Did the US test the 88/L71?

[scotsman]

ERgonomically, the Gunners on the 3.7 sit on seats and face the director pointers with their backs facing the muzzle and their faces looking towards the area where the ammunition handlers and loaders are tossing 3.7inch cartridges around. When they do a direct fire shoot, they get up, walk around the T and E handles and face towards the muzzle end and operate the same exact controls and look through the gunsights at their target. One gunner controls Traverse, one controls elevation. This isn't any different from a lot of larger ship and shore based guns if I'm not mistaken.

 

 

Correct...and as already mentioned...given average engagement ranges in WWII, elevation setting would be rather moot for most shoots....its point and shoot....and for anything slightly beyond that range...well...thats what range cards are for... I would imagine the gun cdr would simply call out the elevation angle for that tgt based on his range card and thats it...

[rmgill]

Correct...and as already mentioned...given average engagement ranges in WWII, elevation setting would be rather moot for most shoots....its point and shoot....and for anything slightly beyond that range...well...thats what range cards are for... I would imagine the gun cdr would simply call out the elevation angle for that tgt based on his range card and thats it...

 

Given the rate of fire, it wouldn't be too hard for the gun commander and crew to walk the shots onto the target either. Presumably the Gun commander, when controlling a DF shoot would be using something better than the Mk1 Eyeball. Heck, a Vickers range finder would certainly be useful. I'm sure there was something in the RA kit for that sort of thing though.

[scotsman]

Given the rate of fire, it wouldn't be too hard for the gun commander and crew to walk the shots onto the target either. Presumably the Gun commander, when controlling a DF shoot would be using something better than the Mk1 Eyeball. Heck, a Vickers range finder would certainly be useful. I'm sure there was something in the RA kit for that sort of thing though.

 

Its in each gun's/battery kit so yes...but the gunner will definately be able to sense a hit at these sorts of ranges even with solid shot...not real need to 'walk' - shoot until its stopped/burning or you see the crew bail and shift to the next tgt...

[C.G.Erickson]

Gotta Love Tanknet..... Start in one direction and end up with a totally different topic than what was intended.

[scotsman]

Gotta Love Tanknet..... Start in one direction and end up with a totally different topic than what was intended.

 

Hey well its all HAA - not totally unrelated! LoL Sorry - Didnt mean to hijack the thread - *goes and sits quietly in the corner*

[C.G.Erickson]

Hey well its all HAA - not totally unrelated! LoL Sorry - Didnt mean to hijack the thread - *goes and sits quietly in the corner*

Scotsman

 

Dont worry about it Hijacking is an age old tradition around here....Welcome to this grate site

[Ken Estes]

Correct...and as already mentioned...given average engagement ranges in WWII, elevation setting would be rather moot for most shoots....its point and shoot....and for anything slightly beyond that range...well...thats what range cards are for... I would imagine the gun cdr would simply call out the elevation angle for that tgt based on his range card and thats it...

Looks to me as if you are presuming a level battlefield, only rarely obtained in practice. It's not as if AA guns faced with tanks simply shrug and go away. However, a dual purpose gun had better have something better than gunner/pointer coordinating and firing by walking rounds on target. Good enough improvisation as arty, but antitank use requires longer range [unless you like sitting up high in a HAA mount in full view of the tanks only 600m away], rapid target acquisition and the ability to fire rapidly using burst on target techniques, not range adjustment.

 

When the 88's were converted to AT use, the right side gunner received control of both elev and traverse, and a suitable high mag sight, with which they could and did engage to a range of 5000m.

 

Munitions alone do not a DP gun make. Many arty howitzers have HEAT [sometimes canister and flechette] ammo for self defense. It does not make the gun an AT weapon or an infantry gun. Fire control/direction usually does better.

 

Tanks usually do not remain at one's range card target for very long. If your battle range is 600m, they may be upon you in a few minutes.

 

For example, I once placed my tankers on a USN twin 3"/50 DP mount for lack of other action during GQ drills and after a few days watched a local gunnery shootout among the ship's six mounts, range c.2500 yds. The USN crews, used gunner/pointer and they cranked the spots into their fire control to obtain the doctrinal straddle. Each shot had the interval of flight plus cranking in the announced corrections, before the next one could be fired. My crew fired 2 shots for burst on target correction, then emptied the 6-rd loader trays on the target, smothering it. On the bridge, the ship's captain exclaimed, "that's how all my mounts ought to shoot" -- "Sir, that's the Marine mount" -- "[indecipherable growl]"

[jwduquette1]

Thanks for the input from Ken, Scotsman & rmgill. Interesting perspectives from both sides of the issue.

