Heer, from january 1936 on?

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


The shortcoming of the AAA, at least as what I see as such, is that, 1st, the AA gun need to have luck the enemy bombers stumble on it's firing envelope (height, range, basically a 'squashed' hemisphere) - meaning that some of the AAA will do firing one day, while the others will not fire maybe 10 days.
2nd, once the enemy bombers are within the envelope, the AA gun will be able to fire only so many rounds before the bombers are away.
My idea (actually not mine, but anyway) is to employ a multiple launcher, say 30-40 rockets per launcher, so a battery can expand 180-320 rockets (depending on how much launchers of how big a size the battery has) in maybe 10-15 seconds, so the short time the bombers are close can be used well.
The missile might be somewhere between 7-8 cm of diameter, 700-800 m/s high speed within a few seconds. Something like a R4M's big sister. A translation from the German Wikipedia:


For a warhead of, say, twice the weight to be launched 50% faster we might need some 3 kg of propellant? Vs. 2,7-2,9 for the Flak 18/36. The lower grade steel can also be used for the rocket, unlike what was needed for the AAA ammo.
I'm not sure when the Diglykoldinitrat beacame available, though.
 
It does seem like the solid propellant needed to be more developed, for such missiles to work at greater distances altitudes.

The wire-guided missile might work with those? The speed of 350-500 m/s was within the capabilities of even the low-tech rocket fuel (but still fast enough for hitting the aircraft), the guidance system should be much more simple cheaper than the radio or radar guidance; no feasible jamming. The shortcoming would be the range, possibly under 4 km because of wires? It would also need a proximity fuse. Also only useful for daylight combat. Maybe to supplement/replace the 3,7cm guns?
 
It took a few years to get wire guidance to work after the war.
It took a lot longer for it to really become effective in the hands of average troops and not company demonstrators/and salesmen ( or demonstration troop units).
It took a LOT of practice to hit even tank targets on a consistent basis.
The first generation guidance systems required the operator to "fly" the missile to the target. If the missile was headed to the right and the operator input left the missile turned left on a new heading and continued in that direction until the operator input another correction to turn it back to the original heading to the target.
2nd generation systems required the operator to steer the missile back to the line of sight and then let go of the control and the system would "automatically" turn the missile to the original heading or parallel course without the operator.flying a bunch of (hopefully) smaller zigzag.
3rd generation simply required the operator to keep the target in the sight, electronics took care of the rest.
They are all wire guided, but only the first has chance of working in WW II and the actual hit rate is a lot less than many people think.
 
The Ruhrstahl X-4 worked prior ww2 ended, air-to-air missile. The anti tank sibling, the 'Rotkapchen', also worked, though I'm right now more interested in the anti-aircraft application of a missile with wire guidance. It would me the M-CLOS guidance, of course.
 
The systems "worked" but accuracy in the field varied from a high of about 25% with skilled operators to a low of 2% with unskilled operators under suppressive fire.
This for anti-tank work and some of the missiles had an automatic height finder and the operator only controlled left and right or height correction is minimal.
For use against aircraft throw in the vertical element.
They may "work", is the cost per aircraft destroyed (cost/benefit) worth it compared to conventional weapons at that point in time.
Prototypes and patents for printed circuit boards date back to 1903 but the first real production was by the U.S. in 1943 for proximity fuses. The U.S. released the circuit board for commercial use in 1948 but it didn't become common in consumer electronics until the late 50's.
You don't need printed circuit boards to make prototypes or even production missiles but they make them much cheaper and easier to make.
Just one of the things between an idea or prototype weapon and a mass produced one.
 
The 'dumb', wire guided missiles don't need much of electronics to start with. The cost of both AA guns and their ammo also need to be factored in, so we can compare.
The operator of the AA missile does not need in the same time to fly an airplane.

The AA MGs on the tanks and AFV - bad, or good, or give them MG 131s?
 
