Wars and ConflictsΜύ permalink
The 88 gun crews
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 5th February 2011
I have often wondered whether the crews of the 88 A A/ A T guns were multi trained, or did they just train for one skill. The reason I ask was a remark made by an Waffen SS Officerin Normandy who was supposed to have run up to the officer I/C of an 88 AA gun who was blasting away at the aircraft above him while not looking at the approaching tanks. The SS officer was supposed to have said. "If you carry on shooting at the aircraft, I'll shoot you. if you turn your gun on the tanks you'll get an Iron Cross.
-
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 5th February 2011
GFred
The quick answer is that the Army 8.8cm Flak units were trained in the anti-tank role (their sights allowed for a ground role). They were also issued with anti-tank ammunition. Their primary task was divisional level air defence, where they might expect to come up against enemy armour.
Luftwaffe Flak units, who were responsible for air defence further back were not trained, or supplied for the anti-tank role in the normal course of events.
The incident you describe, which I think suffers a bit from anti-air force prejudice on the part of the army officer concerned, and those who have repeated it since, took place on Bourguebus ridge during Operation Goodwood in 1944. The preliminary bombardment had so disrupted the German defences that the British armoured advance had penetrated to some depth, hence the need for an Luftwaffe AA unit to switch to A/Tk.
Given the prevalence of Allied airpower, the Luftwaffe man's actions seem entirely logical.
Incidentally, the Royal Artillery also used its high-velocity anti-aircraft guns in the ground role. But they tended to use the accuracy of high-velocity guns at long-range for tasks such as counter-battery or precison shoots on high-value targets such as headquarters or dumps. The first XXX Corps artillery to come into action to support Uruqhart's perimeter at Oosterbeek were heavy AA units, firing from south of the Waal at Nimjegen.
At short range, 40mm Bofors were used on the front-line, being christened "belt-fed mortars" or "Very Heavy Machine-guns" when employed this way.
Cheers
LW -
Message 3
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 5th February 2011
GF
Another thing may be of interest. By 1944, the Germans had adopted an 8.8cm gun as a field piece (the British 25lbr, incidentally, was an 88mm gun). So Allied references in NW Europe and Italy to being fired on by "88s" is often to this weapon, rather than the Flak version. Obviously, field gun crews were trained in the A/Ttk role as well as fire support.
LW -
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Saturday, 5th February 2011
I know that 25pnd were mounted on lorrys in the desert and acted as self propeled guns.
-
Message 5
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 6th February 2011
GF
Some of the earliest of the portee'd guns in the Desert were the handful of Bofors anti-tank guns taken over by the Royal Horse Artillery. They were Swedish copies of the German 3.7cm PAK and had been originally acquired for the Sudanese Defence Force.
The US 37mm was also a copy of the 3.7cm, albeit much improved on the original.
Cheers
LW -
Message 6
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 6th February 2011
I have often wondered whether the crews of the 88 A A/ A T guns were multi trained, or did they just train for one skill.Μύ
I read about the 88s being used as anti-tank weapon on the Russian front. The standard anti-tank 37 mm guns were so ineffective against T-34s and KVs that Wehrmacht soldiers called them 'door knockers' - for obvious reason. -
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Fred:
Where did you get the bit about 25pdrs being used portee? I know that Bofors, captured Bredas, and 2pdr and 6pdrs were used that way, but I've not seen a ref to the 25pdr in that role. -
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 7th February 2011
I believe I read it somewhere while doing something on the South Africans.
-
Message 9
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Fine. If you come across it again, would you add it to this or another thread, please?
-
Message 10
Posted by Steelers708 (U1831340) on Monday, 7th February 2011
"By 1944, the Germans had adopted an 8.8cm gun as a field piece (the British 25lbr, incidentally, was an 88mm gun). So Allied references in NW Europe and Italy to being fired on by "88s" is often to this weapon, rather than the Flak version"
Hi LW,
The Germans never developed a field piece based on the 8.8cm gun, references to being shelled by 88's are in fact refererring to the normal 8.8cm FlaK guns or PaK 43 AT guns
All versions of the 8.8cm FlaK gun were supplied with HE shells, the standard round was the 8.8cm Sprg Patr L/4.5. When used in the FlaK role it was fitted with a time fuze, the percussion fuze only being used for the ground role, when used in the ground role the 8.8cm had a max range of 14,815m/16202yds. To fire in the ground/AT role all that the crew had to do was replace the FlaK sight with the telescopic direct sight(Zielfernrohr 20).
