The German '88

[Cromwell]

If the German 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 was the so bloody marvellous, why did the Allies not copy 'it' or deploy a similar weapon of Allied design in the same manner? Or is this an alibi for British incompetance in the Desert?

 

Many years ago I saw one at the Artillery Museum in then Leningrad. As it was painted identically to Russian Arty pieces. I wondered then if the Russians had copied the '88 either during or after The War

 

Apart their ruthlessness and the'Jerry can', did the Allies copy anything else?

[Colin]

The US had the 90mm and the Brits the 3.7" Eventually both got used as AT weapons, but the 3.7" had to morph into the 32 first. Apparently the mount was to big and heavy. I also think the RA was not keen to use their shiny guns to close to the frontlines and change tactical doctrine. When the 17pdr came along, they had a gun that matched the 88.

As I recall the US 90mm was used in the DF mode in the battle of the bulge.

[bojan]

..

Many years ago I saw one at the Artillery Museum in then Leningrad. As it was painted identically to Russian Arty pieces. I wondered then if the Russians had copied the '88 either during or after The War...

1. They had 76mm and 85mm AA guns, which were originally (76mm model 1931) Rhinemetal design.

2. Both were used successfully in ground role, 85mm more often.

 

Apart their ruthlessness and the'Jerry can', did the Allies copy anything else?

 

Trolling?

[Colin]

I believe the 88 contiuned to serve until about 1970 in some countries, can't remember which ones. The Czechs copied the German half-tracks postwar. German E-boats continued to serve the British postwar and into the fledgling West German navy. I believe the Brits did take a long hard look at the E-boats postwar and incorprated elements into their post war designs.

 

The German tank suspension was certainly not copied by anyone to my knowledge

[TonyE]

German E-boats continued to serve the British postwar and into the fledgling West German navy. I believe the Brits did take a long hard look at the E-boats postwar and incorprated elements into their post war designs.

The danes used ex-Kriegsmarine E-boats until the early 1960s btw. They also made their own copy version in the early 1950s, which served until the mid-70s. (english links btw)

[Yama]

If the German 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 was the so bloody marvellous, why did the Allies not copy 'it' or deploy a similar weapon of Allied design in the same manner? Or is this an alibi for British incompetance in the Desert?

 

As said, there was the 3.7 inch gun. They could have build more of them for AT role, but the gun was heavy and cumbersome, even compared to Flak 36. Copying the '88 would have been pointless as by the time the "QF 88" would have been available in numbers, 17pdr would have been already in service.

[thekirk]

We had weapons just as good as the 88 for most of the war. The problem was, they were never utilized in the versatile roles that the Germans put theirs into.

 

I think the lack of uptake from AA weapons into the AT role in Allied armies is more due to inflexibility on the part of the ADA branches. They uniformly dragged their feet about putting their assets into the front-line fight, and concentrated what they were doing on air defense. There was also some issues with the way the Allies designed their AA mounts--They weren't as easily converted to ground roles as the German 88--Which I've also heard was a deliberate choice.

 

Of course, the refreshing way the German commanders had of cutting through the BS may have had something to do with it. I seem to remember an incident from early in the Battle of France where Rommel or another German general offered to shoot an AA battery commander if he didn't re-direct his weapons towards Allied tanks...

 

It's kind of ironic when you think about it--If anyone had the ability to put their underutilized AA assets to use as AT weapons, it was the Allies. Air superiority should have given them the confidence to do so.

[RETAC21]

The danes used ex-Kriegsmarine E-boats until the early 1960s btw. They also made their own copy version in the early 1950s, which served until the mid-70s. (english links btw)

 

 

 

Same for Spain, our 88s were used in the 70s and we built a local version (simplified) but can't remember the name. We also used ex-Russian, ex-German, modernised 122mm guns until the 90s when destroyed to comply with CFE.

 

 

[rmgill]

The Vickers 3.7" was more of a beast than the 8.8cm flak. Better range, better fire rate, and more improvements over time. The 3.7 came about with an expansion of the 3" vickers to a 4.7" HAA gun that was subpar, so the larger bore was reduced retaining the larger cartridge making for a far better mount for range and velocity. By their end they had multiple round trays, automatic fuse setting prior to ramming and power ramming from the tray. under director control the crew just had to align pointers and set rounds in the tray, the gun did the rest.

 

 

 

What worked against them being used in direct fire against targets they saw was their weight. They were simply too big on the attack. Mind you they were used for a lot of indirect fire and had a secondary direct fire function in extremis. When this was used the targets suffered.

 

 

Infrequent poster Derek Ward here has done some research on their use and exchanged a bit of information with the folks at Larkhill and a few vets who were involved in DF shoots against germans. 8.8s vs 3.7s was poor for the 88s and 3.7s vs tigers was also VERY bad for the tigers.

[Getz]

The German tank suspension was certainly not copied by anyone to my knowledge

 

Except for the US torsion bar system used in the M18, M24, M26, M46, M47, M48 and M60 being essentially a incrementally upgraded copy of the Pz III suspension...