 

Since we are already far removed from the original thread topic – for the time being anyway – I had a somewhat related question to the 3.7-inch HAA diverge.

 

Can someone describe gun drill for laying 25-pdr gun-how for direct fire engagements?

 

Thanks a bunch

 

Jeff

[Doug Kibbey]

Another swerve OT, thought some of you might like to see this 3.7" gun model in progress. It certainly is not mine, just stumbled on it...

 

http://media.photobucket.com/image/37%20in...ICT0011.jpg?o=4

[C.G.Erickson]

Looks to me as if you are presuming a level battlefield, only rarely obtained in practice. It's not as if AA guns faced with tanks simply shrug and go away. However, a dual purpose gun had better have something better than gunner/pointer coordinating and firing by walking rounds on target. Good enough improvisation as arty, but antitank use requires longer range [unless you like sitting up high in a HAA mount in full view of the tanks only 600m away], rapid target acquisition and the ability to fire rapidly using burst on target techniques, not range adjustment.

 

When the 88's were converted to AT use, the right side gunner received control of both elev and traverse, and a suitable high mag sight, with which they could and did engage to a range of 5000m.

 

Munitions alone do not a DP gun make. Many arty howitzers have HEAT [sometimes canister and flechette] ammo for self defense. It does not make the gun an AT weapon or an infantry gun. Fire control/direction usually does better.

 

Tanks usually do not remain at one's range card target for very long. If your battle range is 600m, they may be upon you in a few minutes.

 

For example, I once placed my tankers on a USN twin 3"/50 DP mount for lack of other action during GQ drills and after a few days watched a local gunnery shootout among the ship's six mounts, range c.2500 yds. The USN crews, used gunner/pointer and they cranked the spots into their fire control to obtain the doctrinal straddle. Each shot had the interval of flight plus cranking in the announced corrections, before the next one could be fired. My crew fired 2 shots for burst on target correction, then emptied the 6-rd loader trays on the target, smothering it. On the bridge, the ship's captain exclaimed, "that's how all my mounts ought to shoot" -- "Sir, that's the Marine mount" -- "[indecipherable growl]"

Ken

 

What designated the 88mm Flak 36 as a Dual Purpose Gun was its "slap on" sight. Way more advanced than the fixed reticle sight of the 3.7. The 88 had an artillery sight graduated in elevation and azimuth, more like an artillery laying sight.

 

I have seen ex "Navy" gunners in the NG try to gun Abrams....Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

 

Were your gunners versed in Battle sight techniques? Set range on estimated combat ranges, then observe fall of shot with corrections to make pin point hits?

[Ken Estes]

Ken

 

What designated the 88mm Flak 36 as a Dual Purpose Gun was its "slap on" sight. Way more advanced than the fixed reticle sight of the 3.7. The 88 had an artillery sight graduated in elevation and azimuth, more like an artillery laying sight.

 

I have seen ex "Navy" gunners in the NG try to gun Abrams....Couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

 

Were your gunners versed in Battle sight techniques? Set range on estimated combat ranges, then observe fall of shot with corrections to make pin point hits?

Hi Cary,

To my knowledge, the Germans never designated the Flak 18, 36, 37, 41 as 'dual purpose.' Perhaps this as an Allied notion? This would parallel the myth that the Flak18 was 'proven' a DP [or ven AT] gun in the Sp Civil War, although I can find no record of it ever being at the front, let alone fired against Republican tanks. The sights were an obvious back-up, as in all these kinds of guns, but that does not make it a DP gun. One would expect the German version of auxiliary optics to be more capable, in any case. The crucial separation of gunner/pointer for me makes it not DP. Remember, the naval guns so designated were operated in director control in both modes, and local control was very deteriorated in accuracy, ROF, etc.

 

[Edit to add pic] These may show a certain fine elevation control for the front gunner, who otherwise has a traversing wheel?

