Comprehensive Wishlist

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: madner

But the Flak-41 had his own sets of problem, after Tunisia it wasn't used outside of Germany.
From the around 10 000 8.8 Germany produced only about 500 were Flak 41, and the Luftwaffe ordered them to address the perceived ceiling deficit of the L/56 gun. So they spent they time defending the cities.
For the Wehrmacht that meant those guns could as well not exist.

Well, of course not - for the reasons I've already put forth. They could have produced it instead of the AT gun, but they chose not to. The fact is that it existed and could have provided the same power as the AT gun, plus served in the Flak role. That it was not used in the frontlines proves my point: Later in the war the Allies were becoming more proficient, and using Flak in an AT role didn't work as well as it had. Time for a true AT gun.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Uh-huh. The Bofors 40mm AA gun had a range of over 7km.

And, as I posted in #1050, the Flak-41 has a ceiling of 14.9km and a horizontal range of 19.6km. That's well over twice the range, covering over seven times the area.

Anyway, heavy AA is more useful against torpedo bombers which have to fly in a more predictable path, so the gunners can lay fire ahead of approaching aircraft. After 1940, no bombing mission over land would fly straight and level at low altitude against a protected target.

Any AAA is more useful against torpedo bombers than others. They don't start their runs from 20km out. That doesn't mean its not useful against those others.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, as I posted in #1050, the Flak-41 has a ceiling of 14.9km and a horizontal range of 19.6km. That's well over twice the range, covering over seven times the area.

But as it fires slowly and traverses slower still, you won't hit anything. Heavy flak is for deterring high level bombers by putting down a blanket of fire. It's not for shooting low level bombers who you may not even see until they're right on top of you.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, as I posted in #1050, the Flak-41 has a ceiling of 14.9km and a horizontal range of 19.6km. That's well over twice the range, covering over seven times the area.

But as it fires slowly and traverses slower still, you won't hit anything. Heavy flak is for deterring high level bombers by putting down a blanket of fire. It's not for shooting low level bombers who you may not even see until they're right on top of you.

Around 20 rpm. One every three seconds isn't bad for a big gun. 41 could shoot 25. I think the Allied guns of the same ilk had a higher rof. Can't recall how fast it will traverse. Probably much faster than you think. Also, 5000 ft at the diagonal is the same distance as 5000ft vertically. There would be a drop off in trajectory but the optics were the best so I wouldn't bother with that. I'm not saying they were or weren't or couldn't shoot at that type of target. Just throwing gas on the fire. [:D]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And, as I posted in #1050, the Flak-41 has a ceiling of 14.9km and a horizontal range of 19.6km. That's well over twice the range, covering over seven times the area.

But as it fires slowly and traverses slower still, you won't hit anything. Heavy flak is for deterring high level bombers by putting down a blanket of fire. It's not for shooting low level bombers who you may not even see until they're right on top of you.

Around 20 rpm. One every three seconds isn't bad for a big gun. 41 could shoot 25. I think the Allied guns of the same ilk had a higher rof. Can't recall how fast it will traverse. Probably much faster than you think. Also, 5000 ft at the diagonal is the same distance as 5000ft vertically. There would be a drop off in trajectory but the optics were the best so I wouldn't bother with that. I'm not saying they were or weren't or couldn't shoot at that type of target. Just throwing gas on the fire. [:D]

Plus they're firing shrapnel bursts. The smaller caliber guns are just firing bullets. And WWII bombers weren't cruise missiles. They had to find their targets from altitude. Clearly, there was a reason why field units were given 88mm Flak guns. And it wasn't because they expected to be targeted by B-17s at 30,000 feet.

[madner]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: madner

But the Flak-41 had his own sets of problem, after Tunisia it wasn't used outside of Germany.
From the around 10 000 8.8 Germany produced only about 500 were Flak 41, and the Luftwaffe ordered them to address the perceived ceiling deficit of the L/56 gun. So they spent they time defending the cities.
For the Wehrmacht that meant those guns could as well not exist.

Well, of course not - for the reasons I've already put forth. They could have produced it instead of the AT gun, but they chose not to. The fact is that it existed and could have provided the same power as the AT gun, plus served in the Flak role. That it was not used in the frontlines proves my point: Later in the war the Allies were becoming more proficient, and using Flak in an AT role didn't work as well as it had. Time for a true AT gun.

That opinion isn't based on facts. Let us first examine the role of the regular 8.8 as Flak in Wehrmacht units. There were a couple of units, but most were broken up and became part of Panzer divisions as IV battery in the artillery regiment. As the units were on the East front, it is quite clear the Flak role of the 8.8 wasn't highly regarded from the Wehrmacht.
Now, the Flak 41 set of issues was due to the requirements set by the Luftwaffe, which in hindsight demanded a to high velocity. The weapon was withdrawn from service with the Luftwaffe units that were supporting the Wehrmacht. So clearly Flak 41 wasn't a suitable weapon and the Wehrmacht did need a new weapon.

