AA-guns in AT role

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AA-guns in AT role

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> AA-guns in AT role

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AA-guns in AT role - 7/12/2001 11:12:00 PM

Colonel von Blitz

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

After releasing SPWAW v5.0 I've noticed several players using large caliber AA-guns in anti tank role. AA-guns are more appealing unit of purchase because their FC and RF ratings are much higher than AT-guns have and usually AA-guns are even very cheap compared to pure AT-guns (88 FlaK has about same price as 75mm AT-gun!!!!). The reason why I write about is that I was preparing a next PBEM game: 1938 Germany vs. Czechoslovakia...I was amazed to find 83mm AA-gun loaded with AP ammo in Czech OOB!!! This means that there will be huge FlaK-AT front when German panzer units advance :( All this has made me wonder if AP ammunition was delivered to AA units in all countries like it is now. Did russian 85mm AA-guns have 85mm AP rounds? Did British 3.7in AA-gun have AP rounds? etc. I don't have the facts but I'd say AA-guns should be more returned to their anti-aircraft role (either removing most of their AP ammo or removing them from the game, this excluding those AA-guns that were extensively used in AT role in real life!!) The notorious 88mm FlaK in AT-role is acceptable after 1940, but even then I remember reading that they used HE ammo during campaign in France, because AP rounds were not available (this is where my memory could fail me). But how usual it was to use heavy AA-guns in AT role before that? And how usual it was for other countries to use AA-guns in AT role, before and after 1940? Colonel von Blitz [ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

Post #: 1

- 7/12/2001 11:18:00 PM

Grumble

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline

quote:

The notorious 88mm FlaK in AT-role is acceptable after 1940, but even in I remember reading that they used HE ammo during campaign in France (this is where my memory could fail me). But how usual it was to use heavy AA-guns in AT role before that? And how usual it was for other countries to use AA-guns in AT role, before and after 1940?

88 Flak18s were used in the AT role in Spain. The 88mm was also a standard naval weapon, hence AP ammunition was already available. The first use in WW2 was in 1940 as you mention. IIRC, the 3.7" AA had AP ammunition, but despite desperate entreaties by commanders, the RA refused to release them for such use and kept them in the AAA role in rear areas.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 2

- 7/12/2001 11:42:00 PM

Colonel von Blitz

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Grumble: 88 Flak18s were used in the AT role in Spain. The 88mm was also a standard naval weapon, hence AP ammunition was already available. The first use in WW2 was in 1940 as you mention.

But was AP ammo issued for German AA-units too??

quote:

IIRC, the 3.7" AA had AP ammunition, but despite desperate entreaties by commanders, the RA refused to release them for such use and kept them in the AAA role in rear areas.

Then I'd say 3.7in AA-guns should be removed from OOBs. Colonel von Blitz

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 3

- 7/13/2001 12:04:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

This gets to the problem of limiting the player to "what was doctrine". In many areas like artillery, the player has a totally ahistorical ontrol over artillery assets. That is a limitation of the game system. Many weapons could be used in ways other than period doctrine allowed, infantry and tank cooperation was very difficult so UK often used tank units alone with out infantry. HOW COULD THEY BE SO DUMB?!?" An SP player might ask, its so obvious you support your tanks with infnatry or you get creamed! Yet it was not so obvious then and the deveil was in teh details...lacking the telepathy o the Borg collective teh player has in the game, such coordination is far more difficult. SO should weapons that might have been used, but doctrinally weren't be excluded? Well, perhaps, but about using any unit in ahistorical manner or numbers? How do you regulate a player that likes to use ahistorical force cominations? These sorts of things that players just have to negotiate before hand. The easiest I have found is to either propose an OOB and situation and have teh opponant propose a force he thinks will win in teh situation described and let the original proposer select sides. Or say that 80% of points must be spent on company sized formations. THose AA guns typically only have 15 rounds of AP which are reduced even further with reduced ammo on. Where that is "realistic" or not depends ont eh situation. In some cases yes, in many probably not. But ultimately you as players have to decide. The alternate is to strictly limit players to historical TO&E and doctrine, which many would chafe at..

