Matrix Games Forums

Re: In 1942, Flak 41 (Geraet 37) gun was introduced but small number was produced by Rheinmetall
(from http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm.htm )

Hehe, they are still in business, guess who makes that (in)famous 120mm smothbore for the M1 Abrahams, Leopard 2, LeClerk an probably future tanks

murx

Does not the OObs have the 88 as two seperate entities?
one as anti tank and one as AA? One will not fire at planes, But the AA version will fire at both planes and vehicles?(correct me if im in error)
I dont see the same for the soviet 85,76.2 nor the US90mm.
Does this mean they have dual capabiilities?
and the 88 does not? After consideration,
With no heavy bombers in the game, I tend to agree that there may be no place in the game for "heavyAA". Although I enjoy them

[ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

Originally posted by Voriax:
Hi all.

This doesn't really solve the 88 debate but I'd say you'll find the following document interesting: http://simonides.org/~manuals/us-misc/special/no8/special08-index01.html

The 88 part starts from page 10, but the whole document is well worth reading.

Voriax

An interesting reference, but some notes of caution;
1. the description only talks about deploying the 88 in a direct fire role.
2. this is a 1942 document and has some errors and inconsistencies in describing the towing system, as there were two distinct bogie arrangements for the FLAK 18 vs the FLAK 36, although they were interchangable.
3. the "newer" version on the halftrack did exist but was never widespread...in fact they were used in the invasion of France in 1940!

Wartime intelligence material is always written from what they knew at the time, and is not authoritative.

Speaking honestly, I've abused the usefullness of 88s in both roles when I'd get a defend mission. The AI would smack'em with artillery. The rarity factor is one of my favorite parts of this game, it keeps me from buying ridiculous amouts of a single effective unit, like Tigers.

I'll admit though, at some point, I'll want a Maus.

Alby: While I 'might' have tested out the Russkie 76mm, I'm not sure of the others, but I'll put a simple test to you. If those guns come with AP ammo, and indeed they do, just what are you going to use that ammo on? V1s maybe? :rolleyes:

Well Mike,
look at page 14 of the document, where it speaks about fire directed from an OP. If I'm not totally wrong, that's the indirect fire role

Originally posted by kgvm:
Well Mike,
look at page 14 of the document, where it speaks about fire directed from an OP. If I'm not totally wrong, that's the indirect fire role

Are you referring to the following:

"c) Fire directed from an OP: When the target is below the horizontal, or at ranges greater than 10,340 yards (that is, beyond the limit of the telescopic sight), fire is directed from an OP. The OP officer takes bearing, range, and elevation from his shooting map. From these he calculates the gun data with a range table and forwards the information to the gun position by telephone. A director is sometimes used for giving the original line to the guns. Corrections are ordered from observation of fire and set at the gun."

I have not made any comment on using the 88 to fire indirect. All sorts of guns (including most tanks) could lob shells in a parabolic arc and therefore perform some sort of indirect fire. This was of very limited tactical effect, and I think that the Matrix team has already responded to this issue in a previous thread. I don't have an opinion on the issue (I know this will come as a surprise to some), but I don't feel that it needs to be added.

Just a few more facts to throw into the argument.

Wartime (The official magazine of the Australian War Memorial) page 26, has the following caption next to a picture of a destroyed 88mm gun.

An 88 mm gun destroyed on the El Alamein battlefield. This probably a gun which was audaciously towed, in full view of some Rhodesian gunners, to a position close to the main road near Barrel Hill. The plan seems to have been to fire point blank at the Australians in the Saucer. Instead, the Rhodesians hit it and set it on fire after it had fired just two rounds. Australians reportedly stood up in their pits and applauded. According to one report, the German crew were all killed, but others claimed that some escaped down the road.

The picture can be found on the Australian War Memorial Photographic Database, negative number: 050011

This doesn't sound like something you would try unless you were confident you could unlimber and get the gun into action very quickly!! (Note that the gun is still attached to the tractor).

