use of 8,8 cm Flak against tanks

[Latze]

Hello,

again and again it is claimed that the Flak 36/37 was used against tanks in Spain and that these successful missions paved the way for the anti-tank role of German ant-aircraft guns and led ultimately to the development of Pak 43.
I very much doubt this story for the simple reason that there were no tanks in Spain the 3,7 cm Pak were unable to deal with... Does anybody has sources (combat records, kill claims) from the SCW period describing the use of 8,8 cm Flak against tanks? Or period sources from before 1940 that state the before mentioned story?

regards
Matt

[Ironmachine]

A similar question was asked in this forum some time ago (I remember answering to it), but IIRC no source was provided.
You are right that there were no tanks in Spain the 3,7 cm Pak were unable to deal with, but the number of 3,7 cm Pak available was limited, and perhaps they would not be always available when needed. However, given the small number of tanks used in the SCW, and the tactics employed, it is questionable whether the 8,8 cm Flak ever acted in an anti-tank role as is usually claimed. Certainly, I have never find a definitive source, but that not means that it didn't happen. There is no doubt that the 8,8 cm Flak was used during the SCW against ground targets, so its use against tanks is not so unbelievable.
The closest to a reliable source that I have found is taken from the book El Legendario Cañón Antiaéreo de 88mm. Su Historia y Evolución en el Ejército Español by Lucas Molina Franco (1996), which claims that the only known written evidence of the use of the "88" in an anti-tank role during the SCW is that Martinez Campos in his book Ayer, where he says, talking about the fight in Reinosa in 1937, more or less that the "Flak nullify all the efforts of the tanks". The book adds that other indirect evidence, like regimental histories, seems to corroborate this version.
As you can see, it is far from being a definitive proof.
Regards.

[Ironmachine]

A similar question was asked in this forum some time ago (I remember answering to it), but IIRC no source was provided.

Ah, I have found it:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=94365
but as I remembered no source is provided.

[KACKO]

Ospreys Legion Condor mention use of AA guns against ground targets, bunkers but also tanks. As a reason it provides flat trajectories.
In some other book/ article (sorry I don't remember the name) as a reason for using 8,8 cm against tanks in Spain was provided, that 45 mm gun of T-26 was effective on longer range then available AT guns.

[Latze]

Thanks guys! Interesting to see that others were thinking in the same direction.

[ihoyos]

may be translation of this could help

[Urmel]

That's conclusive proof that they did use it against ground targets with very good effects claimed.

[Ironmachine]

That's conclusive proof that they did use it against ground targets with very good effects claimed.

That they were used against ground targets is well known and there are a number of conclusive sources for that. But is there any specific mention of their use against tanks in those pages?

[Urmel]

Yes.

[Ironmachine]

And would you be so kind as to quote the specific part and translate it for me, please?

[Ironmachine]

Because I find it quite surprising that when in Osprey's book 88 mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 and PaK 43 1936-45 the author uses Deutsche Kampfen in Spanien as "proof" of how the anti-aircraft guns could be used in an anti-tank role, the quote selected is this:

From the beginning of 1937 "FlaK" artillery was used more and more in ground warfare, for which its precise aim, its rapid fire and its range made it specially suited... This led finally to the use of "FlaK" in the last great offensive of the Spanish War, in Catalonia, in the following proportions: of the total ammunition fired by these guns, 7 percent was against air targets and 93 percent against ground targets.

As you can see, there is no mention of tanks or of anti-tank combat. If there was a specific mention of the use of the FlaK guns against tanks in those pages, I wonder why it was not quoted. If all that was presented in the book is this quote above, that's no proof of the use of 8,8 cm Flak against tanks, which is the reason I did not mention it in my first post.
In fact, there are a number of similar claims. For example, there is a well-known quote from General Vigón that, when talking about the Catalonia campaign, wrote:

...la Cóndor ha suavizado la prohibición de que los cañones de 88 antiaéreos tiren a tierra, y lo están haciendo con una gran precisión sobre los coches en movimiento que se descuidan”.

It's much more specific than the statement in Deutsche Kampfen in Spanien as this one mentions vehicles (all kinds of wheeled vehicles, probably), but again no mention of tanks.
Regards.

Edited to correct a mistake in the quote.

[Urmel]

And would you be so kind as to quote the specific part and translate it for me, please?

Difficult with a baby on your arm.

They calculated 7% of all ammunition fired during the Catalunya offensive to be anti-air, and 93% anti-tank.

This from the text:

When he hid behind protective walls or in trenches, time-fuses crashed above him, when he crawled into concrete bunkers, light rounds were fired into the slits, so that everything in the bunker was burnt and torn to pieces. When he closed in tanks, then the APHE (? - Panzerspreng) round received them.

[Ironmachine]

Difficult with a baby on your arm.

I don't understand. Did you have a baby on your arm when you posted your last post? Would have been quoting the relevant part and its translation more difficult than what you did?

They calculated 7% of all ammunition fired during the Catalunya offensive to be anti-air, and 93% anti-tank.

This looks like the part I quoted from the Osprey's book; and there the translation is not "93% anti-tank" but "93% ground targets".
If I'm not wrong the relevant word is "erdziele", which AFAIK is really traslated as "ground targets". So I think you are wrong in this point.

This from the text:

When he hid behind protective walls or in trenches, time-fuses crashed above him, when he crawled into concrete bunkers, light rounds were fired into the slits, so that everything in the bunker was burnt and torn to pieces. When he closed in tanks, then the APHE (? - Panzerspreng) round received them.

With my very limited German knowledge and the small size of the text involved I'm having problems trying to identify the original text for this translation. But the translation, as presented, makes little sense. And, with all due respect, considering the apparently wrong translation that you made in the previous point, I have my doubts about the accuracy of this one. So it would be nice if you can quote the original text so anyone with good knowlegde of German can offer a new translation. I would like to know a second opinion before making up my mind.

Regards.

[Urmel]

Sorry, Freudian slip due to tiredness, the correct text is ground targets, thanks for pointing that out. I am a German native speaker, but not perfect, unlike other posters. Since you are a friendly and polite chap, you won't have trouble finding someone else who is perfect however to help you with your request I am sure, since I have better things to do now. Good luck.

[Ironmachine]

Interestingly, AFAIK the action about which more details are known is the one that is usually presented as the first time that the 88mm guns were used in an anti-tank role. This would have occurred on 11 May 1937, south of Toledo, against two T -26. The guns involved were not part of the Condor Legion, but Spanish guns of the "Agrupación de Artillería Antiaérea" (which considering the circunstances at the time, makes much more sense than if they were Condor Legion's guns).
The fact that there is such level of detail (who, where, when, against whom...) strongly suggests that there is a reliable original source involved, but unfortunately I have never seen it, so I can not consider it as a "conclusive proof".
Regards.