Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

German 88's

Discussion in 'Tank Warfare of World War 2' started by FNG phpbb3, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hi,

    prompted from a pervious thread can people give more information about this infamous and often misquoted gun?

    How many different versions were there? How many were made of each version?

    Did they have different ammo types over the years? What were the ammo varients?

    How many dedicated AT versions were made? Were they common or were the dual purpose AA/AT/Art more common?

    What was the crew size? How much did they weight?

    What was their optics like? Did it indeed have any actual optics?

    Any interesting historical info?

    I always believed that they were first used in a AT role in Spain as an emergency counter to an armoured attack. I also believe that their numbers and useage was often over stressed by the Allies, from acounts read especially in Africa where Rommal apparently had very few.

    Did any survive and see use after ww2?

    FNG
     
  2. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    There were lots of "German 88s", it had been a common calibre for them for decades. During WW2, for instance, there was an 88mm submarine gun which used a smaller and less powerful (88x390R) cartridge case than the rest.

    However, I presume you mean the WW2 land weapons. Three basic cartridges were used by these (although guns using apparently the same cartridge could not necessarily use each other's ammunition, as some were electric primed, some percussion).

    The first and by far the most common round was the 88x571R. This was introduced in the FlaK 18 AA gun which started development in the 1920s before being adopted in 1933 (following some cooperative work between Krupp and Bofors of Sweden). Two modified versions followed, the FlaK 36 and FlaK 37.

    A tank gun was then developed to use the same ammo (except for the priming). This was the KwK used in the Tiger I.

    All of these guns used 56 calibre barrels (ie the barrel was 56 times longer than the calibre), so they are often known as the L/56 guns. No purpose-designed L/56 anti-tank gun was made; the FlaK guns were used in this role and made the 88's reputation as a long-range "tank killer", although they were very tall and heavy for that role.

    Two different high-performance 88mm rounds were introduced during the war: the 88x855R for the FlaK 41 AA gun, and the 88x822R for the KwK 43 and PaK 43 tank and anti-tank guns. Performance was almost identical and they both used L/71 barrels, but they were obviously not interchangeable.

    The Elefant tank destroyer, Tiger II and Jagdpanther all used the 88mm L/71, none of which saw big production. The anti-tank gun was also only used in quite small numbers.

    The photo below, from the Ammo Photo Gallery on my website, shows German tank gun ammo of WW2. If you want more data, you can look at the Ammo Data Tables on my site.

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Main types:
    • 8,8 cm Flak 18 (anti-aircraft/anti-tank)
    • 8,8 cm Flak/Kw K 36 (anti-aircraft/anti-tank/tank)
    • 8,8 cm Flak 37 (anti-aircraft)
    • 8,8 cm Flak 41 (anti-aircraft/anti-tank)
    • 8,8 cm Kw K/Pak 43 (tank/anti-tank)
    18/36/37 ammunition was the same. 41 and 43 used ammunition made specifically for each gun. I only have info on 18/36 ammunition.
     
  4. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Does seem a real waist in resources, making two almost identical guns but not interchangeable...what is the logic/use/purpose of that?

    A bit in the same line of this question...the Dutch Submarines KVIII, KIX and KX had Bofors 8,8 cm No.1 and subs O9, O10, O11, KXI, KXII and KXIII had Bofors 8,8,cm No.2's...how where they related to the other 88's?
     
  5. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    When u say that it was to tall,and to heway for anti-tank roles,ur probably right,but in first war years tank gun calibers was to small and with lack of HE power to knock it,and certanly not enought accuracy,so flak 88mm was excelent tank killer then.And,Romel,briliant strategist used to digg in flaks 88 and to camuflage them so their sillhouette was extremly lowered and chance to spot them was decresed before it start to shoot.
     
  6. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    I don't know, but I suspect that two different manufacturers bid for the FlaK gun contract, each with their own ammo, and the loser subsequently got the PaK/KwK contract...

    I don't know that either, but I'll bet they know on this site: http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
     
  7. Ome_Joop

    Ome_Joop New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
  8. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    7
    via TanksinWW2
    Since I'm considerably worked up about the veracity of eye witness accounts at the moment, I'd also like to point out how virtually every WWII memoir by an average soldiers attributes all artillery fire to 88s and that every German tank was a Tiger.
    No one, lest of all me, is doubting the honesty and courage of these men, but it just can't be true. First person eye witness accounts are much more valuable for the insight they give into the thoughts and fears of the participants and the impressions of battle than they are for historiclal accuracy.
     
  9. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    Plus the fact that British studies found that the most common German impact shell size on the Western Front was 75 mm, not 88 mm.
     
  10. JasonC phpbb3

    JasonC phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Some stats on the evolution of the heavier PAK and FLAK produced and fielded by the Germans over the course of the war. Then I will explain further the place of "88s" in the whole mix.

