Bofors AA guns in A/Tk role

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi,

Just finished reading a very interesting account by an officer of 44 RTR who escaped the over-running of 150 Bde Box during battle of Gazala in May-June 42 (WO169/4521). He recounts how:

On one occasion, two German tks were knocked out by Bofors at short range.

Anyone got more information on this incident, perhaps from the perspective of the AA gunners!

Regards

Tom

[phylo_roadking]

Tom, he doesn't mention whos Bofors ( I take it the 40mm) - the South African ones or the NZ?

[Gooner1]

".. the Bofors has an excellent anti-tank performance, all reconnaissances of A.A. sites must take into consideration the possibility of a secondary anti-tank role. In certain special circumstances a proportion of light A.A. guns may be given a primary anti-tank role.
A single gun position will rarely satisfy both needs, since the field of fire and concealment requirements are so widely different. The troop commander must first ensure that he can carry out his primary anti-aircraft role, and then select alternative anti-tank positions - sufficiently close, if possible, for guns to be manhandled to them to get a field of fire. If no such close positions exist, more distant ones will have to be reconnoitred, and some or all of the tractors kept nearby to move the guns.
The troop commander must be certain that he is not caught by tanks when on the move from one position to another. In the heat and excitement of battle it is obvious that only the troop commander can judge the moment to abandon the primary in favour of the secondary role. He must therefore:-
i. Have a good system of local observation.
ii. Keep close touch with the nearest infantry or field artillery unit.

As a guide it may be assumed that light A.A. guns will invariably engage enemy tanks that come within 800 yards range. Troop commanders must therefore be thinking ahead once they have information that tanks have penetrated the forward defences.
On occasions heavy A.A. guns may also have an opportunity of assuming an anti-tank role."

From the Army Training Memorandum No. 43 of May '42 but use of Bofors in A/T role was SOP long before.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Phylo,

No, he makes no mention of the unit - I had assumed it was part of 50 (N) Div.

Gooner,

Interesting stuff, thanks.

Regards

Tom

[Trackhead M2]

Dear TOC,
Did the 3.7 inch gun ever do double duty and ruin a panzer's day?
Strike Swiflty,
TH-M2

[phylo_roadking]

Well, the STOCK answer is no...

BUT in fact...http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/weapons-te ... d-gun.html

If you scan through the whole thread, you'll actually find a lot of examples of it being used as such.

[Ex Fred]

I have read accounts (including war diaries) of 3.7" AA guns in 1944/45 being positioned for ground role use as well as acting as more traditional artillery.

[Fatboy Coxy]

Was it normal practice for Bofors AA batteries to be issued with armour piercing rounds. There was an encounter between Japanese tanks and Bofors guns on the 7th of January 1942, Slim River, Malaya. I quote

“The next gunners to encounter the tanks put up a fight. Four 40mm guns of 16th light anti-aircraft battery Hong Kong and Singapore Royal Artillery (HKSRA), guarding the road bridge, fired on the tanks at point blank range as they approached at 0840hrs. Sadly the gunners had no armour piercing rounds and could not pierce the tanks frontal armour.”
The defence and fall of Singapore 1940 – 1942, Brian P Farrell

Or was this just operating practice for the 8th Army in North Africa.

Steve

[Gooner1]

Was it normal practice for Bofors AA batteries to be issued with armour piercing rounds. There was an encounter between Japanese tanks and Bofors guns on the 7th of January 1942, Slim River, Malaya. I quote

“The next gunners to encounter the tanks put up a fight. Four 40mm guns of 16th light anti-aircraft battery Hong Kong and Singapore Royal Artillery (HKSRA), guarding the road bridge, fired on the tanks at point blank range as they approached at 0840hrs. Sadly the gunners had no armour piercing rounds and could not pierce the tanks frontal armour.”
The defence and fall of Singapore 1940 – 1942, Brian P Farrell

Or was this just operating practice for the 8th Army in North Africa.

Steve

That's probably a reflection on the sloppy attitude to the defence of Malaya.

Certainly the Bofors had AP ammunition during the invasion threat of the UK.

"Preparations were made by all A.A. defences to assume a secondary ground-defence role; Bofors were provided with anti-tank ammunition, and sited to cover approaches to aerodromes, V.P.'s etc. Certain 3.7-inch guns suitably sited were given an anti-ship role, and preparations were made for barrages to be put on certain beaches."

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/U ... XXIII.html

[Urmel]

The Germans referred to the Bofors 40mm as 'Pak/Flak' (AT/AA) gun, which gives an indication on how they saw it from the receiving end.

[David W]

Does anyone know if solid shot (as fired by the 2Pounder) could be used by the bofors 40mm A/A?

If so, was any allocated?

I am especially interested in the North African theatre of operations up to 1942.

[John Hilly]

Does anyone know if solid shot (as fired by the 2Pounder) could be used by the bofors 40mm A/A?

I have shot AP solid shots of 40mm Bofors in Finnish Army as late as 1980s.
They were still good for Soviet AFVs and always available.
IIRC there wasn't HEAP grenades at all for 40mm.

With best
Juha-Pekka

[Alanmccoubrey]

Does anyone know if solid shot (as fired by the 2Pounder) could be used by the bofors 40mm A/A?

If so, was any allocated?

I am especially interested in the North African theatre of operations up to 1942.

David, while I can't answer that definitively I would say that if the Bofors could have fired the 2 pdr round then the 2 pdr could have fired the Bofors round and there wouldn't have been an almost complete lack of HE capability in early war British tank units .

[David W]

So de we think that when hard pressed by enemy tanks, the brave crews of the 40mm bofors would have fired A/A H.E rounds at the tanks, as nothing else was available?

[Urmel]

David

This site http://www.antiaircraft.org/40mm.htm says an armour-piercing round was available.