Two of the most potent weapons of the war, which caused the Allies no end of problems from the start of the war 'till the end, were the MG34/42 and the flak 88.


Unlike the Americans, the German Army did not employ light, medium or heavy machine guns in World War II, but instead standardized on one machine gun, the Maschinengewehr 42, which was the successor to the more complicated and difficult to manufacture MG 34. The weapon entered service in 1942 and over the next three years approximately 400,000 were manufactured.

The MG 42 was reliable, powerful, lightweight, easy to service, and fairly inexpensive to produce. It had few weaknesses. The MG 42's barrel could be swapped out and replaced in 30 seconds or less.

The MG 42 was designed to operate in two modes. When used by an infantryman the MG 42 was equipped with a bipod and was considered to be in light machine gun mode. It could be configured for heavy machine gun mode by mounting it on a tripod and fitting it with long-range sights.

The Americans tried to copy the design, but failed.


And the flak 88 was developed in Sweden by Krupps as a very good AA gun.

But when did some German have the good idea to use it in the anti tank role?

It's been said that it was first used in that role in Spain when the Germans helped Franco, but it was when used in Russia that it's potent tank killing was needed, as it was virtually the only gun that could stop the t-34 and K-1.

And could someone help me answer this?...

In North Africa Rommel used the 88's with devastating effect, but the British had an AA gun very similar to the 88, and could have used it the same way but refused to, why?

It wasn't as though the Luftwaffe was a dominating force, at times the guns were just standing around with nothing to do.

I can try to answer the 88 question.

They first used it in Spain for AT purpose, and actually needed it as well in France 1940 on several occasions. However for Barbarossa the main AT weapons still were either 37 or 50 mm and T-34´s and KV-1´s could not really be destroyed with these.

__________________

I was wondering why the Brits in North Africa, and possibly other countries didn't try to use similar AA guns as the Flak 88, the same as the Germans?

Good question and one we've touched on here before - in fact, my very first ever posting was about this topic [img]redface.gif[/img]

The gun in question was the 3.7in MkI AA gun, introduced in January 1938. It was a very effective gun for its time and, on paper, the question of why it wasn't used as an AT weapon looks valid ( some historians have used it as an example of the 'stupid' British military mindset ).

However, it featured a very complicated recoil/carriage assembly weighing well over 8 tons. Not only did this make it very clumsy to transport and bring into action, but it required an enormous amount of man-hours to make ( 9500 hours per gun ).

Vast improvements were made to the design later in the war, and the Mk6 design introduced in 1943 was one of the Allies' best AA guns, remaining in British service until 1959.

By that time, the 17pr A/T had obviated the need for a more effective A/T gun.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I was wondering why the Brits in North Africa, and possibly other countries didn't try to use similar AA guns as the Flak 88, the same way as the Germans?

Sorry about the double post, a bit of a glitch, could the moderator can get rid of one?
Thanks.

Reply to Martin Bull.....

Thanks for that info, it is strange that the Brits didn't at least give it a try.

Getting the flak into action against tanks isn´t always that easy. I mean the chain of command, so an infantry officer commanding a Luftwaffe/AA unit men?! Never!

For instance Hans von Luck had to order the four 88 guns to stop the Goodwood tanks holding his pistol in his hand before the Flak guns were moved anywhere...

__________________

I think the answer there is that in 1940/41, the Country had many priorities and didn't have the time, material or resources to explore every avenue.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

I thought I had a list of actions where the 3.7"AA was used ground-ground.

Off the top of my head.

At Knightsbridge (by Denys Reid?) during the Gazala battles.

At Sinyweza (Admon Box 2nd Arakan) by 8 (Belfast) HAA Rgt RA against japanese mountain guns.

By Australian forces on Tarakan from hilltop firebases (Photo's with a couple of 25pdrs & Matilda II's)

__________________
Whe're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful wizard of OZ - 6 Australian Infantry Div, Bardia January 1941

The 25pdr gun featured a ring base that allowed 360 traverse. There was solid shots ammo for the 25pdr. The makers of this fine weapon had AT capability in mind when it was designed. However the shortage of Artillery in the desert saw the 25pdr in limited use as an AT weapon.

Martin hit the nail on the head. The Brits were forced to make some tough desisions early in the war. The 6pdr AT gun could have been produced as early as 1940. However the enormous loss of AT guns in France made the British continnue to produce the 2pdr gun. Why? The factories were geared up to produce the 2pdr, changing the factory lines would severly limit the output. So the British decided to produce two 2pdrs over one 6pdr AT gun. Also bear in mind that the 2pdr gun did the job on the german tanks met in France.

__________________
'We march. The enemy is retreating in transport. We follow on foot.' Lt.Neil McCallum 5/7 Gordons 19th November 1942

The main reason the Germans started using the 8.8cm FlaK 36 (read again: FlaK) was because the AT guns proper were crap. No way a 3.7cm would do anything to a Matilda II, not to mention the surprises in store for Barbarossa.