The wire guided AA missile might very well have done a good job compared to conventional AA guns, however it is not quite as easy or quick to develop as some people think nor is it an "automatic" kill. Perhaps even a 5% hit rate would have been an improvement costwise over conventional guns/ammunition.
However even " don't need much of electronics to start with" has to be taken in context. MK I tanks and stugs weren't equipped with radio transmitters. Many tanks that had transmitters were limited to 2-4KM range when using voice, further if using code (one reason for a radio operator) so "electronics" themselves weren't much to start with compared to what they were even in the 1950s. What you can build in the lab/workshop (dozen a week/month?) vs what you can build at the rate of several hundred per month (or a thousand a month) are often several years apart.

The MG 131 as an AA gun has a bunch of plus and minuses.
The American .50 cal had a similar rate of fire to the American .30 cal but a much better "long range" performance, meaning less lead was needed. (and BTW the rounds fired for the .50 in the AA role per plane brought down were astronomically high).
The MG 131 has a much higher rate of fire but a much poorer down range performance (more lead needed) but the German 7.9mm MGs also had a much higher rate of fire than the American .30 cal. 1 1/2 to 2 times higher making them better AA guns to begin with. Rate of fire for the MG 131 and the MG 34 were pretty close.
To "kill" attacking aircraft with either 7.9mm/.30 or 12.7-13mm/.50 cal AA guns pretty much requires the "golden BB". One lucky/critical hit out of thousands of rounds fired.
However, successful AA defense doesn't mean planes killed, it meant planes driven off to bomb something else or forced to bomb/shoot from further away so that the aircraft's weapons are much less effective. A very hard thing to measure or "post" on a scoreboard but very real none the less.
Are 13mm tracers going to be that much more effective than 7.9mm tracers going by the cockpit? Are 13mm holes (a few holes) appearing in the wings going to that much more frighting than 7.9mm holes?
The Early German tanks weren't carrying a lot of MG ammo to begin with. A MK IV carried about 1/2 the rifle caliber ammo of a Sherman and then the Sherman added 300-600 round of .50 cal.

The MG 131 might have had a place as an AA weapon but sticking them on large numbers of AFVs like the Americans did probably wasn't the best use.
 
To expand on the Previous post a bit. The German MG 131 was pretty good at what it was designed for. To be a higher powered replacement for the MG 17 aircraft gun. It had to fit into most spaces the the MG 17 did and not change the weight that much.
In this it was a success. However it also meant that the MG 131 used the least powerful 12.7-13.2mm round used in WW II. It's muzzle energy was about 9600 joules compared to the British, Italian, Japanese 12.7mm/0.5in 10,600 joules, The American .50 cal 17,800 joules, the Russian 12.7 x 108 rounds 19,200 joules.
For anti-aircraft work the combination of light bullet and low velocity (compared to the American and Russian guns) really limit it's effective range even if better than the 7.9mm.

I would also note that from the 1950s through to today, many European countries (including the British) continue to use 7.62mgs for AA guns on tanks even though at times (the 1950s ? ) they could have all the .50 cal guns they wanted under NATO programs.
Different doctrine?
 
Two of the late-war German AFVs that I kinda like.
1st, the Ardelt Waffenträger, the tracked vehicle conceived to carry either 10,5cm howitzer, 15 cm howitzer, or the 8,8 cm Pak. The vehicle itself was using the components of the Pz 38(t) tank as much as possible, the Germans planned to switch to the Pz 38(d) as a base vehicle. The 'd' stands for 'deutsch' - German. In this 'iteration', a similar vehicle would carry the 8,8 cm L/56 AFV gun, along with the howitzers. The captured Polish AA gun, 7,5cm L/50 'Star' would also be very useful, if 'only' for AT work.
The ammo trailer, or ammo vehicle for howitzers is a must.



