40 mm Bofors in AT role

[Sunray]

I spent last evening/night/morning with the Vets of TAVR 206 Battery. One of the old and bold was relating how they went off to camp for two weeks in August 1939, and did not come home until 1945!

Of interest was the stories about N Africa when attached to the 8th Army.  I was suprised to learn that on occasions the 40mm Bofors was pressed into action as an AT weapon. I presume against PzIIs and Italian armour.   When you think about it, the 40mm high velocity AA shell would be a useful weapon against the light armour up..... until the PzIII arrived.

With all the interest in BEF, I would like to hear gamers comments.

Sunray Out.

[Squirrel]

Absolutely! When I was gaming WW2 in my long forgotten youth the Bofors 40mm was a regular A/T choice. It was probably the best the Brits had at the time.

Cheers,

Kev

[Hurrah]

I've seen a few photos of British Bofors on trucks deployed against ground targets in 1944/1945. So quite happy to accept it in any game I play.

If you think about it, the shell is about the same weight, and travelling about the same speed as 2pd shot! So that should give any gamer a system bench mark for its effectiveness.
Now imagine that due to clip loading and spotting etc, one of those a second going towards a target!

I'm running off memory here, seriously, more precedents involving similar weapons in WW2 than you can shake a stick at.

It will certainly rip apart any softskins or lightly armoured vehicles (light tanks, marders, Armoured cars and the like). Even the side of a late Pz IV at 30mm should crumple under that barrage regardless of it being face or case hardened or homogenised (if caught square-ish on the flank at under 500 yard).

Also the use of such weapons against ground targets would be very well know by the British/Commonwealth/Empire forces at the time.
The Vickers/Maxim Pom-Pom was used in ground support by both sides of the 2nd Boer War. So long history of giving and receiving such fire by the British.
In the Spanish Civil war, "autocannons" were used in support of ground attacks to good effect by both sides.
The Italians used their 20mm AA guns vs ground targets and tanks in Ethiopia and North Africa as standard doctrine (so recent use, and the Brits have been on the receiving end).
Armoured car squadrons in North Africa are known to have removed the turrets on their armoured cars and mounted captured Italian Fiat-revelli and scotti 20mm instead for troop level fire support (specifically Marmon Harringtons as they were not going to lose the radio, or nice/fancy ranging optics)

The Hungarians also mated the German PaK 36 breach and carriage with the bofors barrel and ammo and created quiet an effective gun (stats show performance very close to the 2pdr) which got fitted to the Turan 1 and late Toldi mk 3, and even deployed their Nimrod (which mounted a full AA bofors) as an anti-tank weapon upto and including the retreat from Stalingrad. Killing a T34 at 300 meters only had one problem, the T34 could demolish the Turan as soon as it could see it!

So, if there is nothing in the air to shoot at, the gun is well forward, and actually has ammunition, in France 1940, I'd expect a bofors to let rip at any ground target it can see. I don't think there is anything the German had in 1940 that could have resisted it at anything under 500 yards bar the front armour of the StuG (and they had 20 of those on the entire front?). The face hardened  armour that stopped the 2pdr didn't show in the desert until mid 41.

[Gandalf]

Sounds very similar to my Great Uncle Tommy's experience in World War II.  He joined the TA in the 30s and was sent to France in 1940, arriving in time to be chased back to Dunkirk by the Germans.  He used to tell stories about pushing NAAFI vans full of cigarettes into the harbour before being shipped off to Burma to fight with the 14th Army.  Tommy didn't get demobbed until 1947.  My Great Aunt Ruby held two people reponsible for the war: Adolf Hitler and poor old Tommy

I think the Bofors would have given the Panzer III cause for concern, especially the earlier marks.  Strangely enough, the 3.7 inch anti aircraft gun would have had similar performance to the German 88mm but was never used in the antitank role.  It could launch a 28lb shell to 32,000 feet with a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The Bofors with AP is about same as a 2pdr, but it is considerably larger, AT use would be emergency only, as it was a rear area weapon.

IanS

[DanJ]

Strangely enough, the 3.7 inch anti aircraft gun would have had similar performance to the German 88mm but was never used in the antitank role.

This is one of the great "what ifs" of WW2. 

I think the 3.7 was a bit bigger and a bit heavier than the 88 but could engage ground target and I believe it was used once in the wesern dessert as an AT weapon but was considered too big for the role.  However the main reason for not using it in the AT role was doctrinal, the British believed AA guns should shoot at aircraft and AT guns shoot at tanks, probably short sighted from a front line soldiers point of view but from early 43 the 17ld had arrived which was much handier than the 3.7.

[OldenBUA]

My trusty 'WW2 fact file' states that the 3.7" was 'semi-mobile' at best (there were some static mounts as well). Not the best thing if you engage tanks, and might have to leave in a hurry. Ofcourse, it was used to very good effect firing airburst over enemy positions later in the war. But that isn't a situation where you are likely to be attacked yourself.

There is a reason why the Germans went on to produce dedicated AT-guns based on the 88mm FlaK.

[Sunray]

The Bofors with AP is about same as a 2pdr, but it is considerably larger, AT use would be emergency only, as it was a rear area weapon.

IanS

Ian, combat - killing or being killed - does tend to be an "emergency" as you put it. I asked Bill and he assured me that the deployment of the Bofors in an a forward area in an AT role was deliberate.  (From personal knowledge, I can vouch that the Milan was not intended to be used against MGs in foxholes.  Since 1982, its now SOP.)

