Earlier deployment of the Wirbelwind/Ostwind SPAAG?

These vehicles were deployed with the purpose of shielding German armored units. But their alternative use was in an anti-infantry role. If development and deployment happens earlier, how much would this help the panzer divisions, both in the East and the West?
 

Deleted member 1487

These vehicles were deployed with the purpose of shielding German armored units. But their alternative use was in an anti-infantry role. If development and deployment happens earlier, how much would this help the panzer divisions, both in the East and the West?
Probably not that much, they weren't that effective historically, which led to the development of the Kugelblitz at the end of the war, which probably would have done better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelblitz
It only had its initial pilot run of 5 units ready by the end of the war. You'd need something like that to have an impact.
 
The supposed lack of effectiveness is a product of low numbers deployed vs. an enemy that has superior numbers not just in the air but also on the ground.

It would've made the life of the armored units a bit easier. Quirk being - plenty, plenty of those is needed to cover thousand miles of the front line, that not just means they eat into the production of tanks and SP AT vehicles, but also that they need fuel, that precious comodity.
The self-propelled 30mm should be a good addition, perhaps erstwhile on the Marder chassis as a single barreled gun - does not eat into heavier hulls' production, and will use less fuel, while the cross country mobility is better than with half-tracks.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Infantry men with rifles might be a better deterrent than a SPAAG.

After the loss of HMS Ardent in 1982, it was found that if every available man with a gun was fired at incoming aircraft, it was enough to put off Argie aircraft trying to attack the RN vessels in San Carlos.

Would a battalion of men be more effective trying to defeat an attacking aircraft than a SPAAG system?

Just an idea.

Cheers filers
 

Deleted member 1487

Infantry men with rifles might be a better deterrent than a SPAAG.

After the loss of HMS Ardent in 1982, it was found that if every available man with a gun was fired at incoming aircraft, it was enough to put off Argie aircraft trying to attack the RN vessels in San Carlos.

Would a battalion of men be more effective trying to defeat an attacking aircraft than a SPAAG system?

Just an idea.

Cheers filers
Well that is what the Soviets did on the Eastern front; instead of running away like Western infantry when attacked they were trained to turn every gun on an attacking aircraft. Not sure how well it worked though, but the Germans sure commented on it.
 
Germans couldn't use infantry for that- they were short of men. In fact, this WI has one intriguing question behind it: could the Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds cut down enough opposing infantry to give Germans significantly better odds in battles?
 
Germans couldn't use infantry for that- they were short of men. In fact, this WI has one intriguing question behind it: could the Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds cut down enough opposing infantry to give Germans significantly better odds in battles?

You mean by using them as armoured fire support vehicles? Anything like that will tend to be treated by the enemy as if it were a tank. Since they aren't tanks, they're probably going to be somewhat more vulnerable to anti-tank weapons. That isn't to say that they don't have a place, of course; that sort of supporting fire can be very useful and since it's under armour it's significantly less vulnerable to artillery than towed guns. But generally speaking I think increasing the scale of issue of other heavy weapons (or trucks!) will be easier and more useful, or if you must have an armoured vehicle then a Stug or some other SPG can do most of the same job.
 
Using infantry to fend off the air attack has it's benefits and shortcomings. Infantry is sorta always around, they can react on short notice. Shortcoming is that infantry wepons were not that good in the job of air defense, bar MGs. Germany also has manpower shortage, one dedicates AA gun is probably worth hundred of infantry men for AA job, and infantry cannot engage aircraft that are above 300-400m. The infantry that is engaging aircaft does not do other things, like the ground attack or defense.

Now that we're with German tracked SP AA, they weee also experimenting with quadruple 30 mm on the Pz-IV chassis, with a vehicle named 'Zerstoerer' - 'Destroyer'.
 
Infantry men with rifles might be a better deterrent than a SPAAG.

After the loss of HMS Ardent in 1982, it was found that if every available man with a gun was fired at incoming aircraft, it was enough to put off Argie aircraft trying to attack the RN vessels in San Carlos.

Would a battalion of men be more effective trying to defeat an attacking aircraft than a SPAAG system?

Just an idea.

Cheers filers

That was a semi-viable option in a theatre where ship based anti-air missiles were forcing Argentinian planes to fly at very low levels, i.e. within range of a 5.56mm bullet and where you had infantry equipped with Assault Rifles.

