Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
25lb or 88mm
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grumpyrambler (U13925122) on Monday, 20th April 2009
I read recently that many considered the 25lb gun the most effective field artillery piece in WW2. Previously I had thought the German 88mm was the best.
Anyone with direct knowledge please give your thoughts. -
Message 2
Posted by abrazier (U3915690) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Depends what you want to use it for.
The 88 was an excellent AT weapon although rather large and difficult to conceal. Using it in the AT role also meant depriving yourself of some of your FLAK capability.
The 25pdr was a very good field artillery piece which also had an effective anti-tank round. Not as good as the 88 but a lot better than the standard British AT gun, the 2pdr. Again, by using the 25pdr in the AT role it wasn't where it needed to be to provide artillery fire support and you increased the risk of losing them to enemy fire.
Oddly enough, the calibre of the 25pdr was 3.45", in metric, near as dammit 88mm! -
Message 3
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 20th April 2009
abrazier,
Oddly enough, the calibre of the 25pdr was 3.45", in metric, near as dammit 88mm!Μύ
3.45in * 25.4mm/in = 87.63mm, to be pedantically precise. -
Message 4
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Abrazier,
I've no wish to be pedantic but the portability of the 25 pdr must give it the edge. It could be transported effectively by many vehicles and be brought into action (with a good crew) within minutes of it's arrival. -
Message 5
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Spruggles,
I remember reading somewhere that a good crew could dismount the 88mm and be ready for firing in 20 seconds and could remount the gun in less than a minute. And don't forget that the 88mm could be fired without dismounting the gun from the trail wheels. -
Message 6
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Really! The mind boggles.
-
Message 7
Posted by aussiebrit (U13851320) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
Spruggles
I agree with your comments,the 25 pdr was also air transportable with the 14th Army in Burma.
During the battle of Imphal / Kohima in 1944 the 7th Indian Division was airlifted from Assam to Imphal with its 25pdr field regiments and went into action immediately.
Also the Australians used them in New Guinea with a short wheel base and literally carried them over the Owen Stanleys and also flew them into later battles in New Guinea and Borneo.
I have no knowledge of the 88mm being flown into battle,maybe in Crete in 1941???. -
Message 8
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
aussiebrit,
I too have no knowledge of the 88 being flown into Crete, but I think it unlikely as the main transport aircraft available for the Germans at that time would have been either the Fw 200 Condor or the Junkers Ju 52, both of which I think incapable of transporting the weapon, unless it had been stripped down to its component parts. -
Message 9
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
i think it was in Len Deightons "Blitzkrieg" that he mentions the prowess of the 25pdr - and states that it would have been a better AT gun than the 88 but also that the British army was not allowed to use it in that role
also read that the most used expression amongst british tank crews in the normandy bocage was "88 - Driver reverse" lol
st -
Message 10
Posted by abrazier (U3915690) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
The 25pdr would never have been as good in the AT role as the 88. It's AP performance was nowhere near as good and it only had limited traverse. Deighton may have been referring to the 3.7" AA gun which in strict performance terms was at least as good as the 88 but for various reasons was never used as an AT gun.
-
Message 11
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
abrazier
you are correct - i was completely wrong - it was the 3.7 AA gun that he referred to
cant remember the reasons it wasnt used as an AT gun - can you ??
st -
Message 12
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
This was discussed in some depth in a previous thread - 3.7 as anti tank. (about 2 pages back)
I guess it is just 'horses for courses' isn't it?
If you want fire support in a hurry, get a 25pdr. If you have a suicidal Hooray Henry leading a bunch of Tommy Cookers straight at you across open desert, you want an 88 . . . -
Message 13
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Wednesday, 22nd April 2009
The 88mm Flak guns were also used to provide fire support, it could fire a HE shell out to about 20,000 yards.
-
Message 14
Posted by abrazier (U3915690) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
The 88 was jolly good value for money, an AT gun, a field gun and as a sideline you could shoot down aircraft with it.
-
Message 15
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 25th April 2009
The 88 was jolly good value for money, an AT gun, a field gun and as a sideline you could shoot down aircraft with it.
