40 mm Bofors in AT role

[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

[sultanbev]

All AA guns make good A/T weapons. Most were/are equipped with some kind of AP ammo, even in limited amounts (eg Gepard carries 40x APDS rounds out of something like 360 carried). I have also spoken to a vet from Burma as well who mentioned using Bofors 40mm against Japanese tanks.

As the role is sort of "emergency defence" it is usually at short ranges (under 500m) where you can pretty much point the gun at the target and have flat enough trajectory to hit the target, so sighting isn't perhaps that big an issue.

The British and American 40mm Bofors AP round penetrates 5cm of vertical armour at 500m, 4cm out to 1000m, 1cm less than the 2pdr AP round at comparable ranges. Multiply these by .866 to get penetration against 30 degree from vertical sloped armour. So not sufficient to gaurantee kills of Pz.IIIs and Pz.IV in the western desert, especially the uparmoured versions. But close enough to give them a headache, or penetrate the side easily.

The 3.7" was tested in 1942 in the A/T role in the desert, but the unit that set up never saw any Panzers! It took 20 minutes to get the gun set up ready, far too long to deploy from towing mode to field use in a mobile battle. However pre-set up the gun would have dealt with Tiger I in 1938!

3.7" Mk5T AP (1938) penetrates 13cm of vertical armour at 1km, 17cm at point blank
3.7" APHE (1944) penetrates 15cm of vertical armour at 1km, 20cm at 500m

The best way to stop such weapons being gamey super-weapons is to limit them to 2-3 shots of AP per game, the rest being HE, for British and Americans at least. Soviets, Greeks, Germans, Hungarians, Finns all seem to have given their AA guns a reasonable supply of AP ammo. Indeed, the SOviets issued 85mm AA guns to army level A/T units at different times in the war. Unfortunately for the Greeks they never issued their 88mm Flak guns with AP in 1940, only the smaller stuff.

However as mentioned there will always be historical exceptions where big AA guns were used in the A/T role, so presumably carried a bigger allocation of AP rounds, eg US 90mm at Stoumont versus KG Pieper in Dec 1944. The reason such examples appear in battle reports which FoWgamerexpert.com then takes as normal procedure is because they were exceptional circumstances. Bit like the report of Stuart knocking out a Tiger II. Or 20mm flak guns knocking out Matilda II in 1940. FoWgamerexpert.com takes such examples - "they must be true!" and assumes they happen all the time, then expect their rules to reflect it. Modifying their rules to do so them skews the historical probabilities in the data charts and suddenly 20mm flak30 becomes everyone's best AT gun. Or whatever.

Mark

[Sunray]

Thanks Mark, a lot of common sense in your blog. As stated earlier in the thread, the AA gunners in Burma had the nickname ' the 12 snipers' which indicates that the 3.7 was in use as a ground weapon.

Your modification for the table is neat - what a pity the Germans took the potential to its logical conclusion and adapted the AA gun with sights and a mounting for AT.

Would'ent it be great to limit an 88 to 2-3 shots of AP !!!! 

Sunray Out

[Martyn]

I think history has to be arbiter. The bofors was not a front line weapon. Its an AA gun. Yes it could be in a minority of cases be used in the ground defence role to suppress an enemy but in reality they were deployed to the rear and strategic areas to protect them from air attack. That is was their role was, their command and control centered on and what the crews were trained to do. If they were being used forwards then it shows that there was a) nothing else b) the front had already crumbled and the enemy was coming on. How effective they were in actual combat is open to debate and as I said earlier there will always be the exception but as wargamers I would advise to ignore the exception unless there is an "r" in the month you you like FOW!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

In 44/5 in Europe all weaposn, if not doing something else would be assigned to a PepperPot,  just balsting an area to annoy the Germans.
Also Alemien - 6pdr were used to cover the silence just before the barrage.


IanS