    First, understand that before 1942, the bulk of the German PAK force was light pieces. Around 1250 better types still 47mm or less, and 6000 weak 37mm PAK. In the course of 1941 the first medium or better dedicated PAK, the 50L60, shows up, as well as some short 75mm ("French 75s" on the same mount as the 50L60) with production running 2500. Not all of these were out with units yet - they really ramp in 1942.

    By the same period - end of 1941 - nearly 4000 heavy FLAK had been produced, the overwhelming majority of them for the Luftwaffe. Only 125 88s had been made specifically for the army, against 3000 for the Luftwaffe. There were also 850 heavier Flak, mostly 105mm, which were much less mobile.

    There were also very small numbers of high velocity field cannons meant for ranged counterbattery, with good AT characteristics (150 made to date). And much larger numbers of ordinary field howitzers - around 1000 150mm and 3000 105mm.

    So, around the time they go into Russia there are 18000 pieces that might hurt a tank. By far the heavier half of that force is in the field artillery or the Luftwaffe's dedicated AA units. The dedicated PAK are fine against an obsolete T-26, but don't have a prayer against a T-34.

    But also notice that the number of Flak specifically intended for army units is tiny, and equalled by specialized 105mm Kanon. Both of those were pressed into AT roles in Russia. But the gun called upon by far the most often to deal with a modern Russian tank, was a div arty howitzer. Like 10 times as often, probably. The best types still mattered against KV tanks, as the 105s mostly did not have HEAT ammunition yet.

    What happens in 1942? 7250 medium PAK (50L60 and 75/38) and 2500 heavy PAK (PAK 40 and similar) are built. The Luftwaffe gets 3000 more 88 Flak and 750 more heavier Flak, and the army 175 more 88 Flak. This is enough to fully turn over the older, lighter PAK park. While 37mm guns do hang around in some of the weaker IDs, the basic PAK is now capable of hurting a T-34. But at close range only or with special ammunition. The PAK are still outranged by the T-34s, effectively. Army Flak continue to be only a small force, while heavy Flak generally are quite common - they are just almost all in Luftwaffe hands.

    In 1943, the medium PAK trail off (3500 added) and are relegated to the regiments in infantry divisions, as opposed to divisional Panzerjaeger battalions and the mobile divisions. 9000 heavy 75mm PAK are fielded. The first still heavier dedicated PAK appear, 1400 of them (these are 88L71 and a modest run of 75L70, aka towed versions of the Panther main gun). The army receives 300 more 88 Flak while the Luftwaffe gets 4500, plus 1800 heavier models, now including large numbers of 128 Flak (and a modest number of super long 88 for higher altitude work).

    The total gun park is expanding. It is important to realize the losses to the Luftwaffe portion of the 88 Flak are extremely low - apparently less than 2000 88s have been lost to this point, all causes. Bomber raids are starting in Germany, but the Flak there is getting much, much thicker. Losses are much higher in the PAK portion of the fleet. 13000 Luftwaffe Flak have been fielded, with losses low. To date, over 13000 medium PAK have been fielded and about 13000 heavy PAK as well, the majority of them 75mm PAK 40. The existing park is nothing like that size, and is majority 75mm PAK.

    That takes us to the end of 1943. In 1944-5, production of guns of all types peaks, at a very high level. 3700 super heavy dedicated PAK are fielded, as the total 88L71 towed reach 3500 built. 15500 additional 75mm PAK are fielded, more than all those to date combined. The army gets another 575 88mm Flak, the Luftwaffe gets 2500 88mm and 2250 heavier types, 4750 total.

    In August of 1944 there are 10,700 88 Flak in the total force.

    If you add all of it up, the 88mm caliber portion of the park is 28%, the lighter PAK portion is 14%, the 75mm PAK portion is 50%, and the super heavy stuff amounts to the remaining 8%. Some of that 88 portion are the 3500 88mm PAK, though, and another 550 of them are the longer, high altitude 88mm Flak. The standard variety 88mm Flak are over 14000 or about 22% of the total park.

    Note also that the total heavy PAK and heavk Flak part combined, is numerically larger than the entire produced AFV fleet, by about 3 to 2.

    But about 18500 of these guns were organizationally with the Luftwaffe. This does not mean none of them were used for ground combat roles, some were. On the other hand, some of the 1175 88s provided to the army spent most of their service lives shooting at enemy aircraft buzzing the panzer divisions they were assigned to for air defense. Remember that the allies sent more combat aircraft into action than they did tanks, and on the whole the Germans were in worse shape for air defense than they were for tank defense, certainly by late in the war.

    In the second half of the war, then, 75mm PAK (and of course AFVs) provided the main German anti tank force. They were supplemented by modest numbers of three different categories - super heavy 88mm PAK, army 88mm Flak guns serving with the panzer divisions, and Luftwaffe 88mm Flak guns in army level rear area formations that were occasionally drawn into a ground defense role. The Germans also had a nearly limitless stockpile of 88mm Flak that were *not* being used in a ground combat role, but were instead defending Germany from the bomber offensive - along with roughly half as many still heavier Flak.

