German 88's

Resisti · Post by **Resisti** » Wed May 16, 2001 1:10 pm

In the German OOB there two types of this gun,one coded as AT gun,the other as Flak or something(sorry dont have the OOB in front of me..).
I'd like to know,in game terms,which are the differences between the two(accuracy?,rate of fire? etc.) and according to you which of the two is overall the best (considering to use it in AT role..)
Txs.

Don Doom · Post by **Don Doom** » Wed May 16, 2001 3:43 pm

They are the same weopon. The only difference is the flak 18 carries more HE rounds for AAA. The Flak/Pak 18 are the same performance wise.

lnp4668 · Post by **lnp4668** » Wed May 16, 2001 3:49 pm

The size of the flak 88 AT is also smaller to represent its lower profile compare to the AA.

Flashfyre · Post by **Flashfyre** » Wed May 16, 2001 4:03 pm

The 88mm ATG is smaller, has fewer crewmen, it's rangefinder value is lower, and is only available after January 1944. It's rarity value is lower (better chance to get more of them), and it is supplied with more AP rounds. Also, it's accuracy is higher, and it has a higher penetration potential (due to HEAT/APCR rounds being available for it).

Before 1944, you don't have a choice: the 88mm AA gun is the only one available. After 1944, I'd take the ATG over the AA.

Mike Rothery · Post by **Mike Rothery** » Wed May 16, 2001 4:07 pm

The one designated as an AT gun cannot shoot at aircraft. The one marked Heavy Flak can shoot at aircraft. (As I have said many times before it shouldn't be in the game, as having a gun that instantaneously switches from ground targets to an AA role is nonsense for heavy FLAK with time fused HE. Likewise the 88 was near useless at taking on fast low level aircraft)

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Wed May 16, 2001 5:09 pm

I think some of us may be getting these mixed up. It's news to me that the ATG version has a smaller size and is only available after 1/44. The 88 we're speaking of has the same picture in each case, and they're both available in '39. The only differences I know of is that the AT version has the inability to fire at aircraft and also has considerably more AP rounds.

lnp4668 · Post by **lnp4668** » Wed May 16, 2001 6:06 pm

Originally posted by Charles_22:
I think some of us may be getting these mixed up. It's news to me that the ATG version has a smaller size and is only available after 1/44. The 88 we're speaking of has the same picture in each case, and they're both available in '39. The only differences I know of is that the AT version has the inability to fire at aircraft and also has considerably more AP rounds.

You are right, there is the 88mm Pak43 ATG, 88mm Flak18, and 88mm Flak18 AT

kutalik · Post by **kutalik** » Wed May 16, 2001 6:29 pm

Wasn't there also some deal with the electric setup for the 88mm that made it difficult for its crews to switch between AT and AA modes?

Mike Rothery · Post by **Mike Rothery** » Wed May 16, 2001 7:13 pm

There is an existing thread on this debate.
http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=26&t=000105

Del · Post by **Del** » Wed May 16, 2001 7:55 pm

You might want to ask Rommel about the effectiveness of his 88 Flak guns against the Brits Matildas in France. If I remember correctly they did quite well without any modifications.

Also he used them to great advantage in North Africa. They had the same carriage for towing but I can't say if they were modified in any way. I've also seen pictures of the same guns in Barbarossa on AT duty. Again, I can't say if they were modified in any way.

Bottom line, if it was done historically then it can be done in the game. BTW, how long will this debate go on? I'd put my money on forever.

Mike Rothery · Post by **Mike Rothery** » Thu May 17, 2001 2:02 am

Originally posted by Del:
You might want to ask Rommel about the effectiveness of his 88 Flak guns against the Brits Matildas in France. If I remember correctly they did quite well without any modifications.

Also he used them to great advantage in North Africa. They had the same carriage for towing but I can't say if they were modified in any way. I've also seen pictures of the same guns in Barbarossa on AT duty. Again, I can't say if they were modified in any way.

Bottom line, if it was done historically then it can be done in the game. BTW, how long will this debate go on? I'd put my money on forever.

ahhhhhhhhh the debate goes on because the concept is so clear to some, yet ceaselessly obfuscated by irrelevant information.

When they dragged an 88 up to the front line it was for ground action OK. That is what Rommel did, Halfaya Pass and all that. I have noooo problem with a FLAK18/36 being used in a direct fire role.

BUT when they were so deployed, they could not shoot in an effective AA mode without more people, changing ammo, unpacking the predictor (which propebaly was left in the rear) blah blah....I'll be generous and say it could get off a shot in AA after 2-3 turns in SPWAW time.