Μύ
Of course it would need 3 different 88mm guns to do the 3 different jobs. Personally I would go for 3 different specialised guns, the 25prd as an artillery piece, a 3.7 inch as an AA gun and a 17pdr with APDS as an AT gun.
As a jack of all trades the 88 was good at many things but master of none.
As a field gun the German 88 was inferior to the British 25pdr, the US 105mm and the Soviet 76mm and 122mm field guns.
As a flak gun the 88 was inferior to the British 3.7 inch and the US 90mm.
Even the excellent 88 AT gun version, the Pak 43, was no better than the British 17pdr firing APDS rounds.
The 88mm gun has been hyped into some sort of super weapon, this started during the second world war when every German gun was described as an β88β
The Flak version was sometimes given sights and ammunition to enable it to fire in the ground role, normally as an anti tank gun but also against enemy emplacements. But not all 88mm flak guns were built as duel AA/AT guns.
As an AT gun the 88mm flak guns were at a serious disadvantage due to their very large size and weight. This made them very hard to conceal and many guns and crews were lost to allied artillery because they were extremely hard to move especially under enemy fire.
As an AA gun the 88mm flak was reasonable but not as good as its British, American or Italian equivalents. Of course until the adaptation of radar ranging and good proximity fuses all AA guns struggled against highflying aircraft.
I have not been able to find any references to the 88mm flak gun being used as a field gun for indirect fire, did AA units have artillery observers on their establishment?
The 88mm Pak 43 AT guns were certainly a very good anti tank gun, although they were on the large size. But the 88mm Pak 43 is a different gun entirely to the 88mm flak gun.
I have seen references to the 88mm Pak 43 being mounted on field gun carriages, but I am not sure if they were just an easy expedient due to limited production of the correct carriage, or if they were intended to operate as field artillery.
The βdeadly 88β was often the gun attributed to any incoming fire against allied forces later in the war, but this was often incorrect. Most artillery rounds came from the fire of German 105mm and 150mm field guns and howitzers such as the 10.5cm le FH 18 Light Field Howitzer. In fact many more captured Soviet 76mm and 122mm field guns served as German artillery than 88βs did.
Most German AT gun fire came from 75mm Pak 40βs rather than 88βs either Pak or Flak.
The great 88mm gun was never a wonder weapon and in fact most of the time it was not even present when itβs βdeadly fireβ was mentioned by allied soldiers. -
Message 16
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Saturday, 25th April 2009
Englishvote,
Of course you'd want specialized weapons for each task, as the Germans had, but isn't it nice to know that in an emergency you've got a weapon that can deal with enemy tanks as well as offer fire support. As to the 88 being used for indirect fire support there are many instances, the one that immediately springs to mind is during the openiing of the Ardennes offensive.
You may want the 17pdr firing APDS but you'd have to wait until September 1944 for it to be available, and then only in small numbers compared to the standard AP, APC & APCBC rounds.
The 8.8cm Flak 18/36/37 was the standard gun, there were not seperate AA and DP versions the only thing needed for each role was the relevant ammo. A new sight had been developed after the Spanish civil War to enable ground and Flak fire.
The following is an extract from the U.S. Military Intelligence document of February 8, 1943 "German Antiaircraft Artillery",
Fire-control methods. For use against armored vehicles and for field artillery tasks, the following four methods of fire control have been used: direct fire, using a telescopic sight; director control; fire directed from an observation post; and air burst HE.
(a) Direct fire. This has been the most successful method employed against armored vehicles. Apart from the extreme mobility of the gun, the efficient telescopic sight has contributed largely to the success of the 88-mm gun in an AT role. The latest mark of telescopic sight used is the ZF 20-E, which has already been described.
(b) Director control. With director control, the data for the first round is calculated in the same manner as for an air target. Corrections for direction, range, and fuse range are made from observation of fire and arbitrarily set into the director. This method has not proved very satisfactory.
(c) Fire directed from an OP. When the target is below the horizontal, or at ranges greater than 10,340 yards (i.e. beyond the limit of the telescopic sight), fire may be directed from an observation post. The OP officer takes azimuth, range, and elevation from his fire-control map. From these, he calculates the firing data with a range table and transmits the data to the gun position by telephone. A director is sometimes used for giving the initial direction to the guns. Corrections are ordered from observation of fire and are applied at the guns.