WW2 aircraft especially by the end of the war weren't forced into such low level flying and German infantry were mostly quipped with either sub-machine guns which didn't have the range or bolt action rifles which didn't have the firing speed. That said it would probably distracting to have a hail of 9mm bullets hit your aircraft even if they didn't do anything.
 

Deleted member 1487

That was a semi-viable option in a theatre where ship based anti-air missiles were forcing Argentinian planes to fly at very low levels, i.e. within range of a 5.56mm bullet and where you had infantry equipped with Assault Rifles.

WW2 aircraft especially by the end of the war weren't forced into such low level flying and German infantry were mostly quipped with either sub-machine guns which didn't have the range or bolt action rifles which didn't have the firing speed. That said it would probably distracting to have a hail of 9mm bullets hit your aircraft even if they didn't do anything.
CAS/Tactical aircraft that were operating in places like Normandy were flying low within range of MGs and rifles due to the range of their MGs and rockets. German infantry had a lot of MG42s, more than their ration strength was supposed to have (squads were routinely ensuring they had two or three instead of the one authorized and lot of extra ammo based on combat experience. The Allies learned to do the same thing in 1944 and on based on experience in France and Italy. Of course the Marines standardized that into fire team doctrine for squads in the Pacific earlier.
 
CAS/Tactical aircraft that were operating in places like Normandy were flying low within range of MGs and rifles due to the range of their MGs and rockets. German infantry had a lot of MG42s, more than their ration strength was supposed to have (squads were routinely ensuring they had two or three instead of the one authorized and lot of extra ammo based on combat experience. The Allies learned to do the same thing in 1944 and on based on experience in France and Italy. Of course the Marines standardized that into fire team doctrine for squads in the Pacific earlier.

Yep.. The German pre WW2 doctrine also spoke to the use of their GPMG's for AA fire (they even produced special high velocity 7.92mm AA ammo.)

That being said I've only seen a few photos of German tanks in the 1944-1945 time period with turret mounted MG34's or MG42's for AA fire. I'd be curious in knowing what the story behind this was.
 
In the face of overwhelming allied air supremacy by day and night nothing less then receiving the plans for either SA-2 or HAWK missile batteries would save the day , even then it's a very expensive way of combating allied aircraft . Even the current Luftwaffe would run out of munitions apart from 27 mm cannon shells on day one of trying to combat the allied bomber offensive . Even using their cannon only they would begin to suffer virtual attrition as sortie rates eat into maintenance . No single weapon would have helped the Germans . More SPAAG means more fuel and less other AFV . conquering England before attacking the Soviet Union would have removed any bomber bases capable of attacking Germany for up to 4 years and allowed for more men and material to be used to fight the Soviet Union .

The rough cost of the allied bomber offensive is staggering .

somewhere in the region of 33,000 aircraft (lost in the sky and destroyed in factories etc . )

Approx 800 tanks ,

add to this over 15,000 flak guns of 88mm or higher by 1942 and over 1.3 million men . The bomber command offensive did win the war through making defending against it prohibitively expensive . With one shoootdown per 3,300 shells the flak defences ate millions of man hours in new artillery barrels and shells . If you look at it from that point of view the Fliegerfaust although an unsuccessful weapon in 20 mm may have been effective if fired in a 30 mm version in large numbers . ie 20 men all firing at the same aircraft that could mean 140 30 mm mineglosch shells exploding at once near an allied aircraft .
 
Well that is what the Soviets did on the Eastern front; instead of running away like Western infantry when attacked they were trained to turn every gun on an attacking aircraft. Not sure how well it worked though, but the Germans sure commented on it.

Germans couldn't use infantry for that- they were short of men. In fact, this WI has one intriguing question behind it: could the Wirbelwinds and Ostwinds cut down enough opposing infantry to give Germans significantly better odds in battles?

thought the scenario is always the Panzers outrun the infantry? could earlier Wirbel/Ostwinds allow some advances to continue?

could they be used in tandem with tank destroyers and/or neberwerfers? those destroyers to the layman seem vulnerable to counterattack? (from the sides) and nebelwerfers were towed or on half-tracks? (open tops?)
 
Top