Anti Aircraft Weapons....

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hi Stitch,

>[...] and why they moved on to the Ostwind, which did have a larger-caliber cannon (3.7 cm), but only had one barrel and, therefore, a much lower rate of fire.

The 37 mm cannon could engage targets at longer ranges than the smaller calibres, making it a better choice for a Flak supposed to protect other units as the protective envelope was larger.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I agree with HoHun. And 37mm was more effective against Il-2s. Also maybe in the Westwind turret there might have been too little room to fast changes of magazines, after all they hold only 20 rounds, with 450 cyclic rof they didn't last long.

Juha
 
For shipboard Cannons, I'd go with the 5"/38. Usually grouped in sets of two, at least later in the war, with a rpm of 15, per gun. Coupled with the proximity fuse, it was deadly.
 
Images of an 8,8 cm Flak 18 used by the Waffen SS Totenkopf in July 1941 ostfront, tipical of this weapon the gun is performing other than AA task, in this case long range artillery.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    87.4 KB · Views: 113
  • 2.jpg
    81.8 KB · Views: 137
  • 3.jpg
    48.5 KB · Views: 112
  • 4.jpg
    56.7 KB · Views: 121
  • 5.jpg
    42.9 KB · Views: 120
  • 6.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 125
I thought I mentioned the 3.7cm Zwilling and its much greater firepower comared to the 40mm Bofors.
 
I admit that as an AA gun I thought that the 3.7in was a better weapon than the 88 Flak 36. It fired a heavier shell, to a greater effective altitude, with a better rate of fire and a proximity fuze.

A powerful combination
 
Soren maybe we are talking the same weapons system then again maybe not ..........this along with the 4-barrel 2cm Flakvierling was the scourge of Allied A/C
 

Attachments

  • O-1092904161-C4giJ6tM.jpg
    44.8 KB · Views: 310
  • O-1092904680-E1rDMc12.jpg
    38.7 KB · Views: 216
The Bofors 40mm is still used in the AC-130 gunships and is pretty much the same weapon from ww2.
 
Charles
check for Mark VI, it's a different gun, 3.7in loose liner with RD Rifling into 4.5 inch Mk 2 body
RD meaning that muzzle end was smooth bore. Put on 4.5" AA gun carriage. It was a big bastard and was built only as static version.

Juha

Juha
 

IIRC, there were two soldiers on each side of the turret responsible for loading two of the cannons each, and one gunlayer in the center of the turret, right behind the mount.

Just found out something very interesting: the planned successor to Wirbelwind and Ostwind was a version armed with "four 30mm MK103/28 or MK103/38 guns, capable of firing 1600 rounds per minute. In December of 1944, Ostbau produced only one prototype designated Zerstorer 45 (Destroyer 45) - 3cm Flakvierling MK103/108 auf Sfl PzKpfw IV. Same concept was incorporated into rearming of the Ostwind with two 37mm Flak 43 or Flak 44 guns or 30mm Mauser MK103 cannon. In January of 1945, Ostbau was able to produce one prototype designated Ostwind II (3.7cm Flakzwilling 44 auf Sfl PzKpfw IV) , while 100 were ordered. In 1945, it was decided to utilize obsolete at the time PzKpfw III and mount it with Wirbelwind (designated as 2cm Flakvierling 38 auf Slf PzKpfw III) or Ostwind (designated as 3.7cm Flak 43 auf Slf PzKpfw III) turrets, designated as Flakpanzer III. 90 were ordered but the end of the war terminated the production.Eventually, all of Flakpanzers were to be replaced by newly designed Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz in the early 1945." (from the website "Achtung Panzer").
 
Charles
I myself made a mistake, the original tube was 4.5inch, corrected that in the original message.

Juha
 

Users who are viewing this thread