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 4

- 7/13/2001 12:11:00 AM

Kluckenbill

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline

I think the biggest issue is not the theoretical capability of the equipment, but the actual way it was used during the war. For example, although the US 90mm AA gun was theoretically an excellent AT gun (it was, after all, the same gun mounted in the M36 TD and the M26 Tank) it was almost never used in the AT role. I have read of US 90MM units during the battle of the bulge that fired on German tanks with AA rounds because there were no AP rounds available (I think it was in "The Bitter Woods" but I can't remember for sure.) Also I've spoken at length with two different guys who served in 90mm units during WW2, and both of them told me they never trained or practiced the engagement of ground targets. Perhaps if it had been truly necessary, the US would have further developed the use of the 90mm as an AT gun, but the existing AT guns, TDs and tanks were at least marginally capable of taking out all but the heaviest German tanks and those tanks were pretty rare on the battlefield. Obviously the Germans used the 88mm AA guns extensively as AT guns. Ther US did not, I don't think the British did either. I really have no knowledge of the Russian 85 or 76 mm use. Bye the way, many of the heavy allied AA guns spent much of the war shooting down V1's! There were hundreds of US and British guns stationed between the German launch sites and the port of Antwerp. They may not have knocked out many tanks but they shot down hundreds of Buzz Bombs.

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 5

- 7/13/2001 12:32:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Colonel von Blitz: If nothing else your memory of 88 useage in France has to be off, because Rommel was famous for using them in the counterattack at Arras. They may not have been used in Poland that way, excpet maybe against bunkers and the like, since the tank's guns were better than the Polish tank's armor.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 6

- 7/13/2001 12:57:00 AM

Drex

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline

There are many of us players who use equipment ahistorically because we simply don't know any better. I used the British 3.7" A guns exclusively in an AT role because they were in the OOB and had the ammo for it. I didn't know the British Army had restricted them to AA use only. Rather than eliminate them , just eliminate the AP ammo. Guys like myself don't have the time to research the use of all the equipment that was used in battle, if we find something available that we can use, then we will innocently use it.

_____________________________

quote:

Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 7

- 7/13/2001 1:28:00 AM

achappelle

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

I'm not sure the Sovs issued AP rounds to their 85mm AA crews, but that gun is what they mounted on their KV1/85s and T34/85s. They may not have even developed an AP round until they armour mounted it.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 8

- 7/13/2001 1:44:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drex: There are many of us players who use equipment ahistorically because we simply don't know any better. I used the British 3.7" A guns exclusively in an AT role because they were in the OOB and had the ammo for it. I didn't know the British Army had restricted them to AA use only. Rather than eliminate them , just eliminate the AP ammo. Guys like myself don't have the time to research the use of all the equipment that was used in battle, if we find something available that we can use, then we will innocently use it.

Easy enough to do with the OOB editor provided. Its a catch-22 situation similar to when SP:WWII came out. There are only so many "slots" available and most players would want them devoted to bringing in as many different types of weapons systems as possible. However the game engines dont allow single entries (like an AFV subtype) to have multple ammo loadouts for different time periods. You have to create a duplicate entry of the AFV and give it a different "loadout" in the editor. Early builds of the WWII version of SP gave a generous loadout of APCR ammo to pretty much all tanks that could theoretically fire or recieve them which caused some inaccuracies I just went through last night and modified the APCR loadouts for the 76mm Sherman as all have at least 8 rounds which did'nt strike me as correct since i have reference material documenting the early complaints on the new gun's effectiveness. The developement of an effective APCR round for the 76mm came much later. Course you'll have to keep a copy of the unaltered OOB's for online or PBEM play as IIRC there is an alert that gets flashed if the game detects a non-standard OOB in play.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 9

- 7/13/2001 2:52:00 AM

Colonel von Blitz

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drex: There are many of us players who use equipment ahistorically because we simply don't know any better. I used the British 3.7" A guns exclusively in an AT role because they were in the OOB and had the ammo for it. I didn't know the British Army had restricted them to AA use only. Rather than eliminate them , just eliminate the AP ammo. Guys like myself don't have the time to research the use of all the equipment that was used in battle, if we find something available that we can use, then we will innocently use it.