Now some facts: they didn't deploy these big AA guns in the front line for AA purposes, the big AA guns were useless at shooting fast low flying aircraft (in fact they just became an easy target for strafers and had to light FLAK to protect them), and only the Germans trained their crews to engage ground targets.

Think of it like this; you would not put a 240mm rail mounted artillery piece on the map in SPWAW would you....couldn't hit anything, minimum range and all that. So why do we want to put heavy FLAK on the same map when they shouldn't be able to do more to attacking aircraft than atract attention to themselves. Leave them in the game as direct fire weapons only.
:rolleyes:

john g · Post by **john g** » Thu May 17, 2001 2:19 am

Originally posted by Mike Rothery:
ahhhhhhhhh the debate goes on because the concept is so clear to some, yet ceaselessly obfuscated by irrelevant information.

Now some facts: they didn't deploy these big AA guns in the front line for AA purposes, the big AA guns were useless at shooting fast low flying aircraft (in fact they just became an easy target for strafers and had to light FLAK to protect them), and only the Germans trained their crews to engage ground targets.

:rolleyes:

It was a question of doctrine for some armies. The British did consider using the 3.7in AA gun as a heavy AT gun in North Africa. I found one referance to it's use in that role in the first assaults on Tobruk. The reason that it wasn't used for AT use?

The 2pdr was an established weapon, and there was the 25pdr GH as a backup. By the time that the 6pdr started getting issued there were over 20000 2pdrs stockpiled in England.

The British didn't have an equivelent weapon until the war's end when they experimented with a 32pdr AT gun. By then the day of the towed AT gun had passed.

You might be interested to know that much of the he fired by the German 88 were not contact fused shells. They were time fused shells fired to burst in the air above the target. The same shells that the gun would fire against planes.
thanks, John.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Thu May 17, 2001 2:26 am

I don't see a dabate the 88 was an AA gun. It was issued to AA units, commanders found out that it made a great AT gun so they assigned them to that duty from the AA units. When dug-in for AT work there was not enough room to use them as AA guns. Pissed off the Lufwaffa since they owned most of the AA guns. The Army did have some AA units. Later in the war there was a special built 88 for AT only Pak 43 ( I believe) which had a two wheel carrage and was very low. Also the later 88 AA guns could be fired from their trailers. Now about tracking low flying aircraft, I don't think so, the time to traverse 360 degree in high gear (hand cranked)was 33.9 sec, in low gear (also hand cranked) was 69.79 sec. Source TME9-369A War Department Technical Manual "German 88-mm Antiaircraft Gun Material" 29 June 1943. :rolleyes:

john g · Post by **john g** » Thu May 17, 2001 2:39 am

Originally posted by Del:
You might want to ask Rommel about the effectiveness of his 88 Flak guns against the Brits Matildas in France. If I remember correctly they did quite well without any modifications.
be done in the game. BTW, how long will
Also he used them to great advantage in North Africa. They had the same carriage for towing but I can't say if they were modified in any way. I've also seen pictures of the same guns in Barbarossa on AT duty. Again, I can't say if they were modified in any way.

Bottom line, if it was done historically then it canthis debate go on? I'd put my money on forever.

Later the guns were modified for use as AT guns including mounting a gun shield (which the game doesn't model for any gun).

However, there were always flak batteries located where they might have an effect. Read Luck's "Panzer Leader" about how he stumbled across a flak battery that was in the right place to stop a British attack in Northern France in 44. They were Luftwaffe troops that he ordered to fight the tanks and not pull back.

Of course any attempt to change the various flak guns to second line troops, since they were primarily manned by Luftwaffe would probobly be met with cries of German bashing.

One of the few downsides to the 88 flak was its inability to fire downward more than 3 degrees. If mounted level on a hill it shouldn't be able to fire at targets below it, but since the game doesn't go into that kind of detail we just have to live with how it works. If we could just get better numbers for the 76(r) AT gun then the 88 flak might not be so over used. I just read about a action where a gunner with SK288 firing his 76(r) took out enough tanks in one fight in North Africa to earn a Knights Cross, something not many AT gunners managed.
thanks, John.

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Thu May 17, 2001 3:33 am

IIRC, The 88 flak guns do not fire at aircraft in v5. Their presence in the OOBs is to allow the historical recreation of battles where the Flak 88 was used to attack ground targets, the first instances being in the Spanish civil war. The arguments made about difficulty tracking fast, low targets & the moving of high altitude bombers to a type of off-board bombardment eliminated the type of airborne target the 88 was designed for from the game.

