General de Brigade

[Alexb83]

Question regarding manhandling of guns up to 82mm - ISTR in the rules (p29, 8.12) it is stated that artillery can move 'half infantry movement' and still fire.

But later on in the firing section there is mention that AT guns and artillery can move 'half their movement' and still fire. Is this 1/4 infantry movement, or is this simply restating the earlier point regarding movement of AT guns & Firing? Local rules lawyer seems to think it means the former but I would tend to disagree. Also was 'under 82mm' intended to encompass 17pdrs? This would seem to put them at a clear advantage over 88/85mm guns in terms of sheer manouverability (when I wonder if there was a real weight difference).

Second, how would you point up Soviet 85mm AA guns? 100points as per a 17pdr/88mm Flak41? Using the same AT/AI values from the 34/85 main gun.

I suppose another good question as a starting point would be where you would place a 40mm Bofors in terms of points value, and would you simply class it as a 'single autocannon' per p37 weapon factors table, or bump up the damage due to the higher caliber round?

[DCRBrown]

A,

[alanmccoubrey]

Alex, Here is a list of the weights in action of the guns you are comparing,

Pak43 3650 kg (no wheels)
Pak43/41 4380 kg
Flak18/36 5150 kg
85mm AA 3057 kg (no wheels)
17pdr 2923 kg

I think you'll agree that while the 17 pdr was heavy it wasn't as heavy as any of the guns over the 82mm. Alan

[Alexb83]

Thanks for the answers DB and for the research, Alan - I think DB's additional rule for 60-82mm works nicely.

If you were to add more lines for the weights of 6pdr, 2pdr, 37mm, 20mm Hotchkiss and so on... then I'm sure it would be pretty apparent what was easily man-handleable and what wasn't (by comparison).

Comparing the guns just on caliber just didn't seem to sit right. Obviously there's a clear metric tonne difference between the Pak 43/41 and the 17pdr, but when you get to 3 tonnes or above, does it really get any /more/ difficult to shift?

On a related note does anyone have any more detailed information on the 3.75" gun? I seem to recall reading somewhere that they were deployed in the AT role briefly at Tobruk, but that divisional organisation meant that this was very rare.

Why didn't we buy into the use of AA guns in the AT role early like the Germans? Was it simply that the gun carriage wasn't up to the task as I also seem to recall reading? Evidently both the 90mm AA gun and the 3.75" could achieve much better muzzle velocity and ceiling in the AA role than the 88.

[DCRBrown]

A,