(d) Air-burst HE. Fire for effect with time-fuse air burst HE against troops in the open, and against battery positions, has also been reported. Ranging is carried out with a low height of burst. Fire for effect follows with the fuse range being adjusted to obtain the most effective height of burst. It is believed that this method is not used very often.
As to the 8.8cm PaK43, as an emergency solution it was mounted on the 10.5cm LeFH 18 carriage and 15cm sFH 18 wheels, with a simplified PaK43 barrel and dial sights. This was to meet the increased demand for PaK guns, it was intended to be used as a DP AT/field gun but was almost always used as an AT gun, in this configuration it was known as the 8.8cm PaK 43/41.
The actual 8.8cm PaK43 was a very advanced design and featured a semi-automatic breech and electrical firing circuit, generally acknowledged as the best AT gun of WWII. Firing the standard PzGr39 -1 round it was far superior to the 17pdr firing standard AP, APC & APCBC rounds and firing the PzGr40/43 round their was nothing to choose between the two guns -
Message 17
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Hi steelers
I have to disagree with your comment that all 88mm flak guns were fitted out for the ground role as well as anti aircraft fire.
The 88mm Flak 37 were just AA guns and equipped with gun laying mechanisms linked to a command and control centre that relayed target information and predicted where the shell needed to be to intercept the target aircraft. They did not have the sights for the engagement of ground targets.
Also the Pzgr 40 round might seem impressive when studied on penetration tables but they were as rare as henβs teeth on the actual battlefield.
I agree that the Pak 43 was an impressive AT gun but I think the 17pdr was just as good when it had a supply of APDS, and was considerably lighter and quicker to bring into action.
On the whole the best anti tank guns of WW2 were the German 75mm Pak 40, Soviet 76mm Zis 3 and the British 6pdr (once the APDS round was available). They were all light to move around, easier to conceal than the bigger guns and could deal with most tanks over normal engagement ranges -
Message 18
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Hi Englishvote,
The only differance between the Flak 36 & 37 gun was that the Flak 37 had a two-piece barrel and an improved fire control system intended for the AA role and whilst the Flak 37 was not intended to fire in the AT role it nevertheless did. I have a picture stored on my PC of a Flak 37 firing in the AT role.
Whilst I agree that the PzGr40 rounds were rare for the Germans, the APDS rounds were just as rare when compared to the number of standard AP, APC & APCBC rounds produced for the 6 & 17pdr guns. e.g.
1944 6pdr Ammunition production
APCBC 3,187,000 rounds
APDS 217,000 rounds
1944 17pdr Ammunition production
APC 679,000 rounds
APCBC 510,000
APDS 37,000
I don't disagree that the 8.8cm PaK43 was a heavy gun compared to the 7.5cm PaK40 etc, but by mid-1944 the Germans were in need of weapons that could deal with the new heavy Soviet tanks at long range, and in that regard it did the job. -
Message 19
Posted by abrazier (U3915690) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Other points to bear in mind when comparing the 17pdr and APDS with anything in the German arsenal:
APDS was still a very "new thing" in 1944/45 and one of the bugs not ironed out until after the war was accuracy. WWII generation APDS was nowhere near as accurate as plain steel shot due to disturbance in the flight of the penetrator when the sabot discarded. It couldn't kill what it couldn't hit.
Don't forget also that the 17pdr was roughly comparable to the 88 FLAK in terms of AP performance but the 17pdr fired its first shot in anger in 1943. The 88 was killing tanks in 1941 at which time there was nothing in the British (or any other armies) inventory to touch it.
When it comes to size, there is also little to choose between the 17pdr and either the 88 FLAK or 88 Pak43 (either on the lashed up carriage or its purpose designed one). Any of them needed a prime mover to tow them, none were man-handleable and all had a large muzzle blast when fired.
I'm not trying to say that the 88 was a wonder weapon, the 88 FLAK was a good gun, not exceptional in any of it's roles (except in AT performance for an early-mid war gun). What was exceptional was the flexibility with which it was used which comes down to the immense flexibility of the German armed forces.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.