Comprehensive Wishlist

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Fact 2: Even the few Flak-41 guns that were built were not sent to the front lines, despite their AT power and the frontline need for it.

The critical difference is the carriage. QED.

Weren't the Allies plastering German cities day and night? I'd say that would rank fairly highly in the list of priorities for using AA guns.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've noticed many WW2 artillery pieces that were used as AT guns have no AT value in the equipment database.

This gets back to what a weapon is usually going to be doing. Yes, a 150mm Howitzer can be used to knock out that menacing KV-I which has held up the division for the last 12 hours. But for the other three years of its service life, it is not going to be in a position to be used in an AT role.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



They would already be unlimbered when protecting an attack or defense. What fixed targets are there in the Western Desert?

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

The 41 actually was used in Tunisia. However, it's more complex than the earlier types and requires much more to maintain it. The troops in the field were not up to the task. It was pulled from ground forces and used only in Germany where proper service and maintanance facilities could keep them in good order.

It's carriage did provide a lower profile than the other types but still, servicing problems and a jamming problem made them impractile for use with the ground forces. Also, not many were made.

This all sounds like the typical teething problems any new weapon system has. If the concept (dual use Flak guns) had still been viable, they would have fixed it. It wasn't. And they opted for AT guns instead.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've noticed many WW2 artillery pieces that were used as AT guns have no AT value in the equipment database.

As I've said before, 1/4 of their AP value is applied as AT if attacked (maybe even if attacking - I'm not sure).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Fact 2: Even the few Flak-41 guns that were built were not sent to the front lines, despite their AT power and the frontline need for it.

The critical difference is the carriage. QED.

Weren't the Allies plastering German cities day and night? I'd say that would rank fairly highly in the list of priorities for using AA guns.

You're missing the point: Why build 88mm AT guns if an 88mm Flak gun can do both the AT and Flak tasks? Yes the cities were being bombed, but so were the front lines.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.

I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

A limbered up 88 moving along with a column would be useless if some Tomahawks showed up.

I want to go back to this one. The Flak-41 could be fired with its wheels attached - just extend the side members. And we don't know how long it took to unlimber the others. Finally, there are plenty of low-altitude (small caliber) AAA guns that require unlimbering as well.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.

I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.

In North Africa, aircraft such as Wellingtons focused on bombing ports, airfields, and other fixed installations from altitude.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

A limbered up 88 moving along with a column would be useless if some Tomahawks showed up.

I want to go back to this one. The Flak-41 could be fired with its wheels attached - just extend the side members.

Got any figures on actual time to deploy? An 88 is a big gun -- you're not swinging this thing into action in a few seconds. What's more, its rate of fire and traverse are going to make it close to useless against low-altitude targets.

And we don't know how long it took to unlimber the others. Finally, there are plenty of low-altitude (small caliber) AAA guns that require unlimbering as well.

How often did 88's defend mobile columns under attack? On the other hand, there was quite a bit of self-propelled light AA -- 2 cm guns on trucks, to be exact. These latter were obviously intended to provide AA protection while on the move.

[Panama]

Flak 41 saw action in Tunisia. It did see the front lines.

LW 19th and 20th Flak Divisions (motorized) were sent to North Africa. Both ended up destroyed 1943.

It took about 20 seconds to get an 88 ready to fire from limber/towed position. About a minute to get it back to towed.

Did I mention it's rof was 15 - 20 rpm? 41 a bit faster but jamming was a problem.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Flak 41 saw action in Tunisia. It did see the front lines.

LW 19th and 20th Flak Divisions (motorized) were sent to North Africa. Both ended up destroyed 1943.

It took about 20 seconds to get an 88 ready to fire from limber/towed position. About a minute to get it back to towed.

Did I mention it's rof was 15 - 20 rpm? 41 a bit faster but jamming was a problem.