 

Re our shoot off vs. the USN, we set the range as best estimated, but BOT makes for immediate correction, whether iron sights or telescope. Battle sight means you simply make the point of aim 6 o'clock, trusting to the superelevation of battlesight range to take out anything within a specified distance. We had no range tables, and in any case were shooting at a raft/weather balloon combo, and the ship's roll was the main contributor to error...for us. Naval gunnery requires the gunner/pointer to simply keep the tgt in the bull's eye, and the assistants crank in the spots to change elevation/deflection. Cheers, Ken

Edited April 26, 2009 by Ken Estes

[arcweasel]

Hi Cary,

To my knowledge, the Germans never designated the Flak 18, 36, 37, 41 as 'dual purpose.' Perhaps this as an Allied notion? This would parallel the myth that the Flak18 was 'proven' a DP [or ven AT] gun in the Sp Civil War, although I can find no record of it ever being at the front, let alone fired against Republican tanks. The sights were an obvious back-up, as in all these kinds of guns, but that does not make it a DP gun. One would expect the German version of auxiliary optics to be

 

Hi Ken,

 

I was just reading some old Field Artillery Mag articles last week and came accross this:

 

http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2001/JUL_AU...PAGES_16_21.pdf

 

Not a primary source but does list references (which may list references) if anyone is interested enough.

 

Regards,

 

Jay

[Ken Estes]

Hi Ken,

 

I was just reading some old Field Artillery Mag articles last week and came accross this:

 

http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2001/JUL_AU...PAGES_16_21.pdf

 

Not a primary source but does list references (which may list references) if anyone is interested enough.

 

Regards,

 

Jay

Thanks, that one would cause me to look further into the records. I can also call on Klaus Maier from Freiberg to set things straight. I just never have read any SCW accounts describing AT employment of the 88. You would think the Spanish armor aficionados would be all over that one, but they are not. The SCW was also not much of a laboratory for weapons testing as is also alleged, because of the improvisation on all sides, lack of numbers [e.g. 4 x Ju-87B only] and so forth. One also wonders why it would have been necessary to employ the 88 against armor, as the Rheinmettal 37mm cleaned the clocks of any AFV in use by either side through the war. There are several things wrong and other parts suspicious in the FA journal article. The opening scene looks contrived and has no reference. Note he falls for the notion of the Flak 18 as made in 1918 and improved postwar using foreign help; he also presumes the guns sent to Spain in 1936 were the Flak 36, not the Flak 18, no ref given. The author is using presentism, mainly to drive his concepts of the firepower force package - a wretched term that I hope failed to gain use -- and may not have done sufficient research beyond what served him well. His source for AT employment of the 88 seems to be exclusively the 1983 Kondor Legion book by Ray Proctor, a former USAF officer stationed in Spain in the 60s, who took the PhD in dipl history and taught at Moscow ID until his death, not long after the Kondor Legion book came out. He was not skilled in the Wehrmacht docs [his first footnote concludes most German military docs on the SCW were lost or destroyed] and relied very much on German dipl docs, especially attache reports, and therein may lie a flaw. Let's just say we will continue to look for some clear proof.

[Martin M]

Kondor Legion with "K" ?

 

Interestingly the German spelling is with "C" .

At least I have never seen it different.

 

Legion Condor.

 

Is Kondor Legion correct for Spanish or English literature ?

[bojan]

After a while w/o TN access - some notes:

C.G. - tests I posted are not "scientific" - because part of testing I have quoted is not - they were meant to be the stuff that goes to manual like "Avoid engaging T-54 tank with 88mm PaK from the front". There is second part that states all scientific datas like impact velocity and such, but I don't have it and neither does my source.

And as a someone who posted this, taking time to collect it and translate it I am a bit insulted by you stating it is "worthless". Sure, it may not be stuff that you can draw a lot of conclusions about guns or tank armor but those are real world results of testing guns vs armor.

[DKTanker]

What designated the 88mm Flak 36 as a Dual Purpose Gun was its "slap on" sight. Way more advanced than the fixed reticle sight of the 3.7. The 88 had an artillery sight graduated in elevation and azimuth, more like an artillery laying sight.

Staying within my own limited area of expertise, does that then make the M46-M60s duel purpose Tank/Field artillery? Furthermore, as the M109 has a direct fire sight, does that make it a duel purpose FA/(fill in the blank) gun?

[Mobius]

After a while w/o TN access - some notes:

C.G. - tests I posted are not "scientific" - because part of testing I have quoted is not - they were meant to be the stuff that goes to manual like "Avoid engaging T-54 tank with 88mm PaK from the front". There is second part that states all scientific datas like impact velocity and such, but I don't have it and neither does my source.

