Rate of Fire of tank guns, at guns and heavy AA guns

[madmickey]

I noticed that the rate of fire of AT guns is the same as most tank guns (.5/1/2) while heavy AA guns flak 88mm rate of fire is (2/5/10). The speed of rate of fire would be based on gun crews size, ability of guns to change position (if you considered moving and changing targets) and gun size should be a negative as heavy shot size will require more time and personnel. There is usually 1 loader on a tank gun with a gunner. Pak 40 75 mm at gun has a crew of 5 while a flak 36 88 mm gun has a crew of 10.
My understanding that some German tanks had motor driven turret and other did not. The 88 mm flak gun may have more than one person working the cranks whereas the Pak 40 may sometimes need to be move on it chassis. The 88-mm shell is heavy shell than the 75-mm shell and it would take longer to move a larger gun crew size would help in this situation.
My question is based on this information is it correct that that an AT guns fires at the same rate a tank gun but is (1/4 to 1/5) as fast as the flak 36.?
In addition the 88mm flak 36 Penn is 112 @ 100 mm in comparison to 138 for 88 mm L56, 122 for 75 mm Pak 40 and 159 for 75 mm L70. Is that correct?

[Grouchy]

The rof you choice for the 88 is against aircraft [;)]. If you change it to another fire type (anti tank for instance) it shows: S/N/R 0.5/1/2.

Same for other platforms:
Bofors 40mm AA;
against aircraft 5/10/20
against personnel 1/3/6

I'm pretty sure the pen. values in AA are as followed calculated.
Two examples:

88 mm FlaK
Pzgr 97mm at 100meters (30degrees from Vertical)
Pzgr39 127mm at 100meters (30degrees from Vertical)

97+127= 224.
224/2= 112mm at 100meters (30degrees from Vertical)


7.5cm L/70
Pzgr39/42 138mm at 100meters (30degrees from Vertical)
Pzgr40/42 194mm at 100meters (30degrees from Vertical)

138+194= 332
332/2= 166mm at 100meters (30degrees from Vertical)

Last one is somewhat different then the number Panthergames uses. They probally have used some other data I have been using in this example, but I hope this helps you explaining how they get those pen. numbers.

[madmickey]

AA guns are not used for AA fire in Highway to The Reich. Page 9 of strategy guide. Still was the tank 88mm L56 more powerful (penetration) than the flak 36?

[Grouchy]

Yes, the KwK36/L56 had better pen. values then the 88 Flak18&37/L56.

To give you an idea:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html

[madmickey]

From the strategy manual the at gun was a flak 36 (not the 37 & 18) 88mm, the tank gun is listed as kwk 36 L56. On you table for PZGR39 the only common ammo the flak 37 penetration is 127 (30 degree in all cases) for kwk 36 L56 the penetrtion is 120. For the 75 mm kwk 40 L 48 the pennetraion is 106 for pzgr 40 (HVAP) the pennetration is up to 143 but this is HVAP ammo and it rather rare type of ammo. In the strategy guide penetration is 112 for flak 36, 138 for kwk 36 l56 and 122 for 75 mm kwk 40 l/48.

[Grouchy]

The gun those FlaK's where carriyng where the same. Let me see if i can find a page on the net...

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm.htm

Scroll somewhat down on those pages and you will see some nice tabels.

As for those pen. values, it's a design decision from Panthergames. They take the pen. values off the different ammo the gun was firing and average those (see the example in my earlier post). Sometimes they didn't include a certain ammo type, and sometimes they did. that's causing the different values you see if you compare them with other tables.

[madmickey]

I see in this table the flak 18/36/37 did use HVAP. I just find it strange that the flak 36 does not have the penetration power of the 75 mm gun on the Sherman and I still question, can a tank gun fire at same rate as fire as regular AT gun with it bigger crew.

[CriticalMass]

I still question, can a tank gun fire at same rate as fire as regular AT gun with it bigger crew

Although I am far from being an expert on these issues, I suggest that the Shermans, Tigers etc. had gun crews of 5. It was the job of the tank as a whole to lay it's gun on a target. In the crew of an ATG you would still have a Commander and driver, they were not all loaders/gunners. Also on that subject I would imagine the rounds for an ATG would be stored some distance from the gun for safety [sic] reasons, and not within arms reach.

Again, I might be well off, but thats how I've always read it.

TANX
Andrew

[Arjuna]

In general AT Guns could fire more rounds per minute than the same calibre gun from within a tank.

[JeF]

CriticalMass,

I don't follow you.

ORIGINAL: CriticalMass
Although I am far from being an expert on these issues, I suggest that the Shermans, Tigers etc. had gun crews of 5. It was the job of the tank as a whole to lay it's gun on a target. In the crew of an ATG you would still have a Commander and driver, they were not all loaders/gunners. Also on that subject I would imagine the rounds for an ATG would be stored some distance from the gun for safety [sic] reasons, and not within arms reach.

Am far from an expert too. But Arjuna is right and it is modelled that way in a lot of games (beginning with AH:SL [;)]).

Tank guns have not a crew of five. AFAIK (*), in WWII, most turrets can accomodate three men : the tank commander, the gunner, the loader. The driver and the MG gunner are sitted in the hull. A tank is a very confined environment to move shells around, even if they are within arms reach.

OTOH, a ATG has a crew of 5 or 6. A gunner and a commander and the rest are loaders/bearers. Even if the shells are further, some men are able to bring them to the guns. And you have more space to move, store shells and empty cases.

That's how I always read it.

JeF.
(*) I learn all I know on BFC forums and in CMBB.

[CriticalMass]

JeF,

I'm in total agreement with you, but it's just a case of perception. One could think of the tank driver as just someone who just steers several dozen tons of steel around the country side or is he responsible for getting the gun into a position from where it can do the most harm. If it's the latter, then, I would put him down as part of the crew. BTW, what was the purpose of the 5th tank crew mwmber, assistant driver, assistant loader, assistant spotter...?

One of the lasting images I see from the North African campaign, is some big 'ol 88 knocking off tanks on the horizon. They always show 3 or 4 guys gathered around some kind of ranging binocular (you know those really wide ones on a tripod), who are these guys, part of the crew? Or, just interested passers-by? [;)]

TANX
Andrew

[Grouchy]

1. Driver, loader, gunner, commander, radioman/hullgunner

2. Most likely a stereoscopic rangefinder (Kdo. Gr. 36, Stereoscopic Director 36). Or the smaller version; Steroscopic Director 34.