Now, true enough the Wehrmacht could have asked for a dual purpose AA/AT gun from Krupp, but there is point 1.
The biggest reason why the 8.8 wasn't practical versus tactical bomber was that it wasn't until 1945 that the time fuse was replaced by a proximity one (which tripled the efficiency versus strategic bombers).

[Panama]

These two 88s are pumping out some serious metal even if it is fast motion.

http://videos.zoki.com/video_MasHown9MH4.html

Good thing they had this ill regarded gun around to blow up the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks since their highly regarded tank and anti tank guns couldn't. [:D]

BTW I think this thread holds the record for hijackings. [8|]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Plus they're firing shrapnel bursts. The smaller caliber guns are just firing bullets. And WWII bombers weren't cruise missiles. They had to find their targets from altitude. Clearly, there was a reason why field units were given 88mm Flak guns. And it wasn't because they expected to be targeted by B-17s at 30,000 feet.

For the first half of the war, virtually no combat units had organic 88s. Contrast the number of lighter AA guns issued.

...and the same goes for comparable weapons. British divisions had 40mm AA guns, not 3.7".

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Plus they're firing shrapnel bursts. The smaller caliber guns are just firing bullets. And WWII bombers weren't cruise missiles. They had to find their targets from altitude. Clearly, there was a reason why field units were given 88mm Flak guns. And it wasn't because they expected to be targeted by B-17s at 30,000 feet.

For the first half of the war, virtually no combat units had organic 88s. Contrast the number of lighter AA guns issued.

...and the same goes for comparable weapons. British divisions had 40mm AA guns, not 3.7".

It's irrelevent whether they were organic or attached. The fact remains that they were there with the field units - any claim to the contrary would come as a shock to Commonwealth tankers!

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: madner

That opinion isn't based on facts. Let us first examine the role of the regular 8.8 as Flak in Wehrmacht units. There were a couple of units, but most were broken up and became part of Panzer divisions as IV battery in the artillery regiment. As the units were on the East front, it is quite clear the Flak role of the 8.8 wasn't highly regarded from the Wehrmacht.
Now, the Flak 41 set of issues was due to the requirements set by the Luftwaffe, which in hindsight demanded a to high velocity. The weapon was withdrawn from service with the Luftwaffe units that were supporting the Wehrmacht. So clearly Flak 41 wasn't a suitable weapon and the Wehrmacht did need a new weapon.

Now, true enough the Wehrmacht could have asked for a dual purpose AA/AT gun from Krupp, but there is point 1.

It was actually a list of facts:

Fact 1: Late in the war, the Germans had a Flak-41 gun as powerful as their Pak-43 AT gun. They chose to produce the AT gun, despite the dual abilities of the Flak gun.

Fact 2: Even the few Flak-41 guns that were built were not sent to the front lines, despite their AT power and the frontline need for it.

The critical difference is the carriage. QED.

The biggest reason why the 8.8 wasn't practical versus tactical bomber was that it wasn't until 1945 that the time fuse was replaced by a proximity one (which tripled the efficiency versus strategic bombers).

And heat-seeking and radar-guidance weren't developed till much later still. [X(]

What does that have to do with anything? No German AAA had proximity fuses.

[Panama]

The 41 actually was used in Tunisia. However, it's more complex than the earlier types and requires much more to maintain it. The troops in the field were not up to the task. It was pulled from ground forces and used only in Germany where proper service and maintanance facilities could keep them in good order.

It's carriage did provide a lower profile than the other types but still, servicing problems and a jamming problem made them impractile for use with the ground forces. Also, not many were made.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Plus they're firing shrapnel bursts. The smaller caliber guns are just firing bullets. And WWII bombers weren't cruise missiles. They had to find their targets from altitude. Clearly, there was a reason why field units were given 88mm Flak guns. And it wasn't because they expected to be targeted by B-17s at 30,000 feet.

For the first half of the war, virtually no combat units had organic 88s. Contrast the number of lighter AA guns issued.

...and the same goes for comparable weapons. British divisions had 40mm AA guns, not 3.7".

It's irrelevent whether they were organic or attached. The fact remains that they were there with the field units - any claim to the contrary would come as a shock to Commonwealth tankers!

Sigh.

Very few of them were there with the field units. And they were up front to serve as AT, not as AA. In their AA role, they would be used to defend fixed targets vulnerable to high-level bombing, not for defense against tactical aircraft. A limbered up 88 moving along with a column would be useless if some Tomahawks showed up.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: madner


Now, true enough the Wehrmacht could have asked for a dual purpose AA/AT gun from Krupp, but there is point 1.

[/quote]

On reflection, a dual purpose AA/AT gun the size of an 88 sounds unlikely.

