is being bullied out of it to be more precise).

As for the lying thing. Oh Jesus Scott. Read between the lines of what you write for a second. It definitely makes people you don't agree with feel attacked etc.

Darn, I really thought you had moved beyond blind anger and lashing out by this stage. Guess not. TRY to take a step back Scott. You can't be 100% right you know and I DO think you would benefit from just checking your methods a little.

Scott, feel free to email me all those emails you have ( names removed of course). I'm sure it'll be fun reading them .

Maybe, if I still have them, I can swap you a few emails from division COs in the CMMC ( not appointed by me or anything) who specifically emailed me stipulating that they wouldn't play if you were in their division since they didn't want to deal with you given your reaction to ANY disagreement . (Names removed of course ). At least I know that some people don't like my style and fortright manner and accept it. YOUR problem is that you don't seem to be able to accept that you are just a human who CAN get too angry and too defensive. I'm not exactly proud that I can be goaded into getting too angry etc but AT LEAST I ADMIT IT HAPPENS... This exchange for example is one in which I'm trying very hard to be constructive and jut point out the flaws in how you deal with criticism.

Scott, you're not infallible. You DO often react badly. Take a look at that and try and fix it. I'm trying not to let myself be activated so easily and I think you should be doing the same.

Germanboy,

I agree. I think the reason they weren't mentioned so much is that most vets concentrate on the "big stuff".

They mention when a platoon got ripped apart by HMGs crossing a field or when an artillery burst caught a platoon or when enemy tanks counter-attacked etc. They also mention things like hand to hand fighting or determined enemy attacks BUT if you look at their accounts they, in the main, don't mention things which pinned them for a few minutes here or there or which fired from a long ways behind the enemy infantry's positions.

I think that's why the 2cm FlaK just doesn't get mentioned as much in accounts. Also, remember that most front-line soldiers really wouldn't even know what a 2cm FlaK sounded like. It'd just be another "big loud thing which fired big shells at us" .

Ps. Thanks for keeping the tone civil. I'm sure that if you email James nicely he could probably find that defensive deployment. It'll shed more light I assure you.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Thanks for keeping the tone civil. I'm sure that if you email James nicely he could probably find that defensive deployment. It'll shed more light I assure you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem - and I trust James' assessment on this. After all, there is only so much research you can do yourself. Although it would be nice to have a look at it to learn something useful for CMMC (either how to set it up myself of to see how I have to attack it).

The account of the 43rd's action probably mentions the light AA guns b/c they were the backbone of the German defense at Vernon (not much else left there) and wrought havoc with the REs trying to build a bridge.

Any ideas about the mounted guns (Sdkfz.7/1 and 7/2)? Were they assigned to supply convoy protection? Seems like a bad idea to have them to close to the front line, they look like they are difficult to hide. I would guess the tank-mounted ones were allocated to armoured units to protect them during advances. So I would expect to see them in CMMC during German armoured counter-attacks.

I am also quite interested in this for scenario design. Thanks for the answers.

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

Andreas

[Fionn]

A 2cm Flak-based defence is very strong vs light armoured vehicles but IMMENSELY vulnerable to artillery and heavy armour...

Any player who doesn't support his FlaK with ifnantry also leaves it vulnerable to infantry attack also. Basically though the 2cm FlaK should be targetted by artillery thus leaving you free to concentrate on the enemy's infantry. once you break them you can get in close to the FlaK with infantry and take it out easily.

2cm FlaK is a nice weapons system but it is also a HIGHLY vulnerable one. It's just a case of accepting a few losses to spot the FlaK gun and then sending in a tank to take it out ( of course, as an advanced tactic one can actually use the 2cm FlaK as BAIT for an anti-tank ambush . This is a little trick I've used to good effect myself.

I used infantry as a bait for an enemy who had a lot of direct fire HE in the form of priests and M3s.. When his Priest came in to attack the infantry I took it out with a 2cm FlaK. When he sent two Shermans in to kill the FlaK I had a 75mm PaK take out both Shermans .. It all worked out very nicely.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was referring to the fact that up until the time you cyber-stalked me I was willing to share with you and over the previous months had no problem telling you exactly what my sources were etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THIS is exactly the same lie you always bring up Fionn and yet in the OVER six months and countless times you have posted this lie on various forums you will NEVER, EVER make even the most feeble attempt to back it up. The reason is simple it did not happen that way and the ONLY other person (who shall remain nameless) that was privy to this 'exchange' saw the THREE (THREE!!) emails that we swapped the same way I did. There was nothing worse in those emails that what is in this tread now, and you supplied your fair share as always. As for you sharing sources...I still ask what sources? You have never sent me ANY information on your 'sources' in the 2 (3?) years I have known you on the net.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And as for the number of emails.. Dude, if I sent you three emails and reading them made your wife cry...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the victim thing again. Would this be the "hurtful email" that you have never produced? Would this be the same one that I have offered to apoligize for on at least FOUR different occasions (and do so AGAIN, NOW), providing you could at least tell me what was in it?? And after each offer to apoligize...you slink away...only to bring it up again in a month or two. Do you have any idea how lame and sad that is? This email was so horid and terrible that you can never forget it but you are unable to realate to me what was actually in the email? Yeah, sure.

I just seems funny to the number of threads that you have been in that have been locked up whereas the ONLY ones I have ever been in were with YOU. I know, just like my 16 year-old nephew "But, its not MY fault!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I stated how many FlaKs were utilised to support ONE COMPANY in the defence in order to establish a BASELINE from which we could say " In CM it would appear that more/less 2cm FlaKs are used than WW2 defensive deployments show were used during this same time period on this same front in reality.