The same also applied to the 8.8cm PaK 43, the standard HE round was the 8.8cm Sprgr Patr L/4.7. The shell originally came from the 8.8cm FlaK 41, it was of conventional type fitted with an impact fuze and the max range was 17,500m/19,138yds.
A number of 8.8cm PaK 43 guns were assigned to divisional artillery regiments for use as field/AT guns in which case they were designated 8.8cm K43, but the actual gun was still the PaK 43 version and not a specificaly designed field gun.
8.8cm guns were widely used to give added fire support in the ground HE role, e.g, every Divisional and Corps 8.8cm gun that was in range of the Allied front line was used to add firepower to the initial bombardment of American lines during the Ardennes Offensive. -
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 7th February 2011
Steelers
I didn't say they developed one, I said they adopted one, which your post actually confirms.
My point was, and I stand by it, that most references to being shelled by "88s" refer to the gun being employed in the ground role, rather than the Flak guns, though they could be used at need. The Allies did the same thing, as I also pointed out.
But I was interested in the detail on shells. Can you comment on difference in Luftwaffe and Heer approaches to Flak?
Cheers
LW -
Message 12
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 8th February 2011
Ur-Lugal. Yes if I come across it I will. Didn't later in the war, the Canadians mount the 25pounder on a tank chasis and use it as a S/P gun? Strangely one of my reference books is not a book at all. It is the 1000s of Comando Comics our 37 year old son has. Their facts are nearly always on the ball regarding weapons. I then cross reference the either on line of from one of my many books.
-
Message 13
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 8th February 2011
Fred - there were 2 SPGs based on the Ordnance 25-pdr. First, on a Valentine chassis, the Bishop - see and later the Sexton, same gun on an M3 Lee chassis, assembled, as you rightly state, in Canada. see
PS - I bet someone, somewhere, has a similar stack of such comics from my schooldays. I attended a boarding school (state, not private) which specialised in forces children, and there was always a plenitude of such comics in circulation. -
Message 14
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 8th February 2011
I still have to read them, er purely for research of course.
-
Message 15
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
longweekend
My point was, and I stand by it, that most references to being shelled by "88s" refer to the gun being employed in the ground role, rather than the Flak guns, though they could be used at need.
Μύ
I would suggest that most references to being shelled by β88β was in fact from humble German field artillery such as 105mm LeFH 18.
The β88β had built up such a fearsome reputation that reports quoted most German artillery as β88βsβ when in fact 90% of German artillery was normal field artillery.
The main anti-tank gun was the 75mm Pak 40 which was also adapted to fit a field gun carriage and used in that role, these being more common in field artillery units than adapted β88βsβ
Most German anti-tank guns by 1944 were 75mm or even 50mm but the fear of the dreaded β88β meant that any German AT gun seems to be regarded as one. -
Message 16
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Ur-Lugal
Just to be pedantic the Sextant was originally based on the Ram tank hull but then on the Sherman M4 hull. The M3 hull was used for the M7 priest self propelled gun.
To look at them they all of course appear near identical.
The Sextant was very successful as self-propelled artillery and served in the British army until the mid 1950βs and in other armies until much later. Some may even still be on active lists in such places as South Africa and India -
Message 17
Posted by Wyldeboar (U11225571) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Coincidentally I had a coffee and brandy in a French bar called 'Le Sexton' on Saturday. In a village on the Normandy coast, not far from the beaches. The centrepiece of the flowerbed in the village square is , surprisingly, a Sexton ...... -
Message 18
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Ur-Lugal
The Priest was a "quick fix", which had two major drawbacks. The first was that it was slow, being on a Valentine chassis and hull. Its intended role was direct support of armoured brigades equipped with Cruisers, which were rather faster. The other drawback was that the mount allowed for limited elevation, halving the gun's effective range. (The other "quick fix" generated in the middle of 1942 was the Deacon 6lbr SPG, which was in effect a 6lbr mounted in a traversing armoured box on the back of an AEC truck.)
