anti aircraft used as anti tank (german 88)

Adam remember that the Germans liked the idea of bigger is better, indeed one reason why they tested silly stuff like a 150mm and larger AA. It was bad enough having to ram a heavy 128mm shell manually in the single barrel off train cars or fixed installations and the Zwilling of the 128 did get the necessary modification of the technical machine to do so for the oversized AA crews on 3 larger tower locations. why they were not fitted elsewhere is interesting but the labor involved would of been too intense and costly.
The 88mm did serve though in most probably more different areas of combat in all theaters present in many different roles I feel than any other Allied counterpart

 

There you are. I have already said several times in this forum that an AA gun (albeit flexible enough to have a secondary ground purpose) is quite a different thing from a dedicated AT gun.

The AT gun needs only a solid enough carriage, low profile and a simplified sighting system, even if the cannon itself is a sophisticated thing like the 8.8cm PaK 43, which used an off the shelf 15cm howitzer carriage.

The large calibre AA gun (like the 8.8, 0r the 3.7") is quite another matter, it is optimised for accurate and rapid shooting against predicted positions in the sky with sophisticated projectiles (timed or proximity fuses). This AA gun moreover is designed not to operate by itself or in tactical pairs, but in batteries, shooting in orientation and elevation and fuse timing as directed by a central fire control system. It is a complex and expensive system, it has to have a tall carriage so as not to hit the ground on recoil at high elevation, and is designed to fire from fixed, stable positions.

An AA battery (not an isolated AA gun, there is no such thing above small calibres) will cover several cubic miles of sky. It will be located near targets important enough to require this kind of cover.

On the other hand, if you use it at its secondary AT or HE capability, then it's a complete waste. All it means is that your regular AT guns simply are unable to do their job. Look at the battle of Arras, 1940, for an instance. The 3.7cm Paks were completely unable to do anything to the Matildas, so it was necessary to use the Flaks as the Paks were good for nothing.

Also as I said a proper AT gun has a low profile in order to help survive in the tactical scene, where there are things like machine guns, mortars, artillery, etc. The AA gun brought forward, by virtue (or lack thereof) of its tall profile, will stick like a sore thumb in any landscape.

And if you bury it and disperse it to perform it's ground function then it won't be able to perform it's primary function, which is to control the skies and shoot down planes.

All you end up with is an admittedly good performance AT gun, but an overly expensive and complex one for the purpose. And instead of controlling Cubic miles of sky as I said before, it will be able to cover ground only up to the tactical horizon, which may be the next hedge.

And please don't think that the Germans were all so gung-ho to use any 8.8cm as ATs all over the planet. I'd like to remind you of Hans von Luck's memoirs, where he states somewhere in Normandy (I don't have the book on hand right now, somebody else please corroborate) he found a 8.8 battery pointed at the sky and he had to force the commander at gun point to site them as AT guns for the approaching ground battle.

Remember these FlaK guns were Luftwaffe, nor Heer! These things count too in any army.

 

well you have some interesting ideas though I must respectfully disagree on some of them

here is the one for the bottom of the listing when you say Falk was LW, that is not correct, the W-SS divisions had a Flak Abteilung as did the army Divisions besides their own special Korps units. Remember the KM also had these ZA- the 8.8cm in the role for the ports on the coast from Holland over the top of Germany into Russia and then as they were dispersed into KM land Div.'s some of the Falk Batteries were absorbed and used in both AT and AA roles being very effective in fact in the isles of Finland for one. this through a very extensive interview(s) of a Familie friend who served on a mobil out of the Kiel port then off to Finland until the 8.8's ran out of ammo and were destroyed by the crews, and guys served in the Infantrie role and were creamed

let me further add the Heer AA members were awarded the special Army Flak badge, the KM were awarded a heavy artillerie badge that also worked for the Flak portion of the land based KM land-divisions. the Waffen SS were awarded.......... ? LW look a likes ? not sure

 

All right, I may have got this LW attachment matter wrong and I'll take you at your word as I trust your more specialised knowledge in the subject. I'm writing off the top of my head as I don't know where my books are, but the point you raise does not detract from the gist of my reasoning.

The Russians themselves learned the wrong lesson from the Germans and made up Anti-Tank Brigades around the 85mm AA gun (their current main AT gun was the 45mm pea-shooter, actually an upgrade of the German 3.7cm PaK), but this was later considered a flop due to their vulnerability to artillery and infantry fire in the tactical zone. Later the 85mm gun was put to good use in a specialised AT vehicle, the SU-85 (which gave it tactical mobility and armour protection), and the T-34 as we all know was found to be flexible enough to mount the same gun, releasing the SU-85 hulls to mount the excellent SU-100 gun.