There are a lot of player who simply don't know much about historical useage of some equipment. And what you suggested, eliminating AP ammo from those units that were restricted to AA use only and leave AP ammo to those units that were used quite often in AT role. Colonel von Blitz

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 10

- 7/13/2001 2:55:00 AM

Colonel von Blitz

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: Colonel von Blitz: If nothing else your memory of 88 useage in France has to be off, because Rommel was famous for using them in the counterattack at Arras.

My memory is not off, I know very well that Arras thing and Rommel using 88's. I just have this strange piece of info in my memory that keeps saying that Rommels 88:s didn't have AP ammo...but like I said, my memory could fail here... Colonel von Blitz

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 11

- 7/13/2001 3:56:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

As Far as AA guns go with the US Army ..you know that the US had to strip AAA units for Infantry in the ETO .. in fact the US had to disband 258 BN of AAA to get troops ..leaving Merely 347 BN of AAA to defend the meager US ground Forces against the Dreaded Luffwaffe http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/antiair.asp . the Great and Very Psyhic Genuis General George S. Patton , feeling very disapointed that the Dreaded Luffwaffe would not come out and play, took steps ( using the powerful 4 of chariots Tarot card and Miss Cleo as Early as 42 ) to design equipment, such as the M15A1 and establish Doctrine for what to do with under employed AAA Gunners http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36division/443con.htm In Short the AAA, even the 90mm had regular AP ammo , was used in the indirect role as arty , and was equipped with proximity fuses for both AAA and arty roles ...40mm and 37mm AAA had AT capability from the get go ... the question would be more properly asked .. did the AAA have Targets for the AP ammo they had ? We know they had targets for the for the artillery ammo they carried, that they are not capable of using in the game ... In addition, they liked the captured german 88mm and other arty so well, and had so much of it , they went to the trouble to actually create a few units .. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/oddities.asp to actually use it ..but another feature not in the US Army bag of tricks in the Game [ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ] [ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 12

- 7/13/2001 4:13:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

If you peak at this page http://www.kwanah.com/txmilmus/36division/archives/443/44386.htm you will see that the M-16 was considered to be effective against ground targets and was equiped with AP ammo and fired 5000 rounds per minute from it's 4 50cal guns ..thats 1250 rounds per minute per gun. [ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 13

- 7/13/2001 4:34:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

In 6.1 an M16 is quite a "meatchopper" indeed...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 14

- 7/13/2001 4:41:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

In all the versions from SP to SPWAW 6.1 the M16 has always made meat of infantry. That thing is usually much more useful as an infantry support weapon than as an SPAA unit. M15 and M19 are better for taking down airplanes... Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 15

- 7/13/2001 5:14:00 AM

Warrior

Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Drex: There are many of us players who use equipment ahistorically because we simply don't know any better. I used the British 3.7" A guns exclusively in an AT role because they were in the OOB and had the ammo for it. I didn't know the British Army had restricted them to AA use only. Rather than eliminate them , just eliminate the AP ammo. Guys like myself don't have the time to research the use of all the equipment that was used in battle, if we find something available that we can use, then we will innocently use it.

I may be ignorant of historical availabilities, but I'm not innocent! If a weapon is available and will do the job, I intend to use it and history can go to hell. I play this game to win my battles, not recreate history. :D

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 16

- 7/13/2001 6:42:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: In 6.1 an M16 is quite a "meatchopper" indeed...

You can say that again. The more i play 6.1, the more i'm loving it. Just fended off a Russian human wave attack with only a few scattered infantry squads and a few precious machine guns. Had to withdrawl under the pressure but not before earning my pound of flesh (litterally) Would have done better but half my guns were manned by green Italian troops. They got a few though. attacking across mixed terrain now takes a brave cyber-warrior indeed :eek: [ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 17