The Priest arrived in the Desert at about the same time as the first of the M3 105mm SPGs - Priests to the British - which showed the proper way forwards. Apart from the US attempts at modification, a number of Priests were converted for 25lbrs in Base Workshops in North Africa. They suffered, like the Bishops, from having a limited elevation.
The original Sextons, as stated, were on Canadian Ram tank chassis (which had some commonality with the M3). Later ones were on Grizzly chassis (which was the M4A1).
For the D-day assault, some British and Canadian field regiments were issued with M3 Priests to provide fire support from landing craft. These they drove ashore and parked up, the regiments switching back to their normal 25lbr equipment. It was these surplus Priests that were field converted into armoured personnel carriers for OP TOTALIZE, christened Kangaroos. Later, surplus Ram tanks (the Candians having re-equipped with Shermans before D-Day) were similarly converted.
LW -
Message 19
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
englishvote
Undoubtedly there was misidentification. But the "88" was a high-velocity weapon and had a distinctive sound compared to other field pieces, which reports often mention.
Because of the high velocity, it was reckoned to be more accurate, hence more greatly feared among Allied soldiers. On the other hand, German gunners in Italy bemoaned their inability, with an 88, to reach behind ridges, which Allied howitzers (and, indeed, their own) could do. Swings and roundabouts.
LW -
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Wouldn't like to hsve been on the wrong end of whatever it was. Both my Father and Father in Law were on the right end of a barrage at El Alimain, and they spoke of it with an almost feeling of terror from just the noise. To be on the receiving end musy have been Hell on Earth.
-
Message 21
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
On the other hand, German gunners in Italy bemoaned their inability, with an 88, to reach behind ridges, which Allied howitzers (and, indeed, their own) could do. Swings and roundabouts.Μύ
I guess, that's why they had anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, howitzers, etc, etc. When you use anti-aircraft against the tanks, something else is probably wrong. The 88s could be effectively used as anti-tank guns only at fortified positions holding a relatively narrow pass way. Otherwise, not only they were too heavy to maneuver, their crews were completely exposed to bullets and shrapnel. -
Message 22
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Just to be pedantic the Sextant was originally based on the Ram tank hull but then on the Sherman M4 hull. The M3 hull was used for the M7 priest self propelled gun.Μύ
No such SPG as a "Sextant" ever entered service, it was a "Sexton".
The Priest was a "quick fix", which had two major drawbacks. The first was that it was slow, being on a Valentine chassis and hull. Its intended role was direct support of armoured brigades equipped with Cruisers, which were rather faster.Μύ
That was the Bishop, not the Priest.
If you are going to be pedantic, it's necessary to get it right. -
Message 23
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Ur-Lugal
My mistake, teach me to post in a hurry, and on a train. Bishop not Priest, although I think that's clear from context when I mention the proper Priest.
But I wasn't being pedantic, just adding some more info to what you had posted. Not sure what the gripe with my post is?
LW -
Message 24
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
The "Bishop" part wasn't the major problem - anyone following up on "Sextant" as an SPG would hit a brick wall.
On other matters - was the 75mm gun fitted in the Panther also used as an anti-tank gun? It seems to have had a better penetration profile than the 88s. -
Message 25
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 9th February 2011
Ur-Lungall
I believe not. The 7.5cm PAK 40, which was the standard German 75mm anti-tank gun was the same 7.5cm as used by late-model Pz IVs, rather than the more powerful version in the Panther.
I have read that the PAK 40 was preferred by gunners over the 8.8 PAK 43, as it could defeat Allied tanks, and T34s, but was less conspicuous (of course, there was a lower carriage designed for the PAK 43) and easier to position - although the PAK40 was heavy for its size.
I have dug out my copy of "The Guns 1939-45" by Ian Hogg, one of those "Purnell's History of the Second World War 2" Weapons books from the early '70s., which is a very useful introduction (or bluffers guide, when posting on here
).
