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.
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
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.
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.
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
QuoteStrangely 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.
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.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 10 June 2011, 08:37:40 AM
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
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
Quote from: OldenBUA on 10 June 2011, 11:09:21 AM
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!
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.
Quote from: Sunray on 10 June 2011, 07:35:26 PM
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.
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
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.
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
Quote from: Sunray on 22 February 1974, 03:35:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Sunray on 11 June 2011, 11:57:12 AM
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
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
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!
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
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
Quote from: Sunray on 11 June 2011, 11:57:12 AMWar 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
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.
Quote from: Sunray on 14 June 2011, 10:54:54 PM
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 ?
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
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
Greetings
Quote from: NTM on 15 June 2011, 07:58:11 AM
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
That's what I get for commenting on something outside of NWE 1944 :-[
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
I'll get the email and paypal of my local...... :d :-*
IanS
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
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
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!
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