- 7/13/2001 7:01:00 AM

Possum

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline

Hello all. Some tidbits I know that may help. 1) ALL Russian guns, cannons, and howitzers had AP ammo avaliable right from the moment of mass production starting in 1930. This was a deliberate policy on the part of the Red army that all guns/etc.... be capable of defending themselves against marauding tanks (read up on Sovied deep opperations) ref. The Russian Battlefield website; Also my WWII wepaon encyclopedia lists all of the Russian guns/howitzers as having several rounds of AP avaliable for local defence(yes even the 203mm howitzer!) the 76mm IG's, 76mm AA, and 85mmAA carried quite large allotments of AP. The British 3" and 3.7" AA were used in Tobruk by the Australian 7th Division as AT guns and LR counterbattery artillery. Ref. Orbis History of the Second World War. The british 3" AA gun was designated a light gun and was supposed to be used for foward deployment, and so was issued with a large allotment of AP. (in reality the Bofors supplanted it in this role, and it was used for AA protection in rear areas. ) Over 50% of the British 3" were in fact on self propelled mounts. (usually a Morris or Bedford truck chassis) Ref. Orbis History of the Second World War. The British 40mm Bofors was used extesivly as a Tank ambush weapon. usually the Self propelled versions on a Morris/Ford truck chassis was employed in this role, so allowing a quick escape. (Another weapon system that is sadly lacking from the British & ANZAC OOB's, hint, hint...) With respect with Orbis History of the Second World War, I can't recall the respective volume Nos., (there are 30 volumes) and I'm at work at present, and so don't have it handy. :D A lot of the "Heavy" AA guns designed in europe in the 1930's were designed as multipul purpose guns, to justify the money spent on developing them. "Yes, it can shoot down a aeroplane flying at 38,000 ft; Yes we know a bomber can't fly that high, but it can also be used for killing tanks at 4 Km!/Bunker busting/sinking enemy light crusisers!"

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 18

- 7/13/2001 7:09:00 AM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

Daggone 40mm AA guns are destroying more of my tanks in the MC than the AT guns!! :eek:

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 19

- 7/13/2001 7:12:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Possum: I think you're right about the justification of nations making heavy AA to be dual-purpose, but the main question lies in did they go ahead and supply AP ammo? My guess is that at least 1/2 of them didn't. Also, I think the doctrine of the armies had a lot to do with it. You mentioned the Russian reason, well I would think the Germans, being offensive and expecting bunkers and pillboxes, if not by Poland, then certainly by France, were supplying AP ammo. The Maginot Line was very good reason for this, and now that I think about it I do recall reading about their use against those fortifications. [ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 20

- 7/13/2001 9:35:00 AM

Warrior

Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: The Maginot Line was very good reason for this, and now that I think about it I do recall reading about their use against those fortifications.

I thought the whole idea of the Germans blitzing through the Low Countries was to bypass the Maginot Line.

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 21

- 7/13/2001 9:41:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior: I thought the whole idea of the Germans blitzing through the Low Countries was to bypass the Maginot Line.

Nah, the Germans(never the 'n' word)were tough enough to go right at the teeth of the enemy fortifications. Right Charles? sven

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 22

- 7/13/2001 9:46:00 AM

Possum

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline

Hello Warrior, The Germans Still had to bust the Belgium border forts, and the many pillboxes that the "paranoid" Belgiums had built over the last 20 years. (wasn't as tought as the Maginot Line though)

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 23

- 7/13/2001 2:02:00 PM

Colonel von Blitz

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by sven: Nah, the Germans(never the 'n' word)were tough enough to go right at the teeth of the enemy fortifications. Right Charles?

Army Group C had the objective to engage Maginot-line and break through if possible Colonel von Blitz

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 24

- 7/13/2001 2:32:00 PM

Colonel von Blitz

Posts: 262
Joined: 12/4/2000
From: Espoo, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: Possum: I think you're right about the justification of nations making heavy AA to be dual-purpose, but the main question lies in did they go ahead and supply AP ammo? My guess is that at least 1/2 of them didn't. Also, I think the doctrine of the armies had a lot to do with it.