 

not to deter Za but you have seen photos plus the cam stills of light mobil 2cm Fla in position around heavier AT and AA Wehrmacht pieces yes ??

As I said earlier the Germans thought that the bigger was the better, which I will agree was not a thorough thought out process, it was just acceptable and it was just as well for defense in which the Germans were going to have to pursue although some shriveled little mustasched fool pushed to attack, attack, attack. Many of the so-called AT brigaden used were basic infantrie with an overload of AT Panzerfaust 100's and Panzerschrecks.........boy it really sounded intimidating on paper

 

No problem with that, the Flak Battalion was a composite unit made up of 8.8, 3.7 and 2cm (single or quad) guns in varying proportions, according to TOE and availability, deployed for mutual protection and to deny airspace at multiple layers. So as I said no quarrel with that.

 

I think there could easily have been quite effective turn around for the AA to AT with later marks of the 8.8cm and that was the case with the Flak 41 I believe, will have to check the pics in the books. first found with the Afrika Korps where the Allied troops remarked - what the hell is this ?? I have a gun still scenes of one in use camo'd in Ost Preussia used against advancing Soviet armor

The monster Pak 43 8.8cm was a real joke, more of an oversized gun laying platform for artillery work, that one should of been taken back to the drawing board and re-thought out

 

Matthew Flegal has some nice shots of a very beat up Flak 41 dual-purpose

SVSM Gallery :: German 88mm FlaK 41 Anti-Aicraft Gun, by Matthew Flegal

 

The Pak 43 was the best that was possible to do with the means available. Mate an good existing barrel to a proved and in production carriage.

From axishistory.com:

There were other adaptations the Germans made that were even weirder like the 7.5cm PaK on a 10.5cm howitzer carriage (1) and - hang on to your hat - the reverse: 10.5cm howitzer on the 7.5cm Pak carriage (2)!

From same:

The III Reich was the Motherland of Rationality

 

I would accept your statement had the gun been not so huge on the carriage, I have pics, actually film sequences of the silly monster being pushed into some sort of position by at least 35 guys ............ am not joking the thing was a heavy beast, the Flak 41 in the low slung carriage was wild with such a long barrel, easier to conceal off that multi-tired carriage. My friend Helmuth who served in Ost Preussia during 1945 told me of an instance of one unit that had no time to get the gun down off the carriage, just turned an fired in the direction of Soviet armor, claims of 3 kills, while he and his Infantrie regiment 43 were to provided surrounding cover with mg, K-98's and many Panzerfausts. what he distinctly remembers was the jarring of the Flak 41 crewmen and the rocking motion of the gun on the carriage after each round was fired ..........ah not at all stable

 

Erich, I am saying this strictly from an ease-of-production standpoint, it's obvious this heavy monster with the enourmous ovehang of a barrel would be awful to manhandle.

My country's army did use the 15cm howitzer that supplied the carriage, I've seen it close and it's a damned beast. So what you and I say does not conflct.

 

why the british and americans did not use antiaircraft guns in anti tank roles like the german 88 y do not know but y know romanians used quite efectively 75mm Vickers antiaircraft guns against t-34s in rusia, they later developed a antitanc gun based on it

 

Well the US 90mm gun was originally an AA gun. The US had 75/76mm AA but I'm not sure how they related to the AT guns. What was the origin of the 17lber?

 

Ordnance QF 17 pounder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I also recall reading that the 3.7" gun was specifically designed to be fired at the vertical. Firing it horizontally caused undue stress and damage to its recoil mechanism,

 

I remember reading something about that to Za. A German position was about to be over-run by tanks and the anti-aircraft officer refused to fire because he had orders to protect against aircraft only. The other German officer took out his pistol and said, "Engage those tanks, or die by my hand." He lowered his guns and fired away to stop the breakthrough. I'd have to look for a while to find exactly where it came from, but I've read it as well.
Didn't the Russians use the 85mm (antiaircraft gun) as anti-tank. I recall having a picture of one dug in and "leveled" no more than a foot off the ground. I also have a similar picture of an American 90mm (anti-aircraft gun). "pressed" into service as anti-tank (not dug in, but lowered & camouflaged) after the lines changed.
As was said, use what you have to do the work, and as was said, most anti-aircraft was deployed rearward of front lines, and (usually) didn't have the opportunity to be used as anti-tank. This does not mean they were incapable of the task.
Development of a easily portable, low profile, turret capable anti-aircraft gun (for anti-tank) took time (to do it right)(and possibly a waste of time), unless you take the "short-cut" (with sacrifices) and go with the Marder types.