The magazine article also describes the 88mm HE air burst ammunition and how it was used aginst infantry. This source also says that:

One estimate suggested that 88 mm guns may have caused 40 per cent of all Australian casualties in the Alamein campaign.

As a side note, negative number: MED0218 in the Photographic Database is allegedly of a 88mm field gun. It's definitely a field gun carriage and it looks like a 88mm recoil mechanism but has a short barrel. Can anyone comment on this photograph (remember contempory captions can be very inaccurate).

Cheers,
Reg.

[ May 18, 2001: Message edited by: Reg ]

That photo looks like a 150mm to me. BTW, I remember hearing a quote (it may have been here) that most anytime the germans sent over some heavy ordnance Allied personnel automatically thought that 88's were firing at them. I don't know what the exact percentages were but I do know that 88's were so feared that their presence was massively overreported.

Originally posted by Reg:
As a side note, negative number: MED0218 in the Photographic Database is allegedly of a 88mm field gun. It's definitely a field gun carriage and it looks like a 88mm recoil mechanism but has a short barrel. Can anyone comment on this photograph (remember contempory captions can be very inaccurate).
[ May 18, 2001: Message edited by: Reg ]

The gun is a 15cm schwere Feldhaubitze 36, an early one at that by the distinctive steel wheels with circular holes.

Originally posted by Tsknrdr:
I don't know what the exact percentages were but I do know that 88's were so feared that their presence was massively overreported.

"The German 8.8cm anti-aircraft guns were probably the best-know weapons of the war, largely becuase of thir use as field and anti-tank guns. Any loud bang was likely to be heralded as an '88' by Allied troops....There is no doubt that the 8.8cm Flak was an effective gun, but it must also be said that it was skillfully publicised and magnified into an all-conquering super weapon - which it certainly was not."

German Artillery of WWII, by Ian V Hogg

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Alby: While I 'might' have tested out the Russkie 76mm, I'm not sure of the others, but I'll put a simple test to you. If those guns come with AP ammo, and indeed they do, just what are you going to use that ammo on? V1s maybe? :rolleyes:

hehehe
Think I was wonderin why those were not made into dual entities, Thought I had read sometime ago that all "hvyAA" was going to get the "dual purpose".
I reckon, myself, use em as AT heheh


[ May 18, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

Well any of the DP heavy AAs I've seen have not a whole lot of AP ammo, and perhaps the prior split ammo 88 had the most, although there's a heavy Brit one that has more (but like all but the US 90mm, is more effective than all the rest, AP-wise).

I think I've seen one or two heavy AAs that didn't have AP rounds, but not anything from any of the major players.

Most show 15 rounds AP, which is oddly more than thre t34, isu122, and t44 heheh
so AA guns with more AP than tanks and Hvy TDs Hmmmmmm

Alby, did you count in the HEAT and APCR ammo of the TDs ?
AP is just cheap AP ammo, subcaliber and HEAT are more expensive but more effective so they get distributed to the dedicated TankDestroyers and not to AAs. Sometimes even field artillery/iGs have some few HEAT rounds (like the German 75mm le iG).
murx

Originally posted by Alby:
Most show 15 rounds AP, which is oddly more than thre t34, isu122, and t44 heheh
so AA guns with more AP than tanks and Hvy TDs Hmmmmmm

AA guns generally don't have to store their ammunition inside the vehicle. I'm sure the TDs would carry more rounds if they could.

I haven't run across any mention of the US 90mm AA being used in an antitnk role .. but i have run across several sources inculding some sites already posted here and the U S Army's Offical History of the Ordnance Corp where captured German 88's were used , mostly as field artillery ,by the US and that there was a co-ordinated effort to capture and inspect and supply amunition for it by US Ordnance .. I no longer have access to the Ordnance History but if i remember correctly several hundred 88's were pressed into service by late 44

When looking at the 88 the only obvious detail when examining photos is what was it sitting on.
The actual gun didnt see much change over the years, but the means of mounting it sure did.

