Eastern Front late summer 1941, Anti-aircraft guns

Hello to everyone. New to this forum, but wanted to ask the following question. I'm a wargamer and would like to know what kinds of anti-aircraft guns the Romanian army would have used, during August, September 1941? I'm trying to create a fictitious game, not one based on any known battle. Any ideas? I look forward to hearing from you.

All those mentioned on this site (the Weapon section, cannons/AA cannons), except for the German 88

So:
- heavy: Vickers/Reșița 75 mm (and some Skoda 76,5 mm, in homeland defense)
- light, a mixture of: Rheinmetall 37 mm (the main gun, the majority produced under license), Bofors 40 mm (from Poland and sold by the Germans after 1939), Oerlikon 20 mm, Gustloff 20 mm (not too many in 1941), Hotchkiss 25 mm (not too many in 1941, some possibly using twin mountings)
- AA MGs: Hotchkiss 13,2 mm (many of them, some in twin mountings), plus some Schwartzlose (8 or 7,92 mm, in twin mountings)

The other forum members, please correct me if I'm wrong.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 03, 2016 01:09 am

Thanks Agarici. I was looking for the AA guns that Romania would have taken into Russia, rather than those kept for home defence. Which you have answered.

Well, to begin with, the Hotchkiss MG were surely there, because they were in the composition of the army units (divisions).
Then, there are photos (and footage) with at least the Vickers and and the 37 mm Rheinmetalls on the Eastern Front, in 1941 (if I'm not mistaking, around Odessa, where the front line stalled for a few months). Possibly also with the Bofors (I remember a particular photo with a Ford Marmon towing a light AA gun, but I don't remember if it was a Bofors or a Rheinmetall). Perhaps some other forum members can help too.

Agarici. Thanks again for this information. Could I ask another question of you? What was the role of the Romanian cavalry at this time? Were they always on the battlefield, or used as backup?

David, you will find a tremendous amount of information if you will spend some time to carefully read the titles of the topics, listed under each chapter of this website, then enter in the topics that you want.

I know that the easiest thing is to just typewrite a question, then wait for some answers.
But why other people should spend their time and write for you things already written here before ?

This post has been edited by Florin on June 07, 2016 03:41 am

Good point, Florin.

Gen. Dénes

Indeed, our fellow members have a point. However, I still remember myself as new on the site/forum, how I use to expect my every question to be answered.

David, first please take a look here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/organizare/?article=35

The Romanian interwar (and WW 2) doctrine regarding cavalry was similar to the Polish one. The cavalry units (Polish interwar brigades, Romanian interwar divisions - up to 4 division and an independent brigade, by 1940 in Romania) was to use them as somehow crack (having better trained recruits than the average enlisted men) mobile (and fast) troops/infantry, to be used in a rough/mixed terrain, especially in the absence of a extensive road infrastructure. A lack for the Romanian divisions, by late-1940, was perceived to be their reduced (and too light) artillery (only 75 mm guns, and no 100 mm howitzers, as for their infantry and mountain counterparts) and their somehow too cumbersome structure, without enough flexibility. So, by the and of that year they were reorganized as brigades (6 of them in the land forces). Already before 1940 a process of partial motorization begun (aimed in constituting a motorized - "purtat" - cavalry regiment per division/brigade). Thus, in the 1941 campaign The Cavalry Corps was subordinated to Romanian Third army, earmarked for more mobile operation than the 4th.

In 1942 the strengthened cavalry brigades were renamed as divisions. In time they received additional artillery (including 100 mm guns) and by 1944 the 8th was a motor division. After August 1944 some of the cavalry big units were disbanded, and at least one was basically reduced to infantry (except in name) because the lack of horses.

Thanks to all. I'll try to keep to the rules next time!