I've noticed books from the series turning up quite frequently secondhand or in charity shops. They are worth a second look.
LW -
Message 26
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Thursday, 10th February 2011
Ur Lugal
No such SPG as a "Sextant" ever entered service, it was a "Sexton".
If you are going to be pedantic, it's necessary to get it right.
Μύ
yes sorry that was my mistake, quite correct.
Sexton, not Sextant
The 75mm KwK L/70 fitted to the Panther were not used as a towed anti-tank gun but was fitted to later models of the Jagdpanzer 1V -
Message 27
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 11th February 2011
A question from a lay observer. I am curious about mentions of AA artillery at Corps and Division level ( eg Arnhem; Ardennes) being used support and interdict.
If these were low trajectory weapons best employed in a direct fire role, how effective would they have been for long distance bombardment? -
Message 28
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
arty
The short answer is, very. Without the support from Nimjegen, 1 Abn Div could not have held out as long as it did - its own single light regiment (only a third the gun allocation of a normal infantry division) was not enough. Medium guns did also join in, but the first support came from HAA, which was in the advanced column immediately behind Guards Armoured with the twin role of protecting Nimjegen Bridge when captured and for long range ground support - 1 Abn's lack of organic artillery was well recognised by the Artillery staffs.
AA weapons are high angle, so they could achieve the necessary elevation for long range ground support. A high velocity shell is inherently more accurate than a low velocity one, but has less explosive power. The indirect fire was, of course, being observed and corrected by artillery observers with 1 Abn.
A major problem for the gunners at Nimejgen was that they achieved a link to their opposite numbers in the Oosterbeek perimeter, but neither XXX Corps or 1 Abn Corps signallers had been able to achieve a link to 1 Abn Div HQ, so the link had to be shared, creating a great deal of traffic congestion.
The ballistic properties are the same for a high velocity anti-tank weapon (indeed, as noted in various posts, they were often the same gun in different roles). But anti-tank mounts tend to be as low as possible (for concealment/survivability reasons) which restricts the elevation they can achieve and thus the range they can reach out to.
The great failure of British tactics in the first two years of the Desert War, incidentally, was to fail to co-ordinate armour and artillery. The 8.8cm guns on their high Flak mounts were extremely vulnerable to artillery fire, but were rarely engaged quickly.
LW -
Message 29
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
A high velocity shell is inherently more accurate than a low velocity one, but has less explosive power.Μύ
Not exactly true... In fact low-velocity guns tend to have higher inherent accuracy, for various technical reasons. Having a shorter barrel and less recoil to manage generally makes the task of the gun designer easier. However, high-velocity guns with flat trajectories are much easier to aim over direct sighting ranges, and certainly more suitable for hitting moving targets.
This applied for the carronade in the 19th century, to the British 15" naval gun in WWI, and still for various low and high velocity weapons in WWII. -
Message 30
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
MM
I did specify "shell" rather than "gun".
I agree, it is easier (and cheaper) to design a low velocity gun to be accurate because of the performance required from the gun's components. However, given the advantages to be gained, once a suitable gun is produced, its shot will be more accurate, thanks to the laws of physics.
With British medium artillery in WWII, the 7.2" howitzer achieved a 70 yard error probability at 16,900 yards (maximum range) from a muzzle velocity of 1697 feet/second. The 5.5" gun managed 50 yds error at 16,800 yards with a muzzle velocity of 1887 feet/second, while the 4.5" gun achieved 35 yards error at 15,00yards from a muzzle velocity of 1810 feet/second, and was capable of 60 yards error at its maximum range of 22,500 yards.
The 4.5" gun was the principal Royal Artillery counter-battery weapon because of this combination of range and accuracy.
The 3.7" AA gun could reach out to 16,200 yards in the ground role, but I don't have the other data for it.
Incidentally and only tangentally relevant, that champion of the Laws of Physics Commander Montgomery Scott of the starship Enterprise, was played by James Doohan, an officer of the Royal Canadian Artillery, wounded on D-Day.