Hey, good to hear from you Bojan. I like your stuff. In fact I consider it the Rosetta Stone between east and west data.

[scotsman]

Another swerve OT, thought some of you might like to see this 3.7" gun model in progress. It certainly is not mine, just stumbled on it...

 

http://media.photobucket.com/image/37%20in...ICT0011.jpg?o=4

 

Accurate armor Im thinking if its a master?

[scotsman]

Looks to me as if you are presuming a level battlefield, only rarely obtained in practice. It's not as if AA guns faced with tanks simply shrug and go away. However, a dual purpose gun had better have something better than gunner/pointer coordinating and firing by walking rounds on target. Good enough improvisation as arty, but antitank use requires longer range [unless you like sitting up high in a HAA mount in full view of the tanks only 600m away], rapid target acquisition and the ability to fire rapidly using burst on target techniques, not range adjustment.

 

When the 88's were converted to AT use, the right side gunner received control of both elev and traverse, and a suitable high mag sight, with which they could and did engage to a range of 5000m.

 

Munitions alone do not a DP gun make. Many arty howitzers have HEAT [sometimes canister and flechette] ammo for self defense. It does not make the gun an AT weapon or an infantry gun. Fire control/direction usually does better.

 

Tanks usually do not remain at one's range card target for very long. If your battle range is 600m, they may be upon you in a few minutes.

 

For example, I once placed my tankers on a USN twin 3"/50 DP mount for lack of other action during GQ drills and after a few days watched a local gunnery shootout among the ship's six mounts, range c.2500 yds. The USN crews, used gunner/pointer and they cranked the spots into their fire control to obtain the doctrinal straddle. Each shot had the interval of flight plus cranking in the announced corrections, before the next one could be fired. My crew fired 2 shots for burst on target correction, then emptied the 6-rd loader trays on the target, smothering it. On the bridge, the ship's captain exclaimed, "that's how all my mounts ought to shoot" -- "Sir, that's the Marine mount" -- "[indecipherable growl]"

 

No - I am assuming a flat trajectory over likely engagement range which is a very reasonable assumption for WWII at 500-800 meters, given a 2600-3200 FPS muzzle velocity and rather large rounds from the mass viewpoint. You are back on the two sided control arguement which was basically debunked in the previous thread. Thats not an absolute requirement for an HAA firing in a fixed defensive position...unless we are talking long range engagements. If thats the case and the crew has not used their rangefinding equipment to complete a range card before the battle, then I would fire the gun cdr. A good gun cdr may have already fired a couple of rounds of plugged HE along with the normal sighting provisions to account for his own gun peculiarities.

 

Anti-tank usage does not in fact require long range shooting and ample engagements of the 88mm in the desert speak to that fact...even with long LOS available the average engagement ranges were far shorter than most people seem to think. In that the 3.7" would likely be no different....it certainly wasn't firing at long range in tobruk...

 

Again it would seem to be that the German experience is biased towards the eastern front, while the allied perspective is obviously biased to the western front...where they fought. The number of LOS segments equaling 3000 meters in the wester front is very rare...never mind 5000. The army TETAM study studies this in detail post war...and I can scan and post some of the charts if you like as they pertain to West Germany.

 

Again, have to agree to disagree. It matters not to the gunner what you are calling the gun...if he is asked to execute the mission then the rest is moot.

 

As for close engagement ranges...it goes with the territory in western europe for the most part. Fortunately with guns that size a single hit usually does the trick on any likely AFV tgt. Were aren't talking two pdrs here...

 

'smothering a tgt' would not be hard with the 3.7" given power assist loading...the gun can fire as fast as the loader train can drop round into the hopper and slap the pigs ear...which is a good deal faster than an 88mm unless the crew is firing in the first minute and completely rested...thats one reason (among others) that the 3.7" weighed more than the 88mm...power assisted loading...

 

As for the fine points of sighting etc....if its good enough for the dedicated ATG like 6pdr and 17pdr its good enough for 3.7". The 3.7" sights had the same graduations for deflection, elevation, etc as the other ATG...in fact it was often the ATG telescope used...travjectory for both weapons was essentially flat at likely engagement ranges so lead was the only thing you really worried about...unless you are trying to hit a specific pt on the tgt.

 

I can post a sight picture of the 6pdr or 17pdr sights...and again you will see that there is little if any super-elevation required at the likely engagement ranges that the guns actually fired at...