Those figures are impressive, but this is about as close as you're going to get to the horse's mouth. It's a US Army summary written at the end of the 1943 discussing German employment of flak, based on both actual observations and captured manuals.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt0 ... -army.html

It makes it fairly clear that mobile flak protection is furnished by light flak. In particular:

"...Protection against high-level attack by heavy Flak is required only at assembly, entrucking and detrucking areas, halts and especially dangerous points the route such as bridges, defiles or intersections.

Protection against low-flying and diving attacks must be assured by the light Flak units allotted to the motorized formations. These should be allotted to columns by platoons or even by individual guns..."

I think I'll keep my money on heavy AA such as 88's being intended for static deployment covering fixed and vulnerable points whilst mobile coverage is furnished by the 2 cms and the 3.7's.

[ColinWright]

This passage is also of interest:

"...The 88-mm gun can be brought into action very rapidly, possibly in about two minutes; it can, if necessary, fire from its trailer, though only against ground targets..."

The inference here is that the 88 would be virtually useless for providing mobile AA protection. It can come into action quickly, but not in an AA role.

[Panama]

lmao, and here I thought we were talking about it's usefullness in the AT role. Silly me. [&:]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.

I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.

In North Africa, aircraft such as Wellingtons focused on bombing ports, airfields, and other fixed installations from altitude.

But not from 20,000 feet. These were precision targets that required low-altitude strikes. And they were also subject to fighter-bomber attack. Anything appropriate for defense of those targets would be just as appropriate for defense of troops.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

lmao, and here I thought we were talking about it's usefullness in the AT role. Silly me. [&:]

Well, we did move on to the roles an 88 could fulfill and why it would or wouldn't be with a combat formation as opposed to back protecting bridge y or fuel dump x.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Got any figures on actual time to deploy? An 88 is a big gun -- you're not swinging this thing into action in a few seconds. What's more, its rate of fire and traverse are going to make it close to useless against low-altitude targets.

Seems like we do. Seconds. And a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute - firing shrapnel bursts instead of bullets. And more than twice the ranges of light AA. Bad news for bombers at any altitude.

How often did 88's defend mobile columns under attack? On the other hand, there was quite a bit of self-propelled light AA -- 2 cm guns on trucks, to be exact. These latter were obviously intended to provide AA protection while on the move.

There was quite a bit of towed light AA as well. By your line of reasoning, they should have been kept in the rear as well. They weren't.

Clearly, getting intercepted while moving is bad news for the movers. That's why forces that face enemy air supremacy usually have to move at night. Flak protection is required for more than just moving. As I said, when defending or attacking, the Flak would be already deployed unlimbered.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay




I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.

In North Africa, aircraft such as Wellingtons focused on bombing ports, airfields, and other fixed installations from altitude.

But not from 20,000 feet. These were precision targets that required low-altitude strikes. And they were also subject to fighter-bomber attack. Anything appropriate for defense of those targets would be just as appropriate for defense of troops.

I'm afraid you're making things up as you go along. I don't know what altitude Wellingtons bombed from, but it was considerable, and more to the point, defending against such strikes was the AA role 88's were intended to fulfill. For defense against low-level strikes light AA would have been both cheaper and considerably more effective.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

"...Protection against high-level attack by heavy Flak is required only at assembly, entrucking and detrucking areas, halts and especially dangerous points the route such as bridges, defiles or intersections.

Protection against low-flying and diving attacks must be assured by the light Flak units allotted to the motorized formations. These should be allotted to columns by platoons or even by individual guns..."

On the contrary, my reading of that is that mobile forces did have heavy Flak with them - for use in the first case.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

"...Protection against high-level attack by heavy Flak is required only at assembly, entrucking and detrucking areas, halts and especially dangerous points the route such as bridges, defiles or intersections.

Protection against low-flying and diving attacks must be assured by the light Flak units allotted to the motorized formations. These should be allotted to columns by platoons or even by individual guns..."

On the contrary, my reading of that is that mobile forces did have heavy Flak with them - for use in the first case.

Perhaps. You can always check OOB's for various operations. However, the point is that the 88 was neither designed for, nor used to provide mobile battlefield AA protection. When it appeared in such a setting, it was there to serve as a ground combat weapon.