Not being an expert, I´m curious about the 88.
What made it such a great gun?
What technical features made it so outstanding?
In what versions was it made? Productionnumbers?
How did Swedish Bofors and Kruppwerke cooperate in the making of this gun?
The great 88
-
Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14057
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Hi
I would sa ythat the 88 was one of the most famous gun, but few people understand how many versions there actualy were.
First of all, there were the 'classical' 8.8 - the Fla.K., which in itself had 3 (or 4, I'm not completely sure) versions. These versions were only slightly different. They were anti-aircraft guns, but when useing armour-piercin ammunition they were very lethal.
This was becuse of the calibre (88mm is quite large) and the length of the barrel giving a high muzzle velocity.
The Fla.K. 41 by Rheinmetall was another 88, although different from the Krupp gun.
The Tiger got the 8.8, even though it was a bit too large for the original desing (the Tiger was actually to have a 7.5cm gun, lik ethe Pz.Kpfw. IV later got)
The later 8.8 (the Pa.K. 43 and Kw.K. 43) were mounted on the Tiger II and Jagdpanther, and this was the best AT gun of the war, giving the best performance in penetration and a high rate of fire.
You can find armour penetration stats here: http://www.panzerworld.net/APT.htm
Also see this article, it'll give you a much better description...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm.htm
Christian
I would sa ythat the 88 was one of the most famous gun, but few people understand how many versions there actualy were.
First of all, there were the 'classical' 8.8 - the Fla.K., which in itself had 3 (or 4, I'm not completely sure) versions. These versions were only slightly different. They were anti-aircraft guns, but when useing armour-piercin ammunition they were very lethal.
This was becuse of the calibre (88mm is quite large) and the length of the barrel giving a high muzzle velocity.
The Fla.K. 41 by Rheinmetall was another 88, although different from the Krupp gun.
The Tiger got the 8.8, even though it was a bit too large for the original desing (the Tiger was actually to have a 7.5cm gun, lik ethe Pz.Kpfw. IV later got)
The later 8.8 (the Pa.K. 43 and Kw.K. 43) were mounted on the Tiger II and Jagdpanther, and this was the best AT gun of the war, giving the best performance in penetration and a high rate of fire.
You can find armour penetration stats here: http://www.panzerworld.net/APT.htm
Also see this article, it'll give you a much better description...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm.htm
Christian
-
Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14057
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
The Utof 88mm cannon used on Type VII submarines(most versions of the basic Type VII) was not related in any way to the FlaK 88 and did not even use the same ammo.Ljunggren wrote:Tnx Ferdinand!
When i come to think of it, i do believe that i´ve seen a submarine version
in Töjhusmuseet in Copenhagen.
~Regards,
Ovidius
88'
IT would be nice if someone could spell out ALL the various "88's" there
were.
The short-case U-boat gun dates back to WW 1? Doesn't it.
THE EIGHTYEIGHT (immortalized by the British at it's receiving end in
North Africa) was the FLAK 18 and FLAK 36 versions, wasn't it.
[THe best way to immortalize a gun - is to use it against the British -
the worlds most prolific writers...]
Then they moved into the Magnums, FLAK 41, PAK 43, KWK 43 and then-
what?
It's important to explain to some of these students that '88' is just a
gunbarrel diameter - the Caliber - related to the shellcase length and
volume.
LIke a .22 Short and 5,56mm Military - they have the same barrel diam-
meter but if hit by one of each - you'll notice the difference!
were.
The short-case U-boat gun dates back to WW 1? Doesn't it.
THE EIGHTYEIGHT (immortalized by the British at it's receiving end in
North Africa) was the FLAK 18 and FLAK 36 versions, wasn't it.
[THe best way to immortalize a gun - is to use it against the British -
the worlds most prolific writers...]
Then they moved into the Magnums, FLAK 41, PAK 43, KWK 43 and then-
what?
It's important to explain to some of these students that '88' is just a
gunbarrel diameter - the Caliber - related to the shellcase length and
volume.
LIke a .22 Short and 5,56mm Military - they have the same barrel diam-
meter but if hit by one of each - you'll notice the difference!
-
Juha Hujanen
- Member
- Posts: 2196
- Joined: 20 Mar 2002, 12:32
- Location: Suur-Savo,Finland
88
As good gun 88 was there's really nothing special with it.Here's some comparison.
shell weight(kg) effective ceiling(m) fire rate weight in action
88 Flak 36 9.07 7925 15/minute 8199
Brittish 3.7 Mk3 12.7 9755 20/minute 9316
US 90mm M1 10.43 9755 20/minute 8617
These figures shows anti-aircraft cababilitie but there's the difference.Germans used 88 in wider range of roles.In field artillery pieces and of course in anti-tank role where 88 did get it's fame.For some reason Western allies didn't use their heavy anti-aircraft guns in anti-tank role.If they would have,their guns would have performed as well as did 88.However Russians did use their 85mm anti-aircraft guns in anti-tank role with good effect.And one thing for 88 fame was that Germans did have plenty of them and they did take it to propaganda as "miracle"weapon.