The original 88 was built as an AA gun -- and look at that! It's just dandy against bunkers and tanks. However, that wasn't the original idea.

I believe later variants were purpose-built as AT guns -- and I doubt very much if any were intended to fulfill both roles well. If one thinks about it, an AA gun is going to have elevating gear and stuff that's going to give it a high profile, whilst an AT gun should have as low a profile as possible, and the barrel doesn't need to be elevated much. As an intentional design, a 'dual purpose AA/AT gun' makes about as much sense as an assault scout car.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

The biggest reason why the 8.8 wasn't practical versus tactical bomber was that it wasn't until 1945 that the time fuse was replaced by a proximity one (which tripled the efficiency versus strategic bombers).

And heat-seeking and radar-guidance weren't developed till much later still. [X(]

What does that have to do with anything? No German AAA had proximity fuses.

Give credit where credit is due. It would appear Curtis is substantially right on this one. The closest I got to evidence that the Germans had proximity fuses is this:

"...Little known however is that the Germans independently developed and
successfully test fired almost 1000 rounds of a similar proximity fuse
near the wars end that if introduced into service would have had a
dramatic effect. The allies estimated that the availability of the
proximity fuse would force them to abandon use of the B-24 Liberator
due to its lower flying altitude compared to the B-17..."

One thousand rounds of AA fire isn't very much. I'd say the Germans had proximity fuses like they had rocket fighters.

[pionier]

At least they used at the end of war a doubble fuse (time & hit) which raised the loss rate to almost 3x of waht bevor (time fuse only )

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/8,8-cm-FlaK_18/36/37 (near the end)

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Does early British military doctrine really serve as a good example. Lack of flexibility was their undoing.

George: "Robert, there's one of those pesky PkwII coming up the road"
Robert: "Bah, I can't find my ammo for the AT rifle George"
George: "I thought I saw it right on the other side of the Howitzer"
Robert, after rummaging around the 25lbr Howitzer ammo: "No, I can't find it. Just shoot at it with the Enfield"

Funny you mention the 25 pdr. Actually, the British designed that piece to serve in an AT role as well, and it did so quite successfully until the Germans figured out that its range in this role was very limited and they could just stand outside of it and shell the gun with the 7.5's on the Mk IV.

However -- and what OPART can't handle -- is that if the 25 pdrs are deployed as AT guns, they're not going to be much use as long-range artillery. It's the same problem as with the AA.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Very few of them were there with the field units. And they were up front to serve as AT, not as AA. In their AA role, they would be used to defend fixed targets vulnerable to high-level bombing, not for defense against tactical aircraft. A limbered up 88 moving along with a column would be useless if some Tomahawks showed up.

They would already be unlimbered when protecting an attack or defense. What fixed targets are there in the Western Desert?

Regardless, that was just early in the war. Later TO&E would reflect a change made from hard experience.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

On reflection, a dual purpose AA/AT gun the size of an 88 sounds unlikely.

The original 88 was built as an AA gun -- and look at that! It's just dandy against bunkers and tanks.

Provided the enemy isn't very competent. That advantage withered away somewhat as the war progressed. That's been my point all along - if the enemy can coordinate well, then high profile guns that are hard to hide and move make poor AT weapons.

I believe later variants were purpose-built as AT guns -- and I doubt very much if any were intended to fulfill both roles well. If one thinks about it, an AA gun is going to have elevating gear and stuff that's going to give it a high profile, whilst an AT gun should have as low a profile as possible, and the barrel doesn't need to be elevated much. As an intentional design, a 'dual purpose AA/AT gun' makes about as much sense as an assault scout car.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Obviously, as I've been saying all along, they were finally forced to make a purpose built 88mm AT gun. The 88mm Flak guns remained able to elevate to 90 degrees. That requires a high profile.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: Panama

Does early British military doctrine really serve as a good example. Lack of flexibility was their undoing.

George: "Robert, there's one of those pesky PkwII coming up the road"
Robert: "Bah, I can't find my ammo for the AT rifle George"
George: "I thought I saw it right on the other side of the Howitzer"
Robert, after rummaging around the 25lbr Howitzer ammo: "No, I can't find it. Just shoot at it with the Enfield"

Funny you mention the 25 pdr. Actually, the British designed that piece to serve in an AT role as well, and it did so quite successfully until the Germans figured out that its range in this role was very limited and they could just stand outside of it and shell the gun with the 7.5's on the Mk IV.

However -- and what OPART can't handle -- is that if the 25 pdrs are deployed as AT guns, they're not going to be much use as long-range artillery. It's the same problem as with the AA.

I've noticed many WW2 artillery pieces that were used as AT guns have no AT value in the equipment database.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

They would already be unlimbered when protecting an attack or defense. What fixed targets are there in the Western Desert?

Must've been some (ports, presumably). Only about a third of the 88s in Africa were under army control, so the other two third were presumably back looking for bombers to shoot at.