Another AFV is the quadruple 30mm that used the Wirbelwind as the base, the 'Zerstorer'. Problem with that is that several things are lacking, to allow for a reasonable early introduction - the 1st versions would involve the MK 101 cannon (lower RoF, both cyclic and practical; production not sufficient for many multiple mounts to be issued), while the tank chassis of 20-30 tons would be regarded as too a precious to be used for Flak duties. So the best bet would be a twin 30mm on something like the Wespe or similar chassis, like the Pz 38(t) or the Ardelt. The Pz 38 mounted a single 20mm Flak, too much of an AFV for too little Flak IMO.

 
I am not a big fan of big guns on little chassis. They are often not as "cheap" as they first appear and also sometimes have some severe limitations in combat. as an example we have the Italian Semoventi da 90/53





Model

The Ammo carrier


If you are in the middle of a war and are in a real bind in getting/moving AT guns it may be one thing. To plan on using such weapons several years before you go to war is another thing entirely.

Adding a second tracked chassis and a trailer in order to carry crew and reasonable amount of ammo is rather an admission that that the basic vehicle isn't quite up to the job. Not such a big deal with 149-155mm corp level guns but for AT work?
 
I'm not trying to sell such the weapon as the replacement for a proper tank. Rather, they would be a replacement for a towed heavy ATG. The vehicle can tow it's own trailer, maybe along with another 1-2 crew members.
 
towing it's own trailer calls for a more powerful engine (BTW the prototype in your picture used the same 220HP diesel engine used the later 8 wheeled armored cars). Large 88-90mm AT guns are not needed in 1939-42.

If you are planning weapons in 1936-38 for use in 1943-45 you would be better off planning on how to get to South American with large amounts of gold

If you are planning in 1936-38 for weapons to be used in 1939-42 that is something else but has to use engines/weapons/technology that will be available in production form in 1939-42.

The Heer didn't really need better AA guns in 1939-42 although they would have been nice. The Luftwaffe managed to keep the enemy aircraft of the Heer's back for the most part. From late 1942 on things got worse and worse.
For the attack on France in 1940, more AA guns or more ???? French and British tactical air didn't manage much more than show they could die bravely.

The 30mm MK 101 was feed at first from 6 or 10 round box magazines, later 30 round drums. Not so bad in the open but a pain in a confined turret. Practical rate of fire isn't going to be much better than the 3.7cm Flak 37. The 3.7cm was supposed to cycle at 160rpm and you could drop extra 6round "clips" onto the feed way (some of the guns apparently had longer feed ways than others) as the gun used the first one (much like dropping extra 4 round "clips" into the top of a "Bofors" gun, rather than have to remove the existing magazine (box or drum) before you could fit the new one. A single loader wasn't going to keep up with the gun in continuous fire but you might get 12 to 18 rounds in one long burst.
Germans had a fair number of 20mm and 37mm guns mounted on trucks and half tracks so until the ground got really bad the full tracked chassis wasn't really needed.
 
This kinda discussion rapidly gets out of hand as people confer superhuman powers of perfect hindsight to rectify obvious errors of the historical situation. The German Army with a long barrelled 75mm gun is about as likely as me getting a date with claudia schiffer. Okay im male and shes female, and we are both heterosexual. From that point on, the prospect gets ridiculous, and i see the ra ra boys are at it again when it comes to the German army.

The second thing is resources. Redesigning the army does not mean give it more resources. bigger and meaner equipment is usually more expensive, and money is one thing the Germans dont have in 1936.

So what would be my priority. Number 1, scrap all the fripperies like halftracks and heavy tanks. You can build 4 or 5 2 x 4 trucks for every halftrack, and its numbers that count. Number 2, implement the rationalization plan for MT from 1936 instead of 1939. Its the obvious thing to do and could have been done in 1936. 3 standardize on one calibre of field artillery to simply logistics.