Edited April 27, 2009 by scotsman

[scotsman]

Staying within my own limited area of expertise, does that then make the M46-M60s duel purpose Tank/Field artillery? Furthermore, as the M109 has a direct fire sight, does that make it a duel purpose FA/(fill in the blank) gun?

 

In the sense it can fire DF or indirect, yes....I know a paladin battery commander that DFed his 155s at insurgent occupied structures...pretty sure if you ask the dead insurgents they would say the paladin was DP...

 

Tanks of all types have been used in indirect fire as well...some of the italian theater shermans in fact had indirect fire sights as well...more likely they would be used in that role than direct assault given some of the terrain at hand...

[Ken Estes]

Funny that you still think range cards useful against moving targets. Such a practice would contribute to a tanker's dream, overrunning arty in a pinch.

What you also consider debunked remains in play. The German experience looms large because it is they who had the hard choices

to make, as for some reason the allies did not so employ 90mm and 3.7in as AT guns, except in extremis. The Germans found that they had to make

conversions that rendered the guns useless as AAA. Ever wonder why? I did.

 

A flat trajectory does not rule out the need for elevation changes. Again, you presume a flat battlefield, which remains seldom the case. Look outside your window, it might suggest to what I refer. Shifting targets rapidly will require elevation changes, unless your enemy cooperates via single file. Maybe you

have just not done direct fire over 500m? Waiting for the tanks to close that distance makes for poor life expectancy. A Red Army antitank study I have shows

4 AT lost per tank destroyed in such combat. Not every battle was fought in the bocage, so the statistical averages do not apply well if you happen to be E. or S of Caen, N, S, W of Paris, in Provence or Champagne and so forth. The E. front and W. desert had their own special norms, as you recognize.

[Ken Estes]

Kondor Legion with "K" ?

 

Interestingly the German spelling is with "C" .

At least I have never seen it different.

 

Legion Condor.

 

Is Kondor Legion correct for Spanish or English literature ?

 

 

Beats me, it appears to have been interchangeable, at least with the FW 200.

 

Also: http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&p=wlq...p;search=Kondor

 

ENGLISCH DEUTSCH

 

 

condor [zool.] der Kondor [Ornithologie]

[Mobius]

You are back on the two sided control arguement which was basically debunked in the previous thread. Thats not an absolute requirement for an HAA firing in a fixed defensive position...unless we are talking long range engagements. If thats the case and the crew has not used their rangefinding equipment to complete a range card before the battle, then I would fire the gun cdr. A good gun cdr may have already fired a couple of rounds of plugged HE along with the normal sighting provisions to account for his own gun peculiarities.

The Germans captured both Russian 85mm AA and the F-22 Model 1936 76.2mm dual control. Both were deemed not very effective in the anti-tank role because the use of two gunners. Once the Model 1936 was converted to one control it became the useful PaK36 ( r).

Edited April 27, 2009 by Mobius

[DKTanker]

In the sense it can fire DF or indirect, yes....I know a paladin battery commander that DFed his 155s at insurgent occupied structures...pretty sure if you ask the dead insurgents they would say the paladin was DP...

 

Tanks of all types have been used in indirect fire as well...some of the italian theater shermans in fact had indirect fire sights as well...more likely they would be used in that role than direct assault given some of the terrain at hand...

It doesn't make either DP, it makes them, just "good enough" in a pinch. Dual Purpose implies two very different roles for a system, neither of which the system excels, but which can be used equally effective in both roles. The 5"/38 was just that. It wasn't the best system for AA work, nor the best for ground/sea targeting. It was the best compromise given limited deck space and the need for both roles on one ship.

[alejandro_]

Beats me, it appears to have been interchangeable, at least with the FW 200.

In Spanish literature its know by its Spanish translation i.e Legión Cóndor.

 

Hey, good to hear from you Bojan. I like your stuff. In fact I consider it the Rosetta Stone between east and west data.

x2

 

In these tests of the 88 vs 90mm, they fired each projectile at the highest velocities possible to check projectile integrity. Against 8" thick plate at 0 degree obliquity. 88 rounds were rejected intact. 90mm rounds shattered to varying degrees with the T33 showing the worse results. 88mm projectiles did not exhibit shatter tendencies until 45 degree obliquity was introduced. That was the reasoning behind the testers recommendations to make US Projectiles with the German

 

Is it 88 rounds or 88mm rounds?

Edited April 27, 2009 by alejandro_