AA firing in AT role

[ianjgow]

I read that AA, specifically the German 88mm FlaK was often used in an AT role. Was this as effective as equivalent AT guns? What about the smaller 20mm Quad AA?

I use Peter Pig's Abteilung & all AA costs the same but they are obviously different, especially when I think about the Wirbelwind - 20mm Quad AA mounted on Pz IV chassis!
That one needs some thought re: costing & effect.

Regards,

i

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

The German 8.8cm Flak 18, Flak 36 and Flak 37 were all L56 weapons and was effectively the same weapon as the Tiger I Main gun. They were designed as AA artillery and were very high profile which was disadvantageous as soon as the enemy used long range HE.

All 8.8cm Flak all had the capability of firing against armour. The Flak 41 had a longer barrel and cartridge, but the PAK43 (also the Tiger II main armament and mounted on the Nashorn and Ferdinand/Elefant was a different weapon. This was the only dedicated AT 8.8cm gun.

The 3.7cm and 2cm Flak weapons were used against ground targets but this was not their primary purpose.

Regards

Edward

[toxicpixie]

IIRC from Abteilung (and it's probably a decade since I played, so I may not be...), then if you buy them as AA they act as AA under the rules; if you want them as something else then you buy them as whatever else (towed heavy AT, A/C or tank or tankette with MG); it's pretty flexible and very broad brush!

[Ithoriel]

I remember reading somewhere about a Luftwaffe officer who refused to use his 88mm in support of infantry during the Normandy landings because it was issued with AA ammo not AT and the sights were designed for AA use and so they would not be able to lay the gun properly.

The infantry officer was able to solve the problem of optics and ammunition by the simple expedient of pointing his Luger at his Luftwaffe opposite number and threatening to shoot him if the gun didn't fire some sort of ammunition in at least the general direction of the advancing Allied armour!

The book did not cover what happened next but I'm guessing they were overrun shortly thereafter.

[Steve J]

That incident is in Hans von Luck's memoirs. From memory the attack was halted by the fire from the 88's.

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Von Luck's account is not universally accepted and the presence of 8.8cm Flak in an AT role at Cagny is not certain.  III Flak Korps only claimed a total of 80 tanks knocked out in Normandy and the special AT set up apparently knocked out 20 of these while suffering the loss of 30 guns.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/45330-hans-von-luck-and-the-cagny-88s-fact-or-fiction/page-2

Edward

[Steve J]

Von Luck's account is not universally accepted

Very true.

[fsn]

Wasn't the attack at Arras in 1940 foiled by FlaK 88mm used in the AT role?

The standard 37mm couldn't penetrate the armour of the Matilda II.  

[Chris Pringle]

Especially early in the war, various protagonists found that their designated AT guns had trouble hurting well-armoured enemy tanks. Heavy AA guns were not only large caliber but also high velocity, which is useful when you are trying to break big thick lumps of metal. So you see not only German 88s having to be used against British Matildas or Russian KVs and T34s, but also I believe other cruciform-trail 88-equivalents in the AT role:
Italian 90mm AA against British armour
Hungarian 8cm AA against T34s
Soviet 85mm AA against the Panzers
and maybe US 90mm AA in the Battle of the Bulge?
Oh, and German 105mm AA in Germany late in the war.
No doubt all of these suffered from the high-profile vulnerability problem. But they gave you more of a chance than your PaK36 3.7cm (or whatever).

Chris

[ianjgow]

Thanks for all the useful information. Think I get the idea now.

I'm proposing to use all the smaller 20mm AA as AA only (except they get a small chance of destroying Medium Armour using the AA row? at 10 points.
The Bofors will pay for Medium AT - also 10 points while the heavier calibres such as the 88s will pay for Heavy AT - 15 points & use the AT row.

Would this be about right or does it make the 88s too powerful?

Regards,

i

[Orcs]

One of my fathers freinds served with a 3.7 AA battery in the western desert.  He said on occasions they fired on tanks if they saw them but he claimed tanks were hard to actually hit due to the AA sight, but a near miss was often enough to blow the tank over or rip a track off,particuarly the lighter Italian ones.

[toxicpixie]

Thanks for all the useful information. Think I get the idea now.

I'm proposing to use all the smaller 20mm AA as AA only (except they get a small chance of destroying Medium Armour using the AA row? at 10 points.
The Bofors will pay for Medium AT - also 10 points while the heavier calibres such as the 88s will pay for Heavy AT - 15 points & use the AT row.

Would this be about right or does it make the 88s too powerful?

Regards,

i

In Abteilun terms probably fine - it's pretty flexible and as with all that era of PP rules it's very much a tool box instead of tablets of stone (if you approach it that way). In real world terms - yeah, should work!

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Now can we discuss AT-ATs in AA mode?
http://youtu.be/3acC49W3yQk

[Sunray]

We had this discussion on the forum some years ago.  I had interviewed some RA vets who frequently in early desert battles had been tasked with engaging armour with 40mm bofors, and with commendable results.   BKC allows this type of deployment.