88 vs 75 in normandy
88 vs 75 in normandy
Thought this might be interesting.
I refer to these finds of facts in books as tibets. You know the jewel that helps to clear the mud from the water.
In Normandy after D-Day a British team examined 45 Shermans that were totally knocked out. Of this number 82% were knocked out by 75 mm guns while only 18% of the tanks were knocked out by the dreaded 88 mm gun.
It was also found that the German on average opened fire at a range of
808.4 yards. This was a after the war when a study was done of 12 000 knocked out Sherman in Northern Europe.
Thus the only armor that the Sherman was able to engage with it's 75 mm gun was that of the Pz IV series and tanks with less armor, meanwhile the Germans using the 75 mm gun and up could engage and kill and ranges further than the Shermans.
Source: South Alberta's A Canadian Regiment at War.
admfisher
Grant
I refer to these finds of facts in books as tibets. You know the jewel that helps to clear the mud from the water.
In Normandy after D-Day a British team examined 45 Shermans that were totally knocked out. Of this number 82% were knocked out by 75 mm guns while only 18% of the tanks were knocked out by the dreaded 88 mm gun.
It was also found that the German on average opened fire at a range of
808.4 yards. This was a after the war when a study was done of 12 000 knocked out Sherman in Northern Europe.
Thus the only armor that the Sherman was able to engage with it's 75 mm gun was that of the Pz IV series and tanks with less armor, meanwhile the Germans using the 75 mm gun and up could engage and kill and ranges further than the Shermans.
Source: South Alberta's A Canadian Regiment at War.
admfisher
Grant
- Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14028
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
- David Lehmann
- Member
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 11:50
- Location: France
I tried to have info about the following units in Normandy :
657. Pz.Jäg.Abt.
668. Pz.Jäg.Abt.
1039. Art.Pak.Abt.
1040. Art.Pak.Abt.
1041. Art.Pak.Abt.
1053. Art.Pak.Abt.
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/norm ... gerob.html
And I was surprised to found many Pak 43 88 mm AT guns although sometimes there is just the mention of 88 mm AT gun (could it be the Flak36/37 in an AT configuration, more AP ?).
In fact I thought I would found a majority of 75 mm Pak in these units and there are many Pak 43. I didn't know they were largely used in Normandy.
657. Pz.Jäg.Abt.
668. Pz.Jäg.Abt.
1039. Art.Pak.Abt.
1040. Art.Pak.Abt.
1041. Art.Pak.Abt.
1053. Art.Pak.Abt.
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/norm ... gerob.html
And I was surprised to found many Pak 43 88 mm AT guns although sometimes there is just the mention of 88 mm AT gun (could it be the Flak36/37 in an AT configuration, more AP ?).
In fact I thought I would found a majority of 75 mm Pak in these units and there are many Pak 43. I didn't know they were largely used in Normandy.
- David Lehmann
- Member
- Posts: 2863
- Joined: 01 Apr 2002, 11:50
- Location: France
800 yards that's about 730 meters isn't it ?
I think in Normandy the area was far less flat than in russian steps for example, with the hedges etc., just around Caen there are several wide open plains. This could explain the difference, because in other conditions I think that Tiger for example would have opened fire sooner.
But it is perhaps not the explanation, it's an average and perhaps the engegement distances for most Pak 40 units was closer to 200-300 m in order to be sure to achieve a kill ... I don't know.
I think in Normandy the area was far less flat than in russian steps for example, with the hedges etc., just around Caen there are several wide open plains. This could explain the difference, because in other conditions I think that Tiger for example would have opened fire sooner.
But it is perhaps not the explanation, it's an average and perhaps the engegement distances for most Pak 40 units was closer to 200-300 m in order to be sure to achieve a kill ... I don't know.
-
- Member
- Posts: 341
- Joined: 16 Sep 2002, 13:00
- Location: Germany
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote:
Moreover, the improvement in AT-gun technology reduced the need for heavy AA-guns being used in the AT role.