You CAN'T discuss over or under-representation without establishing how many were used in this role in WW2. I tried to do this and got belittled for it by YOU because YOU MISSED THE POINT due to letting your anger get the better of you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is great (really). Why didn't you STICK to just posting this in your first post?!?!??

But, in fact 90% of your first post was a direct attack on me PERSONALLY. Read the damn post yourself.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's not even worth trying to discuss things with Scott using archival evidence....(your reasearch)...means nothing to Scott....his second-last post really shows his disdain for engaging in a "debate of sources" in such a manner as you'd wonder if he even knows that PRIMARY RESEARCH is the backbone of historical discussion...I firmly believe that no amount of pointint to sources and research etc will change Scott's position. Scott is Scott and Scott is ALWAYS right because if he THINKS it was so then it WAS so regardless of whether or not you have 15 or 20 references showing it wasn't so....James, there's no point discussing such issues with Scott. He has to be right and will simply belittle your sources time and again. It isn't worth entering into it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOW, is that not a personal attack on me?!?!? Or can you explain how this realates to the issue that WAS being discussed? And don't even pretend you were addressing this to James as you have already related how you echanged emails with him! And NOW you act like you just 'popped' in to this thread to debate the issue at hand? You can be such a hypocrite it really just turns my stomach (and others as has been stated a number times).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the lying thing. Oh Jesus Scott. Read between the lines of what you write for a second. It definitely makes people you don't agree with feel attacked etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YOU MUST BE JOKING! You (and perhaps others) read between the lines of what I post...and I am supposed to be held responcible for your misinterpretation of my posts?!?!? Give me a break!

Why don't you show me where I write between the lines that I call James a lair? Is that too hard to do?

And in the future I have a REAL simple solution here for you...TRY TO JUST READ THE POST, NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. JUST THE WORDS IN THE MESSAGE. IF I WANT TO WRITE SOMETHING MORE, I WILL WRITE IT MY SELF I DON'T NEED YOU TO ADD ANY 'HIDDEN MEANINGS'. Is that they way you expect people to read YOUR posts (adding hidden meanings)?

Bottom line is I have called nobody a lair (other than you for the personal attacks you continue to post). If ANYONE wants a clarifcation on what I posted or if they THINK they read something between the lines then they should as me. IF ANYONE READS THINGS INTO MY POSTS THAT ARE NOT THERE THAT IS THERE FAULT.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>" I have NEVER ASKED ANYONE FOR ANY RESEARCH. "

Sure Scott. And the times you've said to me and others " Show me the AAR (or document) " weren't calls for showing you research? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't suppose you would like to tell me where I asked you to "show me the AAR" would you? No, I don't think so because it never happened.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can't be 100% right you know and I DO think you would benefit from just checking your methods a little.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do know that read the sig.

It seems to me that your problem is that you like to read things that simply are NOT intended or written. If that is the case then that is YOUR PROBLEM NOT MINE.

Btw I am still waiting to here from all those people I have called a lair...a long wait I expect. And the 20mm PaK was not the same weapon as the 20mm FlaK, not even close (I don't think they even used the same ammo).

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

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

[Moon]

Hey guys, this used to be a nice and informative thread last time I visited... now it's turning into a Scott-Fionn debate again? How about cooling down a little and staying on-topic please? The guy with the lock-up key is watching

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

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[James Bailey]

Sorry to both Scott and Fionn,

I didn't mean to stir up problems here.

I am a historian now that I am done with active service (an armchair historian ). I enjoy working with primary sources (as opposed to secondary sources) and have observed a lot of "inconsistencies" between how secondary sources and primary sources have recorded history.

One important German doctrine that marked defensive (and even offensive) ground tactics in the '44-'45 ETO that my primary sources detail was the important role flak guns played. My explanation for this is that flak guns offered a lot of firepower to German ground commanders that needed to stop Allied Infantry and armor from taking more ground. Maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it was done.

And Scott correctly points out, these guns have low survivability and play key role against Allied air power. But, even with these limitations, German ground commanders used them in "non-traditional" roles quite often.

As far as CM goes, I don't think the 20mmFlak should be an "Uberweapon" because they are cheap in points. (Believe me, the last thing I want to see is some ahistorical "wall" of 20mm Flak guns). I was merely raising the issue that the weapons were used, and as such, it is interesting to see the weapon included SELECTIVELY when folks are designing scenarios. Learning how to use and support that gun position should be important skills for any German CM ground commander.

I have sent Andreas the defensive map Fionn referred to and will happily send it along to anyone else that wants to see it. Its straight from the hands of the German Battalion commander that made it Sept 24, '44. Just drop me an email.

James.

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Very interesting...

I would love to see the map if you are offering. But I have no problem taking you word on it.

I must admit, my primary focus would be on the rear areas (if shown) and who was guarding the skies while the divisional AAA was on the front line. Like I posted before, perhaps there were independent AA units or Luft. units in the area, perhaps not.

I guess IMO it would take 'balls of steel' to put most of your AA assets on the front line and leave your divisional arty, CnC, etc. unprotected from the Jabos...but then again 'balls of steel' were not that rare among the German High Command.

Nice to be back on topic without any personal attacks.

James, I said it twice above, and I say it again here: If I misinterpreted your post you have my apology.

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

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