Integrate the Panzer Divs by making them less top heavy with armour and forming proper combat teams CCA and CCB to maximise flexibility but avoid the US mistake of destroying esprit in the units

Revisit tank production. Something was radically wrong in Germany....when they only produce about the same number of tanks as the British. Perhaps start to look at a shadow factory system, or subcontracts for components. Look at the basic types and make sure they are as simple as can be made, doing away with ALL the fripperies that bedevilled the German efforts at tank production for most of the war.
 

I've proposed the 'non-Flak' 8,8 cm gun to be produced/introduced somewhat earlier than it was the case historically, ie. introduction some time in second half of 1941, instead of late 1942. The 'driver' for that might be the knowledge of the French heavy tanks in service.
The Germans sporadically used the 8,8 in the AT role already during the SCW, and they fielded the it on a half-track, admittedly intended/conceived as a weapon to hit fortifications, in 1940.
The 8,8cm L/56 AFV gun was lighter than the 8,8cm Pak, even when we discount the weight of the carriage. The engine can start from it's historical level, upgraded when possible. The chassis - Pz 38(t) with engine in the middle, as with the Ardelt W-t.
The 88 mm guns were certainly useful to battle the French heavies, Matilda II, T-34 and KV tanks, that occurred many times before 1941 ended.


Less AA guns? Frees a lots of manpower, the manufacturing capability can produce more artillery?


I was trying to picture the 30mm more as a replacement for 20mm, rather than for 37mm. It does not compare bad vs. the 37mm, though.

Germans had a fair number of 20mm and 37mm guns mounted on trucks and half tracks so until the ground got really bad the full tracked chassis wasn't really needed.
Click to expand...

We know that the Pz-IV was a base for like 5 different AA self propelled guns (despite the urgent need for as many tanks as possible), plus the half-arsed FlakPz 38(t) with a single 20mm. There were also proposals for the Panter-based AAA, 2 barreled 37mm and 50mm.
The need for the AA to be close to the tanks all the time was certainly felt.
 
There are darn few heavy tanks before 1942.

maybe 6 of these or a few more including prototypes?



4X2 trucks work for crap unless you have really good roads. Not a guarantee in Western Europe let alone eastern Europe (and that is before you hit the Russian border.)
So you need 4X4s or 6X6s. 4x6 often don't make it. And to really last they have to be over-built. The American 2 1/2 ton truck was rated at 2 1/2 tons payload cross country or "off highway". On Highway it was rated at a 10,000lb payload. It was also rated to pull a 7,500lb trailer/load on highway and 4,500lbs off highway.
An International Harvester K7 (commercial) 1941 2 1/2 ton 4X2 was rated at 5,000lbs on high way and 7,000lb off highway. A big difference was the IH had a 5 speed gear box while the standard military 2 1/2 tonner had not only the 5 speed but a 2 speed transfer case. Net weight for the 6X6 was about 2,000lbs heavier (over 10,000lbs)
A post war Ford 1 1/2 ton 4X2 with a 100hp V-8 weighed net 5885lbs and was rated for 3,000lbs off highway and 6,615lbs on high way. Is it a 3 ton truck in some other armies? or a commercial 3 ton truck?

You need a certain amount of half-tracks as gun tractors or a certain amount of full tracked gun tractors. You probably don't need the variety of different models of 1/2 tracks the Germans had though.
But then a lot of European countries tried to make up in "fripperies" what the Americans did with big engines.The standard American 1/2 tracks using engines of the size and power that the Germans used in their 5 and 8 ton 1/2 tracks.

Getting some sort of rational production plan going sooner would have helped a lot.
 

This is one of my objections to some of these "what Ifs". Before the invasion of Poland the 38(t) engine was rated at 125hp. It was uprated to 140hp in Nov 1942 for the Marders and other SP guns, none of the normal 37mm armed tanks got the 140hp engine (unless during refit/repair). It was upgraded to 160hp in the Hetzer in the spring of 1944. The 88mm/56 may be a lot lighter than the 8,8cm Pak but using the historical engine you have only 57% of the power. Going to the 140hp engine gets you to 64% of the power.
Germans could have done themselves a lot of good (and the world a lot of harm) by shifting to the 50mm/60 a lot sooner. Some sort of long 75mm gun would have been a big help too without going to the trouble of lugging 88mm guns around.