I'd like to add that the 88 Flaks (AA guns) were very valuable assets to the a/a capabilities of the German forces. Because of the extreme air superiority of the Allies these guns were badly needed to protect bridges, railwaystations, etc. Thus they could no longer be used the way they were in the first years of the war.
Most interresting! I would imagine the percentages between 88s and 75s to be because:
1) there were more 75s
2) Allied bombings had taken out a numnber of AA 88s (leading to #1 )
Moreover, the improvement in AT-gun technology reduced the need for heavy AA-guns being used in the AT role.
75 - 88
The study was only on a small number of tanks I think it was 45.
So the 5 cm probably was in there, but if it was to cover all weapons the Pzfaust would also be in there.
The 88's were not just tank mounted, take a look at Han von Luck's book. He was heavily involved in Normandy and the dual purpose 88 was used a great deal.
But overall I am not surprised to find more 75 mm kills than 88's, my grandfather insists that most weapons fire at them in normandy were 88's.
admfisher
So the 5 cm probably was in there, but if it was to cover all weapons the Pzfaust would also be in there.
The 88's were not just tank mounted, take a look at Han von Luck's book. He was heavily involved in Normandy and the dual purpose 88 was used a great deal.
But overall I am not surprised to find more 75 mm kills than 88's, my grandfather insists that most weapons fire at them in normandy were 88's.
admfisher
- Paul Timms
- Member
- Posts: 218
- Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:18
- Location: Warwickshire
88's
This is a common claim reflected in conversations with veteran's i have known, every gun an 88, every tank a Tiger and all enemies SS.
88's
It is interesting when you talk to the vets of either side, but sometimes it is very hard to keep a straight face.
Funny how one gun could gain such respect.
The only other guns that I think fit this catagory would be,
Germany: 75 mm, L/70
Usa: 16 in. 50 cal
5 in 38 cal Mk 12
Russian 76.2 mm field and tank gun
British 17 pdr MarkIV
But the hand down winner is the 88 in each of it's main forms, the flak, the L/56 and L/70.
admfisher
Funny how one gun could gain such respect.
The only other guns that I think fit this catagory would be,
Germany: 75 mm, L/70
Usa: 16 in. 50 cal
5 in 38 cal Mk 12
Russian 76.2 mm field and tank gun
British 17 pdr MarkIV
But the hand down winner is the 88 in each of it's main forms, the flak, the L/56 and L/70.
admfisher
- General Patton
- Member
- Posts: 320
- Joined: 25 Sep 2002, 22:48
- Location: USA
it does sound high.. dunno..
again, the germans built some 5000 panther tanks alone.. if we say that 1500 of those was used in the west and we know that USA lost about 5 shermans pr. panther.. and we recon 33% of the panthers was lost to airpower, it means that panthers alone destroyed som 5k shermans.. :/ Or maybe not
again, the germans built some 5000 panther tanks alone.. if we say that 1500 of those was used in the west and we know that USA lost about 5 shermans pr. panther.. and we recon 33% of the panthers was lost to airpower, it means that panthers alone destroyed som 5k shermans.. :/ Or maybe not
-
- New member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 06:49
- Location: China
Re: 88 vs 75 in normandy
That is very natural.the majority of the german AT guns were 75,not 88.
the 88 was regarded as anti aircraft weapon at first.But Romell found
that it was horrible to any tank.then it was used as at gun.but of course
many german tanks were still using normal gun.
(most tanks,including stug III,stug IV,or Panther,Panzer IV).
the more they had,the more they shot.hhh...
the 88 was regarded as anti aircraft weapon at first.But Romell found
that it was horrible to any tank.then it was used as at gun.but of course
many german tanks were still using normal gun.
(most tanks,including stug III,stug IV,or Panther,Panzer IV).
the more they had,the more they shot.hhh...
Patton
Patton,General Patton wrote:TO admfisher:
Are you sure that there were 12000 shermans knocked out in Europe. That means losses of one in four and thats not including lend lease, china, pacific or N. Africa. I think that number is wrong
The tanks knocked out were not all right offs. This number includes the tanks that had to in for more than field recovery.
admfisher