Flak gun or AT-gun?

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:27 pm

I was recently using the Soviets in a solitaire game, year was 1941, I was using 76.2mm and 37mm AT guns to defend a ridge against M2A4s. Also supporting them were MGs, infantry and 37mm AA batteries.

To my surprise, the 37mm disabled/destroyed more M2A4s than the AT guns, and were pretty accurate too (consider also the ROF of 5 or 6 shots)

Is this just because the AA guns were on ridges or does the volume of fire the 37mm AA gun really counts as 'multiple hits' or something like that?

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:55 pm

Well, if you look at the oob you'll notice that the 37mm AA has greater AP pen than the ATG.

Why? AT-guns were often scaled-down from AA guns, for example German 37mm ATG was such case. So your AA gun has longer barrel -> higher velocity -> higher penetration.

Of course the ATG has more AP ammo and may have APCR which offsets this advantage. Also the ATG is usually harder to spot.

Do you happen to remember how many top hits you got with AA guns? I'm sure that some kills were top hits...

Voriax

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:00 pm

Don't remember, but what was amazing was how good AA guns damaged/disabled vehicle suspensions and destroyed those it could penetrate...

BryanMelvin · Post by **BryanMelvin** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:19 pm

Originally posted by Vetkin
Don't remember, but what was amazing was how good AA guns damaged/disabled vehicle suspensions and destroyed those it could penetrate...

Also - Top Armor Thickness plays a major role in this too

Top Armor is thin and a Hill Top shot can be very effective

Rune Iversen · Post by **Rune Iversen** » Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:35 pm

The M2A4 isn´t the most heavily armoured tank. If you tried to stop a Grant with the 37mm AA gun you would probably be "terminally" disappointed

WhiteRook · Post by **WhiteRook** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:47 am

Another point to keep in mind is the fact that the aiming systems of AA guns were far and above anything the ATG would normaly have had.

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:53 pm

I wonder if the Germans could've made the 50mm or the 75mm into an autocannon, that would be spectacular...

I could just imagine a gatling-type weapon of 50mm caliber rattling of 120 rounds per minute or so.... No tank would stand up against that, even if most of the rounds do not actually penetrate, 1 in 30 or so actually would. And imagine what suppression a gun like that would cause to all but the most experienced tank crew

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 2:34 pm

Spectacular no doubt, but it would likely be ENORMOUS. Automechanisms take a lot of space. I've seen a 76mm autocannon on a frigate once.

Now, the navies are not that concerned about space issues when it comes to main armament, but still.... huuuuuge.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:02 pm

Originally posted by Vetkin
I wonder if the Germans could've made the 50mm or the 75mm into an autocannon, that would be spectacular...

Like this one?
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm

Prototypes only though

Voriax

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:09 pm

Originally posted by Voriax
Like this one?
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNGER_55_Gerat58.htm

Prototypes only though

Voriax

....they were investigating twin- tri- and QUAD mounts for that thing?

I'd LOVE to see that...

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:40 pm

I have an idea, make an 'overlord' tanks (jst like in C&C generals hehehehe not plugging) Huge huge tank, maybe the size of two and a half tanks - 3 and a half tanks.

Turret has 2 autocannons (2 gatling-50mms razing away hehe)

Griefbringer · Post by **Griefbringer** » Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:51 pm

Heavy autocannons on combat vehicles might sound like a good idea, but think about the ammo consumption. There is only that much space available for ammo inside the vehicle, once you have fired them off you are in trouble. And only the ammo in turret can be fed (unless you have a fixed turret aka assault gun), any ammo carried in hull has to be manually loaded to the ammo feed.

Besides, high ammo consumption places more stress on your logistic supply train (that has to be able to transport more ammo to cope for the higher consumption), and even a bit on industry at home that needs to produce more ammo to make up for it.

So realistically, it would be effective to just make a bigger and more accurate weapon than increase the RoF to full auto.

A bit OT, I did my military service in Finnish AA-forces, in a gun battery armed with Russian twin-barrelled 23mm autocannons - pretty decent designs mechanically, but a bit lacking in accuracy against fast-flying aerial targets due to lack of electronics. These guns had a rather impressive RoF - each barrel could empty a 50 round magazine in 3 seconds, that means 1000 rounds per minute per barrel (in total 2000 rounds per minute).

Weight of a single round was about 0.2 or 0.23 kilograms, while the weight of the whole gun on carriage was around 950 kilograms.

Griefbringer

Vetkin · Post by **Vetkin** » Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:07 am

Good grief...

Never had experience really on how heavy AA guns are since there are none here in the Philippines, our 'AA guns' are old M2 .50 cals hahaha