The gun was made as an anti aircraft gun. It was rapidly noticed that it blew up tanks nicely. So the original item has a mounting that reflects it was an anit aircraft gun. I t saw modifications to the carriage to reflect that it was being forced to shoot at armour targets.
In time the actual gun was mounted specifically on a split trail carriage and made to serve as an actual anti tank gun. On the split trail carriage, it will NOT be shooting at any planes (unless they are sitting on the ground).

The 88 was put in the Tiger. Again this 88 wont be shooting at planes. I was mounted on several other vehicles as well.

This thread appears to have lost sight that the actual gun wasnt changed much. But it was to see an evolution in its mounting, and therefore what it was employed to do.

The Gun didnt come with a shield initially. It could be fired while limbered, but this was not ideal. It was only able to be efficient as anti armour if it was supplied with AP ammo loads. So if the item looks like an anti aircraft guns, smells like an anti aircraft guns and has an anti aircraft role. Then it follows it will not automatically be efficient in the anti armour role if purchased as anti aircraft.

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
I haven't run across any mention of the US 90mm AA being used in an antitnk role .. but i have run across several sources inculding some sites already posted here and the U S Army's Offical History of the Ordnance Corp where captured German 88's were used , mostly as field artillery ,by the US and that there was a co-ordinated effort to capture and inspect and supply amunition for it by US Ordnance .. I no longer have access to the Ordnance History but if i remember correctly several hundred 88's were pressed into service by late 44

I posted this in an earlier thread:
This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use?
=============================================
Remember I live next to the Air Defense Schools, and the curator says that the 90mm AA did not have the proper sights. Our doctrine was not as flexible concerning the multiple uses of "heavy" AA. I am sure that there are examples of field expedients, but they were not doctrinally sound(according to Coastal Artillery brass).
sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:
When looking at the 88 the only obvious detail when examining photos is what was it sitting on.
The actual gun didnt see much change over the years, but the means of mounting it sure did.

The gun was made as an anti aircraft gun. It was rapidly noticed that it blew up tanks nicely. So the original item has a mounting that reflects it was an anit aircraft gun. I t saw modifications to the carriage to reflect that it was being forced to shoot at armour targets.
In time the actual gun was mounted specifically on a split trail carriage and made to serve as an actual anti tank gun. On the split trail carriage, it will NOT be shooting at any planes (unless they are sitting on the ground).

The 88 was put in the Tiger. Again this 88 wont be shooting at planes. I was mounted on several other vehicles as well.

This thread appears to have lost sight that the actual gun wasnt changed much. But it was to see an evolution in its mounting, and therefore what it was employed to do.

The Gun didnt come with a shield initially. It could be fired while limbered, but this was not ideal. It was only able to be efficient as anti armour if it was supplied with AP ammo loads. So if the item looks like an anti aircraft guns, smells like an anti aircraft guns and has an anti aircraft role. Then it follows it will not automatically be efficient in the anti armour role if purchased as anti aircraft.

sorry to be pedantic, but you're not quite correct

The 88 had quite a few varities.

the FLAK 18, 36 and 37 with a 56 calibre length barrel. Which was the basis for the Kwk36 in the Tiger I.

the FLAK 41 with a 74 calibre length barrel.

the PAK 43 & 41/43 with a 71 calibre length barrel. Which was also fitted to the Nashorn, Ferdinand, JagdPanther & Tiger II.

the rebored captured Russian guns, FLAK M38(r) & FLAK M39(r) with 48 & 53 calibre length barrels respectively.

The later guns were backward compatible with ammunition, but not the other way. The performance of the different guns was significant, as were the carecteristics of the various mountings.

Th split trail carriage (PAK 41/43) was an expediant, the PAK 43 with a cruciform was the designed AT version of the 88.

As has been discussed ad nuseum elsewhere, the FLAK version of the 88 were sometimes used as AT guns, almost always without their AA ranging equipment. The FLAK versions complete with the AA ranging equipment were almost never deliberately put in harms way, except perhaps in the Western Desert campaign.