Cheers
LW
random rodent -
Message 31
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 12th February 2011
Oops, erratum in second paragraph. Should read:
Once a suitable HIGH VELOCITY gun is produced, its shot will be ...etc"
Sorry. -
Message 32
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Sunday, 13th February 2011
Thanks for those answers.
While I digest and have your attention, here's a very basic question: I understand why artillery pieces were originally designated by the weight of their ammunition. Why was it that the change to designation by calibre for breech loaders appears to have taken longer in the British Army than in other armies, (viz: 2-pounder, 6-pounder, 17-pounder and 25-pounder)? Is that in fact accurate and there a connection with the role of those guns cited and the answer? -
Message 33
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 13th February 2011
Sort of. Field artillery retained the "pdr" nomenclature long after the heavy, garrison and medium artillery switched to inches as a measure. Even odder was the naval habit in late Victorian days of referring to the weight of the gun itself, thus the 16.25" was usually known as the 110-ton gun. Not sure what, if anything, that proves.
-
Message 34
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 14th February 2011
arty
You're not on the YO course at Larkhill, are you?
Interesting question. Don't know the definitive answer. I know that as the C19th progressed, field guns continued to be defined by "pounder" designations, while howitzers were designated by "inch". The switch to "inch" for larger guns seems to have been led by the RN, with the Army following suit (often the same gun in service with both). I think the first RN gun to be so defined was a 4.7 inch gun around 1870.
Weight designations made sense when you consider the need to move guns around in the field, or on board ship. Once guns aboard ship became housed in turrets, that was less useful (except at the design stage).
NATO standardisation did for the "pounder" designations, of course. Mind you, the University OTCs and the HAC still had 25 pounders into the 1980s.
LW -
Message 35
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Tuesday, 15th February 2011
That' s not a comment on the quality of instruction at Larkhill, is it?
However, I would imagine I have infantry running through me like lettering in a stick of rock.
As for 'young,' if I say that I have vivid memories of the 25- pdr in the entrance dock of my father's battalion drill hall (TA infantry), which matched the fine die-cast model in my 'soldiers box', does that put things in context? -
Message 36
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 15th February 2011
arty
No, rather the opposite. I wonder what was driving the keen interest. and gunners are a keen bunch, as I remember.
I have remembered an example of why the "pounder" designation had an advantage over the calibre, from tank guns in WWII.
Having recognised by 1942 that a 75mm weapon, along the lines of the 75mm in the Grant and then the Sherman, was what was needed in future, the British produced their own 75mm by reboring the 6 pounder, while developing a tank version of the 17 pounder, also initially referred to as a 75mm weapon.
This led to a series of correspondence in 1943, around the end of the North African campaign, referring to the 75mm and the"new 75mm". Generations of historians have assumed that the 75mm referred to was US gun and the "new 75mm" was the British gun used in Cromwells and Churchills, and perpetuated the idea that British thinking on guns was way behind the Germans.
Of course, the modified 17 pounder for tank use was eventually designated the 77mm. But if the British had stuck to existing practice and christened the 75mm the 14 pounder and kept 17 pounder for the "new 75mm", confusion would have been prevented. Possibly.
After all, they went back to traditional ways for the 17 pounder and then 20 pounder in Centurion. -
Message 37
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Tuesday, 15th February 2011
Damn. I can do .303/.30 to 7.62 but that's just confusing.
(The keen interest is because I _never_ went to any sort of YO course but was meant to. It would no doubt have got the 'soldier box' out of my system) -
Message 38
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 15th February 2011
Rough guide - inch x 25 = mm
calibre in inches x calibre in inches x calibre in inches /2 = shell wt in pounds. -
Message 39
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 19th February 2011
arty
A more learned friend has undermined my clever argument somewhat. In the first place, the 75mm would have been a 15 pounder; you round up, not down, apparently.
In the second, although the shot for the 77mm was the same as the 17lbr, the gun itself had a shorter breech and the ammunition was modified and not compatible with the original gun. So to call it a 17 pounder would have been confusing, especially as the 17 pounder proper was also being used as a tank gun.
No wonder professional gunners have a permanent look of mild derangement.
LW
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.