On the question of the 3.7, the 8th(Belfast) HAA used them against  ground targets in Burmah. The Belfast boys were nicknamed ' the 12 mile snipers'.  Their action at the Battle of the Admin Box  (1945) they engaged the Jap armour 'over open sights' .    Like I said, real war is not a game played by neat rules, OAB and army lists. 
SUNRAY OUT
s

[Sunray]

Sorry, should have typed 'BURMA' not the name of a petrol company! , and the campaign was 1944 not 45, when the Japanese 31 Div attacked the 14th Army.
I should learn to multi task at work.
Sunray Out

[Hurrah]

My trusty 'WW2 fact file' states that the 3.7" was 'semi-mobile' at best (there were some static mounts as well). Not the best thing if you engage tanks, and might have to leave in a hurry. Ofcourse, it was used to very good effect firing airburst over enemy positions later in the war. But that isn't a situation where you are likely to be attacked yourself.

There is a reason why the Germans went on to produce dedicated AT-guns based on the 88mm FlaK.

I have also heard something about the way the 3.7 inch was mounted in the semi mobile mounting. There are always design compromises with gun carriages, (materials, the ability to take stress, ease of manufacture and not shake apart when towed, while being light enough to handle, the best solution for one of the factors is usually the worst solution for another) and in this case the whole assembly was designed to take the stresses of shooting up (and also the future addition of mechanical loading was designed in from the start, and that proved very useful vs the V-1). Level fire however placed all the stress on the weakest part of the mounting, there was a genuine fear that with that much power, after a few rounds, the shell would go one way, the gun could be going the other!

[Sunray]

I think the lesson here to us gamers is that in war, necessity rules.  Ian is right - the 40mm Bofors was not ideal to tackle tanks.  I stood beside on today- the local TA camp retains one as a 'colour/gate guardian' - it is a high and exposed weapons mount.  But if its that only gun that's available, then you plug the gap with it.  Iam not saying you replace your  2pdr with Bofors in your OOB, but just remember that for most of the war Britain had never enough AT guns, and anyting and everything was used. This ranged from 25prs to Italian field guns at Tobruk.  Golden rule- If it shoots, point it at the enemy and squeeze the trigger.  If you have Bofors in your battle group and you have enemy  tank attack, then use them ...and then throw the kitchen sink.

Even today its still much the same story. The Land Rover soft skin  Defender was NEVER meant for hard patrolling -  As a driver you sat/sit on the fuel tank !! No floor protection except a sandbag.  We knew in N Ireland in the 1970s that it was not the tool for the job, yet in Bosnia in 1990s the Army was still using them.  (I saw  Princess Pats -the Canadians-  used M113s for the same task!)  In 2008 in Helman Province the MoD was still sending young men out to patrol in Land Rovers.   

Far too many of those young kids came home via Wooton Basset.  We will Remember them.

Sunray Out.

[OldenBUA]

I think the lesson here to us gamers is that in war, necessity rules. 

I agree with you on this one, if it's there, and it's all you've got, it gets used, whether it's meant for the job or not.

Funnily enough, that's just the thing many gamers tend to do. But on the game table, that can lead to 'gimmicky' situations. 

[Sunray]

Yeah.  Its also funny how our knowledge of history can prejudice how we play. I saw 6 mm game some years ago - a Polish 1939 break out scenario (Bzura ?) and the Polish player stalled when he saw a German 88 battery guarding a bridge. The origional Polish commander would not have hesitated, he would have known  zero about the power of an 88, but the wargamer knew all too well, from history-  and countless games -so aborted his attack.

We have hindsight and a rulebook, the brave men our wee 10mm figures have the honour to represent did not.

Sunray Out

[Gandalf]

As you say Sunray, gaming provides us with 20-20 hindsight.  We also get a complete blow by blow post mortem for cause and effect which allows us to make more informed choices in a game.  Since the middle of the 19th century, it's unlikely that a someone will see what hit them.
Casualties caused by the German sword and shield tactics in the Western Desert of operating tanks with a screen of antitank guns behind led to inflated impressions of the effectiveness of German arnour among British tankers.  As the German armour withdrew to the cover of the antitank guns, the following British tanks were lured into the range of the guns.  Because the British were fighting armour, knocks outs were wrongly put down to tanks.
We are given the benefit of knowing that a dug in 88 has taken out our Crusader rather than the Panzer II it was chasing, usually because our opponents are very happy to tell us about it.  Ideally a kriegspiel type game with umpires and limited knowledge for players would provide a more realistic experience.

[Sunray]

You raise a number of interesting points Gandalf.  Not least the inferior kit but superior tactics of the Wehrmacht in the years 1939-41.  I have recently travelled back in time from Cold War Commander era, to interesting inter war 1930s games using BKC rules, and yes,  in small skermish actions the French and BEF can do very well.

War gamers can be divided into two camps.  First we have what I call the 'minature re-enactment school'.  They are stickers for the facts.  Their worst excess is that they become 'prisoners of history' and get very upset if the BEF don't end up at Dunkirk, or if Wellington lost at Waterloo.   It ceases to be gaming and becomes ...re-enactment.   

The second bunch are the counter factual gamers who get the thrill out of 'what if?'.  I must confess that as a historian, this is my forte. It is just so much fun.   The present buzz over VBCW is a clasisical counter factual campaign.   It goes pear shaped when it becomes fantasy ..like the BEF having Cromwells.
What OldenBUA rightly calls 'gimmicky'.


The best blend or senergy is perhaps where you keep the kit to the time zone, but re-write the history.  I am currenly scripting a game where the French and British attack Germany in 1939.  In this parallel world, Churchill comes to power in 1938 and the British GOC is a chap called Hobart.   


Its an interesting scanario.

Sunray Out