[DougRichards]

Wasn't the 3.7in optimised for the AA role and designed to be used under director control? The layers faced rearward whereas the 88mm was designed from the outset to be a dual role weapon with the Layers facing forward and a gun shield being provided. Interestingly the 3.7in carriage formed the basis for the Thunderbird SAM missile launcher, post war.

 

The 3.7in originally didn't have sights, as it didn't need them. It was also initially not the gun to accompamy the army in the field as it was too heavy and cumbersom, the older 3in 20cwt AA gun was lighter and appreciated in forward areas. It was not declared obsolete until 1946. It also had an AP shot, capable of piecing 84mm at 1000 yards,

 

The early 3.7in was a better AA gun than the early 88s, but it should also be remembered that in the same way that there were essentially two 88 AA guns there were two 3.7in, the Guns Mks 1-3 being very different to the 3.7in Gun Mk 6, the Mks 1-3 weighing 20,541lb in action in mobile form, whilst the Mk 6 weighed in at 38,360lbs in action. The Mk 6 had a much higher effective ceiling than the Flak 88 41 (88 35,000ft 3.7 45,000ft).

[rmgill]

Wasn't the 3.7in optimised for the AA role and designed to be used under director control? The layers faced rearward whereas the 88mm was designed from the outset to be a dual role weapon with the Layers facing forward and a gun shield being provided. Interestingly the 3.7in carriage formed the basis for the Thunderbird SAM missile launcher, post war.

 

No, the 88 Layers stand next to each other facing sideways looking at the pedestal.

 

Notice the location of the handwheels and the pointing dials.

 

 

Now, the 3.7" HAA gun has a sneaky way of handling direct fire. Initially crews had REME types make up direct fire ring sights. Later telescopes were adapted.

 

Note the positions of the Train and Elevate crew...Also note the location of the open sights.

 

 

Now compare...

 

 

 

 

It's quite simple, for direct fire trainer and elevator men to see the target and adjust to get close on, they simply turned around and operated the handles from the other side. Pretty ingenious.

[Meyer]

 

Of course, the refreshing way the German commanders had of cutting through the BS may have had something to do with it. I seem to remember an incident from early in the Battle of France where Rommel or another German general offered to shoot an AA battery commander if he didn't re-direct his weapons towards Allied tanks...

 

 

That was Major Hans von Luck, commander of the Pz.Grenadier Regiment 125 (21.PzDiv), against the Goodwood operation in the Normandy campaign. Or at least that's what he said that happened, ISTR that there were some arguments against that tale.

[Tony Williams]

did the Allies copy anything else?

During the war there probably wasn't much opportunity, given the gestation period for complex equipment (even then - although far less than now!). After the war, they did copy certain things directly (the 30mm Aden and DEFA aircraft revolver cannon were straight copies of the Mauser MG 213C) and a lot of German research was borrowed and built on, especially for aircraft and rocket design (the US copied the V-2 directly). The concept of streamlined submarines of high underwater performance (Type XXI U-boat) wasn't new (see the British R CLass of WW1) but was picked up again postwar - as was (briefly) hydrogen peroxide fuelling for submarines - not a happy experience for the RN!

[Guest Jason L]

During the war there probably wasn't much opportunity, given the gestation period for complex equipment (even then - although far less than now!). After the war, they did copy certain things directly (the 30mm Aden and DEFA aircraft revolver cannon were straight copies of the Mauser MG 213C) and a lot of German research was borrowed and built on, especially for aircraft and rocket design (the US copied the V-2 directly). The concept of streamlined submarines of high underwater performance (Type XXI U-boat) wasn't new (see the British R CLass of WW1) but was picked up again postwar - as was (briefly) hydrogen peroxide fuelling for submarines - not a happy experience for the RN!

 

Well considering the Germans basically invented modern rocket engineering there was much to be copied there.

[thekirk]

Well considering the Germans basically invented modern rocket engineering there was much to be copied there.

 

Robert Goddard actually did that. The Germans were just lucky to find a willing sponsor in the Wehrmacht artillery branch, and to have a situation where they got to do most of the development from Goddard's ideas. Hell, even von Braun credited Goddard, and when he was asked how the Germans had come so far and so fast, he pointed out Goddard.

 

I do have to give the Germans credit for something, which was taking Goddard seriously. Sadly, here in the US, he was the object of tabloid ridicule for much of his life. There's no telling what would have happened had someone had the good sense to sponsor him and protect him from the idiots in the press.

[Tony Williams]

The 3.7in originally didn't have sights, as it didn't need them. It was also initially not the gun to accompamy the army in the field as it was too heavy and cumbersom, the older 3in 20cwt AA gun was lighter and appreciated in forward areas. It was not declared obsolete until 1946. It also had an AP shot, capable of piecing 84mm at 1000 yards,

The cartridge case of the 3in 20cwt was used for the 77mm tank gun in the Comet, albeit in a higher-pressure loading.

 

I've often thought that this gun, in a more flexible mounting, would have been a great dual-purpose weapon, more than powerful enough to deal with all but the heaviest tanks, and much handier than the 88.