The 3.7cm gun earned it's nickname 'door-knocker' for good reason, and the 5cm PaK 38 (not a radical improvement) was a long way away when the 8.8 FlaK was first employed.

Much later on the 7.5cm PaK 40 came on, and this was already a different kettle of fish, a decent AT gun at last.

The problem with the 8.8 as not that it was a bad gun, far from it, the problem was it simply was a waste. Consider the 3.7cm Pak 36 weighed 430kg, the 5cm Pak38 weighed 1000kg, and the PaK 40 1425kg. The 8.8cm FlaK 36 weighed in at 4900kg (towed 8900kg).

What does this mean? It means the 88 was a damned expensive weapon, a gun specifically designed to shoot down medium-to-high altitude airplanes, firing as an element of a battery controlled by a battery fire director. All this was extra equipment that added to it's weight and bulk, very necessary to it's AA function but totally surplus when killing tanks.

Also this extra equipment made the gun very tall in comparison to the proper AT guns I mentioned, which were built to hug the ground as much as possible to be inconspicuous. It's quite the opposite with an AA gun, where the trunnion has to be at proper height to allow recoil and reload with the gun at high angle.

The Soviets did the same thing with the 85mm AA gun, they started using it for ground purposes.

As I said, these were very good guns, having a very good dual purpose capability in an emergency. Problem was when people forgot the emergency part and started using the 'other' capability in a regular basis. This should not be too good for the original purpose, the logistical installation these guns should have been defending must have been suffering somewhat.

It's a matter of choices. The Brits decided to leave their monster 3.7" AA guns working as AA guns, the Germans didn't.

Later on the Germans had the idea of using an 8.8 barrel in a developed and optimised form, as the PaK 43, on a 15cm howitzer frame, an excellent gun, albeit somewhat heavy to lug around.

__________________

I have a photo of the kills on the gun shield of an 88, 4 bunkers, 9 aircraft and 20 tanks.
That's what I call a versatile weapons system.

It was not one gun, but a series of anti-aircraft guns officially called the 8.8 cm Flak 18, 36 or 37, and could also include newer and more powerful models, the FlaK 41 and 43, although these were different weapons.

The 88 could hurl a large shell 30,000 ft into the sky, so used in the anti tank mode
it was powerful enough to be able to penetrate over 150 mm of armour even at long ranges of 2 km or more, knocking out T-34's and K-1's, what it would have done to thin skinned tanks like the earlier T series would have been devastating.


It was an unparalleled anti-tank weapon during the early war and still formidable against all but the heaviest tanks right up until 1945.

The success of the 88 mm as an anti-tank weapon led the Germans to develop tanks and tank destroyers mounting 88 mm guns on, for instance, the Tiger tank and the Nashorn tank destroyer. While the Nashorn used the new long 88/L71 gun of the FlaK 41, the Tiger I gun was based on the older, shorter 88/L56 FlaK 36 gun.

The parts of the various versions of the guns were interchangeable, and it was not uncommon for various parts to be "mixed and matched" on a particular example. In August of 1944, there were 10,704 FlaK 18, 36 and 37 guns in service. Due to the increase in US and British bombing raids during 1943 and 44, the majority of these guns were used for anti-aircraft roles, now complemented with the formidable 12.8 cm FlaK 40.

This led to complaints that, due to the apparent ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft defences as a whole, that the guns should be stripped from the air defense units and handed over to the army for anti-tank duties. However this politically unpopular move was never made.


The dedicated anti-tank gun, the PaK 43 was developed with a new new mount so the gun was much closer to the ground, making it far easier to hide and harder to hit. It also came standard with a much stronger and more angled armor shield to provide better protection. The standard armament of the Tiger II, the KwK 43 tank gun, was essentially the Pak 43 externally modified to fit into a turret. There were also self-propelled versions of the gun, including the Nashorn and Jagdpanther tank destroyers. All versions were able to penetrate about 200 mm of armor at 1000 m, letting it defeat any tank in the world.

I'm not saying it was a bad antitank weapon, any AA gun could be a good antitank weapon due to long barrel length and consequent high muzzle velocity. See the British 3.7", Soviet 85mm, US 90mm (as used on the M-36 tank destroyer), etc.

In any case still a waste of resources. It would have been much cheaper to predate the PaK 43 and set up the FlaK 36 (or whatever) barrel on a lower dedicated PaK carriage devoid of all the FlaK parafernalia, again due to the lack of a good Anti-tank gun by the Heer. I'm sure somebody saw this, but production priorities are what they are, I'm sure Goering was not going to allow a decrease in numbers of his showcase gun just because Za Rodinu said so

By the way, as these FlaK guns belonged to the Luftwaffe, this situation of having the LW saving the ass of the rest must have please Hermann G. no end.

__________________