Because of Versailles treaty team of Krupp designers went to Bofors factory in Sweden to designate a gun for 88mm shell(88mm was common German calibre,they had 88mm Flak in 1918).They did bring drawings back to Germany 1931 and in 1933 Flak 18 was taken to service.
shell weight(kg) effective ceiling(m) fire rate weight in action
88 Flak 36 9.07 7925 15/minute 8199
Brittish 3.7 Mk3 12.7 9755 20/minute 9316
US 90mm M1 10.43 9755 20/minute 8617
These figures shows anti-aircraft cababilitie but there's the difference.Germans used 88 in wider range of roles.In field artillery pieces and of course in anti-tank role where 88 did get it's fame.For some reason Western allies didn't use their heavy anti-aircraft guns in anti-tank role.If they would have,their guns would have performed as well as did 88.However Russians did use their 85mm anti-aircraft guns in anti-tank role with good effect.And one thing for 88 fame was that Germans did have plenty of them and they did take it to propaganda as "miracle"weapon.
Because of Versailles treaty team of Krupp designers went to Bofors factory in Sweden to designate a gun for 88mm shell(88mm was common German calibre,they had 88mm Flak in 1918).They did bring drawings back to Germany 1931 and in 1933 Flak 18 was taken to service.
As noted in the previous post most of the major powers had a high velocity anti-aircraft gun with similar capabilities, what the Germans had was a more flexible command structure that allowed them to take anti-aircraft guns from the units intended for air defense and use them for other purposes. Also since they had no other means to deal with certain allied tanks such as the matilda series early in the war it became clearly apparant that the gun was needed on the front line. I'm not sure but I'm guessing that the Soviet 85mm also started out as an AA gun.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.
Before 1938, there weren't any production 85 mm guns in the USSR. That caliber was not in use at all. There were some projects of 85 mm caliber, but all of them remained experimental. However, in 1938, engineers from Factory #8 had decided to utilize the surplus margin of safety in the German Rheinmetall gun, which was used in the USSR under the designation "the 76 mm Anti-Aircraft Gun Model 1931." The engineers decided to re-bore the gun to increase its caliber. It could be re-bored up to 85 mm which was the maximum caliber which could be used without changing the barrel's diameter. After re-boring the new gun, it was tested and the following results were obtained (see table below). Before the war, in 1939, the new antiaircraft gun was put into the mass production. The gun was very powerful and, in general, was quite successful.
(From "Russian Battlefield")
Best Regards,
Mait.
(From "Russian Battlefield")
Best Regards,
Mait.
Most of this info comes from Zetterling Normandy 44 book.
The III flak corp was the only fully motorized flak corps in the ger army. Even here it was missing some vehicles. The comander (or high off) of the corps during and after the war seemed to think the 88mm flak 41 was a poor ATG at least compred to the 75mm ATG which was so common in 44. The corp had just over 100 88 which were all flak guns none were specialised ATGs such as the pak 43. About 10 were heavyflak 41 which had the longer barrel with much better pen but the gun in general was rare proably even rarer in the ger army then here. About 20 88 guns formed three flakkampffugen these guns were placed near thew frontlne and may of encoutered tanks normally but the vast majority were placed so far back they only enoutered tanks as they broke through. It seems that even here the numbers of 88mm guns that actualy saw tanks was minimal.
The same was true in 1944 of all 88s. There were so many places to protect that they were all placed to the rear. The 88 was good against high flying armoured heavy start bombers. They didnt shoot at individual planes but threw up curtains of flak that the bobers had to move through. To protect even the smallesttargets they had to use many 88s. Many div in normandy had a few 88 flak pieces but many of these were left behind to protect certain bridges and ferry crossings. Even those div that had all thier 88s in thier area had to protect certain targets from air attack and ususally used them this way instead of on the lline. Ger had a huge area to protect aginst large airforces capable of air att and in 44 the ger did not have many 88s to spare for the front.
