AA-guns in AT role

[Warrior]

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.

[sven]

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

[Possum]

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)

[Colonel von Blitz]

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

[Colonel von Blitz]

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 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 )

Colonel von Blitz

[Paul Vebber]

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).

[Grumble]

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...

[Charles2222]

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

and

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.

[rcread]

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.

[Charles2222]

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

[Colonel von Blitz]

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.

That is right, I agree...maybe I don't like that equipment is used in "wrong way", but I can live with it

Main point in my post was that ALL heavy AA guns have been issued with AP ammo, even though several posts in this thread alone shows that some guns shouldn't have AP ammo at all...usually because of doctrine.

Paul, I'd say that 15 rounds is quite a good number for those guns that were used in AT-role. But what are you guys going to do about those guns that were purely AA weapons?

Colonel von Blitz