    This meant the Germans were essentially never going to run out of 88s in the field. They only used a thin crust of them there at any one time, but they could always top off that crust from the great pool of heavy Flak in Germany.

    Now let's look at a single specific front and period, Normandy, to see how this overall production showed up as a fleet mix. Most of the 88s are in Germany but aren't being lost rapidly - most of the PAK are out in the field but are regularly lost.

    For a baseline to compare to these numbers, the Germans sent 2200 AFVs to Normandy. The heavy PAK and Flak sent come to -

    100-175 88mm PAK
    160 88mm Flak with Luftwaffe
    120 88mm Flak with ground forces
    460-520 75mm PAK with ground forces

    total 840-975 heavy PAK and Flak

    The ranges come from (1) possibly overreported 88mm PAK numbers with independent heavy PAK battalions and (2) underreporting from some IDs and regimental PAK companies in PDs.

    1/4 to 1/3 are the classic 88mm Flak, half or more are the standard 75mm PAK.

    The 88mm PAK appear in two main ways - independent motorized AT battalions, and some IDs using battalions of 12 88 PAK in place of one of the divisional artillery battalions. Also a modest number in some PD Panzerjaegers - but most of those have AFVs.

    Notice, the PAK and Flak are outnumbered by AFVs at this date and at the front, despite outnumbering AFVs in overall production. There are two reasons - 15000 or so heavy Flak never leave Germany, which gets us down near equality. And the AFVs are far more survivable than the front line PAK - it might be a factor of 3 or 4 difference.

    We have some reports on the kill claims and losses of the Luftwaffe Flak used in Normandy. Basically they were not particularly effective against tanks (claim maybe 1/2 each on average, over the entire campaign). Their aircraft kill claims are considerably higher (up to 5 times), but both are probably inflated. Meanwhile a single unit of 88 PAK makes kill claims approaching 1 each just during Goodwood.

    Overall, the average PAK or heavy Flak sent to Normandy probably did not break 1.00 in enemy tanks killed. (US mediums lost in Normandy up to the breakout are well under 1000, more like 750 Shermans plus less than 100 TDs. Brits losses between that figure and twice that figure. And the majority have to be awarded to the 2200 German AFVs sent to Normandy, roughly 1500 of which left operational status before the breakout).

    The 88 got its reputation in North Africa, especially stopping Matildas at "Hellfire Pass". Earlier use in France is oversold - most of the effective gun front action done there was accomplished by divisional 105s (e.g. 24 of those, to 8 88s, stopped the Arras counterattack). They were effective against KVs in Russia early, but shared that role with quite unsung 105mm FK pieces in each PD artillery regiment's last battery. They were also effective Flak, accounting for thousands of heavy bombers over Germany (though expending approximately 1500 rounds to kill each bomber taken out).

    Note that the effectiveness of the 88 in a ground role was maximized when there were 2 supporting conditions - one, very long lines of sight to exploit its excellent optics and range, and to protect it from effective replies and two, opponents with poor armor - artillery cooperation to suppress them using the right counter to a towed gun - which is another towed gun firing indirect, not a tank. The French and Brits were lousy at this early. In the western desert, the typical British tank didn't have any HE ability at all, and an MG isn't going to hurt an 88 at 2 kilometers range. The Russians at least had guns with HE ability. By 1944 against the western allies, though, one is facing well radioed forces with an excellent artillery arm and doctrine, and frequently terrain that limits initial ranges to less than 1 kilometer.

    The Germans might have doubled the heavy gun force available to the Germans at the front in the middle war years, had they all been used for ground combat. But it would have been a waste. Used mostly instead for air defense, most of the guns made before the end of 1943 were still alive and firing in mid 1944, and taking out expensive heavy bombers. The same cannot be said of the PAK, which were produced in numbers equal to AFVs but by mid 1944, outnumbered by AFVs at the front by 3 or 4 to 1, because the guns did not last in action.

    Ironically, the people who should have used most of their AA for ground combat roles against enemy tanks, were the western Allies. The Americans had a huge establishment of 90mm AA guns, which were fully effective against the better German tanks. And the Luftwaffe had pretty much already been swept from the skies - certainly over the areas the AA was protecting (what remained as defending over Germany etc). A US 90mm left in the rear indeed survived, but saw little use. Meanwhile the German heavies they might have been traded for were each killing several US tanks, on average. A German 88mm left in the rear survived and was used intensely, while by late in the war it would have been traded for less than one tank and likely lost, if sent to the front. (And that tank so killed, didn't kill a full German AFV on average, either).

    A very long post. I hope at least some of it is interesting.
     
  11. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
  12. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Agreed - an excellent post, informative and interesting.
     

Share This Page