The III corps fwd flakkampfuggen lost 35 88s and 70 lights to all causes and claimed 20 knoked out tanks. While the number of ger lost should be accuate from thier own records the number of tanks is always overclaimed. Plus some of the tanks would be knocked out not by 88s but by other weapons such as panzerfaust. The entire corps claimed 492 planes and 92 tanks which shows what the primary enemy of the corps was. Out of te 92 tanks des it was from all causes including 12 due to panzerfaust. The 92 tanks caimed is 3% of the tot army and WWSS claims a small number.
It seems the 88s were not a major factor on the front in 44 comapred to ALL the 75 mm guns. The british did a survey shrtally after DDay and although most crew claimed 88s knocked them out the holes in the tanks indicated the 75mm was the main culpret. A small number of speciality 88s were made for AT use and use in fwd units. These would proably have been excelent guns for that use. All thse guns went to fwd units and none to flak units of any sort.
I am not planning on discussing why the 88 was inferioir to the 75mm. I would like to say that the 88 earned its rep earlier but by 4 it was not as important for ATG. The rus tanks were almost all lights only the T34s med and the KV1 heavys were a problem. It seems from a rus study the T34 was far more porous to smaller calibre guns then the 88mm early in the war but I am sure the KV required the 88mm more. Prior to sep 42 according to one rus study less than 4% of all T34s des were accoring to 88s.
The III flak corp was the only fully motorized flak corps in the ger army. Even here it was missing some vehicles. The comander (or high off) of the corps during and after the war seemed to think the 88mm flak 41 was a poor ATG at least compred to the 75mm ATG which was so common in 44. The corp had just over 100 88 which were all flak guns none were specialised ATGs such as the pak 43. About 10 were heavyflak 41 which had the longer barrel with much better pen but the gun in general was rare proably even rarer in the ger army then here. About 20 88 guns formed three flakkampffugen these guns were placed near thew frontlne and may of encoutered tanks normally but the vast majority were placed so far back they only enoutered tanks as they broke through. It seems that even here the numbers of 88mm guns that actualy saw tanks was minimal.
The same was true in 1944 of all 88s. There were so many places to protect that they were all placed to the rear. The 88 was good against high flying armoured heavy start bombers. They didnt shoot at individual planes but threw up curtains of flak that the bobers had to move through. To protect even the smallesttargets they had to use many 88s. Many div in normandy had a few 88 flak pieces but many of these were left behind to protect certain bridges and ferry crossings. Even those div that had all thier 88s in thier area had to protect certain targets from air attack and ususally used them this way instead of on the lline. Ger had a huge area to protect aginst large airforces capable of air att and in 44 the ger did not have many 88s to spare for the front.
The III corps fwd flakkampfuggen lost 35 88s and 70 lights to all causes and claimed 20 knoked out tanks. While the number of ger lost should be accuate from thier own records the number of tanks is always overclaimed. Plus some of the tanks would be knocked out not by 88s but by other weapons such as panzerfaust. The entire corps claimed 492 planes and 92 tanks which shows what the primary enemy of the corps was. Out of te 92 tanks des it was from all causes including 12 due to panzerfaust. The 92 tanks caimed is 3% of the tot army and WWSS claims a small number.
It seems the 88s were not a major factor on the front in 44 comapred to ALL the 75 mm guns. The british did a survey shrtally after DDay and although most crew claimed 88s knocked them out the holes in the tanks indicated the 75mm was the main culpret. A small number of speciality 88s were made for AT use and use in fwd units. These would proably have been excelent guns for that use. All thse guns went to fwd units and none to flak units of any sort.
I am not planning on discussing why the 88 was inferioir to the 75mm. I would like to say that the 88 earned its rep earlier but by 4 it was not as important for ATG. The rus tanks were almost all lights only the T34s med and the KV1 heavys were a problem. It seems from a rus study the T34 was far more porous to smaller calibre guns then the 88mm early in the war but I am sure the KV required the 88mm more. Prior to sep 42 according to one rus study less than 4% of all T34s des were accoring to 88s.
-
Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14057
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
That is not completely accurate.AHLF wrote:One fact that no one mentioned- the 88 gun had the highest shell speed of ALL the canons used in WW2(A little more than 1000 m/s).
The 8.8cm Fla.K. 37 L/56 only had 800-810 m/s and the 8.8cm Kw.K. 37 L/56 had only 773-930 m/s.
The 7.5cm Kw.K. 42 L/70 had 925-1120 m/s
The 8.8cm Kw.K. 43 L/72 did have 1000-1130 m/s, but this was introduced much later. I believe it is this weapon you are thinking about, and this was in deed a very fine weapon.
It had the best armour piercing capabilities of any German weapon of WWII, including the 12.8cm Kw.K 44 L/55. I think it was the best gun of the war...
Christian