40 mm Bofors in AT role

[Hertsblue]

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'.

Sunray Out

These actually represent the two extremes of the wargaming genre. Most of us fall somewhere in between the two. How far you lean in either direction naturally colours your gaming.

As far as "gimmicks" are concerned, again, how far do you want to go? If you reflect that - had production gone to plan - the British Army would have had the Comet tank in 1943, how much of a difference to D-Day would that have made? To a large extent it's all a matter of degree. 

[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

My final paragraph, which you failed to quote, qualifies the argument. 'The best blend' etc.  I never argued that it was a sharp dichotomy between gamers, just an emphasis. And you can have all the Comets you want on D Day - if I can have Me 262s. D Day and the break out was not possible without Air superiority. 

And in paradox the ultimate in air superiority was a Comet in the middle of the runway.

Sunday QRT

[Martyn]

The main problem with AA guns being used in the AT role is their signing system. The Bofors for example did not have optical signs but wire targets which is great for an aircraft at high speed and at 3/4,000 feet but not for getting an accurate shot at an enemy tank that is advancing on your position. I've had this debate with an ardent FOW player (Luckily I have had only a few FOW games but in one the Bofors was a supper weapon!! so much for history!!) and my reply is if the Bofors was such a great AT gun why was it not used in that role? Yes their is always the exception but that what they are, exceptions but it was not the rule..
I believe that one of the problems with both the early 88 and the 3.7 was that the gunner responsible for rotating the gun to track aircraft sat backwards? I'm not to sure on the point but I do remember reading that the early 88's had to be converted in the workshop to remove this problem (It is if someone is shooting at you).

regards

Martyn

[Martyn]

A point I forgot to mention is that the Bofors sits on a geared turntable designed with a gear ratio designed to track targets of a speed greater than about 100mph (So I have been given to understand from an exWW2 AA gunner) which would mean that only a slight movement of the traversing gear would move the guns arc would move a considerable distance and there was not any fine calibration control. Combine that with the non optical site and it is a very good reason why it was not used as an AT gun it was designed to shoot down aircraft.
Wargamers beware of wishful thinking it will only lead you to FOW!

[Sunray]

Good points Martyn, I think they highlight well the dire situation that Royal Artillery AA gunners found themselves in when tasked in a A/T role for which their guns were  not designed. 

A related point that has come about via WW2 French forces in 1940. The famous 75mm is still in common use, with new tyres.  This gun isof the same linage as the 75mm that was fitted in the Grant and  Sherman.  (ammo was intrechangeable etc, Rounds from Syria being used by 8th Army).

Is there any evidence of the 75 being used in AT role ? 

Sunray Out

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

See http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84:bofors-40mm-anti-aircraft-gun&catid=41:anti-aircraft&Itemid=58 for some information on the armour piercing ammo developed for the 40mm AA Bofors during WW2.

Other information on the 2pdr AT gun and on the 40L56 bofors is at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/37-40mm.htm though it does not speak to the Bofors' ground role.

I think the sight and related drive referred to is the Kerrison sight (replaced later in the war by the Stiffkey?).  Note that it would seem that there was always a back-up optical 'pancake' sight on the gun.

I've found a reference to Bofors being used against tanks at Sidi Rezegh but as a last ditch measure - not sure by which unit.  

A record of 6 LAA Battery mentions their use against ground targets - not tanks - including on 23 November 1941 where a Bofors was used to suppress and knock out Italian 47mm and 20mm guns.  See http://coleraine-battery.tripod.com/page19081.htm.   There's also a mention of the wear on the barrrels from high rates of fire in the ground role.

F Troop of 92 LAA Regiment were issued with AP rounds to defend bridges in Normandy in June 1944 from armoured counter attack but were grateful never to have to use them http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/general/22030-true-loyals-7th-battalion-loyal-regiment-92nd-loyals-laa-rgt.html - 92 LAA's first indirect airburst barrage was on 11 August 1944.   The damage to guns from high rates of fire in the ground role is also mentioned here.

Regards

Edward

[Squirrel]

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'.

I share you sentiments, and the gp between the two groups can sometimes be huge LOL!

Like the sound of your Anglo/French invasion of Germany - keep us posted

Cheers,

Kev

[Martyn]

Another two reasons for the Bofors not being suitable for the AT role is that any optic that might have been attached would have been calibrated in 1,000's of feet and not for a few 100 yds. This probably the reason why in the early war period 88 crews were issued with stand alone optical range finders.
Then there is the issue of crew training Bofors crews were trained to shoot at aircraft and for most of their careers they would have spent defending strategic positions and not in the front line. Remember these guns sat very high off the ground so firing one in the direct fire mode must have needed a lot of guts and many must have died doing it.  They would have been relatively easy targets compared to a proper AT gun with gunners protected by a gun shield.
Also if you have been deployed in the AT role who is going to be in the AA role? Troops don't like being attacked from the air and unable to respond and to feel a lack of protection from air attack would have serious implications for morale.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

The famous 75mm is still in common use, with new tyres.  This gun isof the same linage as the 75mm that was fitted in the Grant and  Sherman.  (ammo was intrechangeable etc, Rounds from Syria being used by 8th Army).

Is there any evidence of the 75 being used in AT role ? 

[NTM]

The OOB here shows a number of AT Regts equipped with Bofors either partially or in full. May well have been a stop gap.

http://testofbattle.com/drupal-4.7.4/node/22

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Whoops, finger trouble - menat to say yes - quite comon from late may 40, particularly after Dunkirk.

The ammunition from Syria was refilled, I understand that spare cordite from 25pdr was mixed in (the 25pddr is semi-fixed, so the charge can be varied). The process was carried out in rear area workshops, with local labour.

IanS

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

The OOB here shows a number of AT Regts equipped with Bofors either partially or in full. May well have been a stop gap.

http://testofbattle.com/drupal-4.7.4/node/22

Yes but these are 37L45 Bofors AT guns ...

Regards

Edward

[NTM]

That's what I get for commenting on something outside of NWE 1944 

[Sunray]

Hey guys, some good comments, information and most vital of all- opinions  - Thanks to all and pity I can't treat ever contributor  to a pint ! 

But seriously, over 500 views, and a lot of new/young gamers on a learning curve.  Keep 'er lit.

Sunray Out

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

I'll get the email and paypal of my local......

IanS