Less AA guns? Frees a lots of manpower, the manufacturing capability can produce more artillery?
Click to expand...

Not really less. The the need to change numbers/ mounts/ chassis by much doesn't really move to near the top of the list until late 1942 or early 1943. And you don't create a "branch" of the Heer overnight. You want a good AA defense in 1934/44 you need a number of men who learned their "trade" in 1940-41-42 before things get really bad. Siting, coverage patterns, camouflage, communications and other stuff aside form just loading and firing the guns.

I was trying to picture the 30mm more as a replacement for 20mm, rather than for 37mm. It does not compare bad vs. the 37mm, though.
Click to expand...

It may be a replacement for the 20mm but not so much in the early years. The MK 103 was lighter and belt fed. The MK 101 weighed about 3 times what a Flak 38 did (for a bare gun) and had about 1/2 the practical rate of fire unless you had the 30 round drums. The 30mm guns you worked on used a much more powerful cartridge (about 200m/s more MV with a similar weight projectile) , only weighed about 20kg more than the MK 101 (bare gun) and had a cycle rate about twice as fast per barrel compared to the MK 101.


And all this "stuff" came into being in 1943-44 (first FlakPz 38(t) is built in Nov 1943) so the need was felt, just not so much in the early years.
 
The Germans tried the Schell (Schnell?) program, that called for standardization in military trucks, but eventually that was abandoned. Your last sentences, of a very good post, is on the money.

There are darn few heavy tanks before 1942.
Click to expand...

French built 400+ of Char B tanks before collapse, the order was in excess of 1100 examples. Not a stunning number when compared with ww2 mass produced tanks, but quite an amount of steel for 1940.
 

Thanks for the engines overview. We will need to start with the 125 HP engine, switching on more powerful ones as they became available.


On May 1st 1938, there is 2300 x 20mm, 670 x 37mm and 2000 x 88mm in Wermacht hands. By Sept 1939, it is 6700 of the 20 and 37mm (mostly 20mm, single mounts) and 2628 of 88mm (mostly) and 105mm, increased to 9817 and 3095 in June 1940 - that's 14000 Flak. The German Flak gunners sure have had on what to learn their trade, and then some (got to extract the Westerman's tables somewhere...)


The MK 101 was lighter than the MK 103: 139 kg vs. 145 kg - bare gun; 180 kg is for the MK 101 with a full 30-rd drum.
The HE shell was 440g vs. 120g for the 2cm; there was also the M-shell of 330g available, while it seems that HE shell was not used on the MK 103? Granted, the drum is necessary, until we receive the MK 103. Quirk might be that we need about same manpower for the single 2cm as we need for the single 3cm, that has maybe 3 times the practical 'throw weight' at a maybe 50% greater distance and altitude.

And all this "stuff" came into being in 1943-44 (first FlakPz 38(t) is built in Nov 1943) so the need was felt, just not so much in the early years.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that the Germans were on the forefront when it comes down to self propelled AAA. Until the LW was bested, or at least equaled in the air, there was no much need for the AAA for the 'tactical' ground forces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Season’s Greetings from Air War Publications.
Replies
0
Views
200
Snautzer01
My Theory on Gen. Lloyd Fredendall
Replies
5
Views
454
yosimitesam
A
Opinion on Japanese good luck flag.
Replies
0
Views
263
altaniscool
A
C
looking for information on some servicemen.
Replies
0
Views
287
coffman
C
I
Need Help Translating Writing on WWII Japanese Tanto
Replies
1
Views
628
DDonSS3
D
Menu
Log in
Register