It does not surprise me to notice that many heavy AA-gun calibers are quite usual calibers, thus I understand that there was/is AP ammo available, but like Charles_22 here says, was AP ammo supplied to AA units in large numbers? There may have been AP ammo available, but if they were in short supply, I'd say AT-units received the AP ammo and AA-units only HE ammo. Possum: yes, encyclopedia lists AP ammo for russian guns...also here, question is: did russians actually supply AA-units with AP ammo in large numbers or was it just "on paper" information to satisfy, let's say, Stalin? ;) Now when I think of it, main problem here are actually the players who use equipment in "wrong" way...people seem to forget the doctrine of army in question and pursue with their own modern way of warfare. On the other hand there is nothing wrong using equipment provided in OOBs, but it tends to make battles quite boring when everyone purchases the best of the best and utilizes combined arms doctrine that was mostly unknown at the time. Luckily there are few players who are willing to play PBEM games with more "realistic" units and are willing to utilize close-to-real tactics in the battlefield...I see no harm taking some modern initiative from case to case even if playing as commander WW2 combat group :D But using it too frequently, that makes the whole WW2 area in the game quite useless...there is SP2 Modern Battles for that kind of action ;) Back to the original subject, I'd still like to see heavy AA-guns with less AP ammo, like I've said I don't have the facts, but I'd guess that even though many guns were designed as multi-purpose guns, the few AP rounds were probably delivered to real AT units instead of AA units. And this still excludes those AA-guns that were actually used in AT-role most of the war or even through-out the war (88 FlaK 18 one to mention :D) Colonel von Blitz

_____________________________

--Light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak--

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 25

- 7/14/2001 12:54:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

POst up on teh OOB Tigetr Team thread what you think moe appropriate. I pulled 15 rounds from you know where ;) If you have a better number I'm sue it will be considered! But the point about players using 20/20 hindshight in their doctrine is a problem tough to solve (if even a problem to some).

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 26

- 7/14/2001 2:40:00 AM

Grumble

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline

The easiest answer is: let those who wish to use the weapons in a direct fire/AT role use them as such. For those who wish to follow doctrine, try this: "Don't use 'em that way." Use your AAA as AAA, and don't let 'em engage ground targets. As other posts show, some don't care about historicity and just want to play-which is as valid as those who are "purists". It's a game after all...

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 27

- 7/14/2001 2:47:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

quote:

I thought the whole idea of the Germans blitzing through the Low Countries was to bypass the Maginot Line.

and

quote:

Nah, the Germans(never the 'n' word)were tough enough to go right at the teeth of the enemy fortifications. Right Charles?

For one inquisitive honest response and one very smart aleck response, yes, they did assult the fortifications frontally with 88s. From what I recall reading the area had to be cleared up after it had been bypassed for some time, and having been cutoff I don't think the French were all too cheery about playing soldier any more. I'll see if I can dig anything up from my books on this. It's not exactly common knowledge but then again it wasn't theory on my part and if it was theory it was the author's and even he reported it after the fact.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 28

- 7/14/2001 4:10:00 AM

rcread

Posts: 14
Joined: 7/13/2001
From: Shilo, Manitoba, Canada
Status: offline

This is a subject I'm a bit familiar with. An old military truth is that all nations prepare for the previous war. In this light, after their sound beating by Allied armor in WWI, the Germans decided to issue ALL guns with armor-defeating ammunition. This is why the 88s had AP in Spain. Even Luftwaffe Heavy AA batteries, many of which weren't trained in the AT role, were issued AP ammo; one such battery made short work od a Commonwealth tank battalion in Normandy. The Russians gained significant experience as well in Spain. By WWII, all Russian guns (including AA) were multi-purpose, and so were issued with AP ammo. British guns were not issued AP ammo because they did not even have direct fire sights! The Royal Ordinance Bureau, in its infinate wisdom, refused to allow open sights on AA guns, even after German successes with them, because they did not want commanders to pull them away from their primary duty. So, instead, 25pdrs were used as AT guns. I don't know if the US issued AP to heavy AA units, but, considering how they refused to improve the Sherman for so long on the basis that tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks, I doubt if they did. I have no knowledge of minor countries use of AP, but I would imagine it would be a simple question of comparing them to the major country they most emulated.

_____________________________

Cracker "Artillery is the God of Battle"

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 29

- 7/14/2001 7:22:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Here's where I found my Maginot Line evidence: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8662/88mm.htm and here's a telling quote:

quote:

The Flak also played an outstanding part in penetrating the Maginot line in 1940. In this action antitank shells were fired to put the crews of many concrete bunkers and armored turrets out of action. The best range for firing on bunkers proved to be 600 to 2000 meters.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel von Blitz)

Post #: 30