[rmgill]

So, who's the bloke who sits on the right of the gun, facing forward looking through the slot in the shield?

 

That's the guy with the training wheel. Note the man behind who does not have a sight who has the elevation wheel. They are somewhat in each other's way with the location of the Wheels. You see the pointing dials right?

 

Now, the 88 DOES have a better sighting arrangement with what was it, a 4 power magnification iirc that the trainer has access to in this case. There was also a panoramic telescope for gun setup for indirect fire or director control orientation.

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/sighting-equipment-german-artillery-88mm.html

[Argus]

There was also a damned good reason 3.7's weren't much used for DF work in the desert, the few batteries in theater were busy doing their primary job of providing air defence to key ports and base areas. If Rommel had reached Alexandria or really pushed in the perimeter at Tobruk, I dare say things might have changed, but as it was the HAA had more essential work to do than brass up passing Panzers

 

Later on the 3.7" were used quite freely for fire support as part of pepper-pot barrages and the odd spot of DF work, out here they were even used for bunker busting. But they were generally rated as medium arty in the field.

 

 

 

 

Of course they had tried everything else FIRST

 

 

(Images of 'HMAS Margy' on Tarakan in 1945 - all copyright free from the AWM.)

 

shane

Edited December 17, 2011 by Argus

[Ken Estes]

None of these, 88mm, 90mm and 3.7 inch were DP guns as designed. Only when mods were applied, both improvised and official, were they able, and in most cases, the mods to the German 88s for ground use made them ineffective for AA use. In the later case, we have Rommel threatening his LW AA cdr in No Afrika if he did not convert a certain number of 88s to ground use. In this case, the mod gave both training and elevating [via chain] controls to the pointer for ground use, and the elevation control was no longer available to the man at the elevation controls which were used to match the AA director orders, etc.

 

The fact that AP ammo was available for the guns, including 88s, did not make them dual purpose either.

 

The M2 (1943) was the first DP version of the US 90mm, with gunsights, gunshield and the vital ability to depress the gun for downhill firing, not usually done for AA mounts!

Edited December 17, 2011 by Ken Estes

[DougRichards]

None of these, 88mm, 90mm and 3.7 inch were DP guns as designed. Only when mods were applied, both improvised and official, were they able, and in most cases, the mods to the German 88s for ground use made them ineffective for AA use. In the later case, we have Rommel threatening his LW AA cdr in No Afrika if he did not convert a certain number of 88s to ground use. In this case, the mod gave both training and elevating [via chain] controls to the pointer for ground use, and the elevation control was no longer available to the man at the elevation controls which were used to match the AA director orders, etc.

 

The fact that AP ammo was available for the guns, including 88s, did not make them dual purpose either.

 

The M2 (1943) was the first DP version of the US 90mm, with gunsights, gunshield and the vital ability to depress the gun for downhill firing, not usually done for AA mounts!

 

The M3 mounting was a static mounting for the 90mm, intended so that AA guns defending habours could be used in a secondary coastal role, and was effectively the top carriage of the 90mm gun on a pedestal mount.

[Ken Estes]

The M3 mounting was a static mounting for the 90mm, intended so that AA guns defending habours could be used in a secondary coastal role, and was effectively the top carriage of the 90mm gun on a pedestal mount.

 

And that is how most 88s ended their careers, practically ringing the Med with shore defense guns, as Bojan has attested before. The 90mm was also used thus in later years, but nary a word about 3.7 inchers, which remained AA weapons almost exclusively.

[rmgill]

And that is how most 88s ended their careers, practically ringing the Med with shore defense guns, as Bojan has attested before. The 90mm was also used thus in later years, but nary a word about 3.7 inchers, which remained AA weapons almost exclusively.

 

 

Actually, there were ground/static mounts for 3.7" guns as well. They ended up in coastal defense roles as well. Malta was one location. Gibraltar is another I suspect. I think the Thames estuary forts also had 3.7s in static mountings.

 

Looks like some negative depression to me.

 

 

Here's some Canadians doing some interesting things in training...

 

 

[Harry]

Was it possible that ground targets as tanks can be engaged while the 3.7inch gun is in the traveling position on the carriage, as it was with the 88mm gun on it´s special trailer (No. 201)?

[Ken Estes]

Actually, there were ground/static mounts for 3.7" guns as well. They ended up in coastal defense roles as well. Malta was one location. Gibraltar is another I suspect. I think the Thames estuary forts also had 3.7s in static mountings.

 

Looks like some negative depression to me.

 

 

 

Here's some Canadians doing some interesting things in training...

 

 

All CD works require AA guns. Negative depression would depend on how the the mount is placed, not really visible in your pic. A good ground DP gun would require about -10 degrees, such as with the US M2 90mm. Nor are the Canucks necessarily doing training. Lanyard firing at such close range looks more like proofing of gun or target effects on a firing range.

 

The 3.7" mount allowed -5 depression, but apparently "Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear" ... not good for a DP gun, nor are the rearward facing seats for gunner and pointer.