[ May 16, 2001: Message edited by: Bonzo ]

Mike Rothery · Post by **Mike Rothery** » Thu May 17, 2001 3:55 am

Originally posted by Bonzo:
IIRC, The 88 flak guns do not fire at aircraft in v5. Their presence in the OOBs is to allow the historical recreation of battles where the Flak 88 was used to attack ground targets, the first instances being in the Spanish civil war. The arguments made about difficulty tracking fast, low targets & the moving of high altitude bombers to a type of off-board bombardment eliminated the type of airborne target the 88 was designed for from the game.

[ May 16, 2001: Message edited by: Bonzo ]

If you're right, then I'll be very happy. But I think that the Heavy Flak class 88's do still shoot at aircraft.

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Thu May 17, 2001 4:13 am

john g: Totally at random (I don't believe in chance, but for ease of discussion I'll keep the 'random' I just used [glory to God!]), I opened the book to which you referred as I have a copy.

Pg. 194, these were the words:

The young captain realized that I was in earnest. "I bow to force. What must I do?" (My comments here: - On the previous page, Luck had threatened to shoot him if this Lufwaffe captain didn't use the four guns in an ATG role).

"Here place this gun in the apple orchard. The corn over there is so high that you will be well protected and just have a field of fire across it. Shoot every tank you see. I'll see if I can send you a platoon of grenadiers to guard you against surprise attacks. Should the situation become critical for you, destroy your guns and withdraw to the south. I hope our Tiger battalion will soon be able to mount a counterattack from the right flank. With them and with you we should be able to beat back the enemy attack, especially as it's not accompanied by infantry as far as I can tell. Listen, I'll be back in half an hour. All clear?"

He still seemed to be undecided, but finally nodded. "Okay Major."

Now I think what you were trying to point out, was if this gun was so unready for being switched from AA to AT role, just why would Major Luck want a Luftwaffe captain to adjust to the AT role, as his battery of four guns had been bypassed to the north by enemy tanks? You recall how the Major said he would see the 88flak captain in 30 minutes? Here's another quote from pg. 197:

After the arrival of the reconnaissance battalion I felt that I had stablized my right flank to some extent. I had still not has time to change, let alone have something to eat. For the next few hours everything hung on the battery at Cagney. I got into my tank again and rolled cautiously to into the village. By the church I stopped the tank and ran to the four guns, where an almost indescribable sight met my eyes:

-The 8.8cm cannons were firing one salvo after the other. One could see the shots flying through the corn like torpedoes. The men on the guns were proud of their first engagement as an antitank unit. All four guns were intact and had not been attacked.

-In the extensive cornfields to the north of the village stood at least 40 British tanks, on fire or shot up. I saw how the tanks that had already crossed the main road were slowly rolling back.

Mike Rothery · Post by **Mike Rothery** » Thu May 17, 2001 4:30 am

Originally posted by Charles_22:

Now I think what you were trying to point out, was if this gun was so unready for being switched from AA to AT role, just why would Major Luck want a Luftwaffe captain to adjust to the AT role, as his battery of four guns had been bypassed to the north by enemy tanks?

[/QUOTE]

You missed the point...it is not switching from AA to AT, but from AT back to AA that was the problem!

If an enemy aircraft had come along after the guns had been redeployed, would the 88's have been able to shoot in an AA role....no they would not.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't have the same weapon set up for ground action and be used for AA in the same turn.

When the British pilots flew Rhubarb missions over France in 41 & 42 they flew very low as they crossed the coast....why? They knew the 88 FLAK belt along the coast had very little chance to hit a fighter at low altitude, that's why.

Yes, put the FLAK 18/36 in the game, but set the unit class to AT gun only.

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Thu May 17, 2001 6:21 am

Mike: Thepoint seems to be how quick could one switch it. If it were I, and the AA role was of any use, then hopefully I would deploy them to overlook my forces, as indeed I do, and not put them on the front. So, what one would do, is set them up for the AA role. Hopefully the rest of your defenses could hold out long enough till they were switched back to AT again, which given from Major Luck's story must've took 20 minutes at the most (assuming he returned in 30 minutes and their firing which had started well before he arrived would've taken 10 minutes. In any case if I were forced to choose either AA or AT role, I would likely come up with some split, which would have to hold out until the others were converted to the role needed as the changing situation might demand.

Here's an article I found with a websearch.
http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nightingale/88flak.html

Del · Post by **Del** » Thu May 17, 2001 6:44 am

How do you modify an 88 to change from an AA role to an AT role? You lower the barrel and chamber the proper round. That's all. How do you change it back to an AA role? You elevate the barrel and chamber the proper round. It's not rocket science.

I do have to say that using them to fire at low flying aircraft is a bit unlikely. And firing at a tank one second and an aircraft the next is equally unlikely. Of course any unit firing 13+ times in a turn because of the "special op fire" is equally as unlikely and annoying. But I live with it and go on.