The great 88

[William Wagner]

The german 88 was a fantastic gun that gained its fame in France not Africa, under Rommel as her tried to repel a frnch armor attack. His tanks were not as powerful as the french and so he used his AA guns. Now here is why it was such a good gun. First it was designed and used to shoot down high level bombers. So it would have to have a upwards range of at least 25,000 feet. So the shell would have to be fast and accurate. Secondly AA guns have to reload fast. the fire rate on the weapon in question was increadible. Not to mention it could turn and aim quickly. All other AT guns paled in comparison to this weapon.

[Logan Hartke]

Fantastic gun, but the 90mm, 3.7inch, and 85mm guns were very comparable in most respects.

Logan Hartke

[johnny_bi]

Did Germans produce an 85 mm AA gun , similar tu the 88 AA ?


BI

[johnny_bi]

What about the high profile of the 88 ?


BI

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Fantastic gun, but the 90mm, 3.7inch, and 85mm guns were very comparable in most respects.

Logan Hartke

add 100 mm BS-3 to your list

[Logan Hartke]

Fantastic gun, but the 90mm, 3.7inch, and 85mm guns were very comparable in most respects.

Logan Hartke

add 100 mm BS-3 to your list

and I'd have to add the 3 inch and 17pdr guns as well.

Logan Hartke

[Oleg Grigoryev]

Fantastic gun, but the 90mm, 3.7inch, and 85mm guns were very comparable in most respects.

Logan Hartke

add 100 mm BS-3 to your list

and I'd have to add the 3 inch and 17pdr guns as well.

Logan Hartke

ehh ok

[William Wagner]

Due to th tanks rapid fir and long range as well as the use of pak front tactics, superior german camoflaug, the big threat to the origional 88 was it's lack of mobility. Most units could not get close enough to destry one in a prepared postition. Even unprepared still was able to repulse a french tank brigade. As for the enemy models. sure there stats were good. however they were not of the same quality and the German gun had a better track record and was used wisely in combat. Remember stats are not every thing performance record is.

[William Wagner]

Actually one more point the size did not always matter, velocity did

[paddywhack]

so size matters then?

[bigbuddha]

I think the 88 has always been totally over-rated, the British 3.7-in AA gun was smaller, lighter and out-performed it, except the British never fitted it to a tank. The Germans were lucky they have 88's early in war, because they couldn't stop the British, French and some Russian tanks with other guns unless they employed extreme tactics.

Really, the 88 was much too large and un-wieldy for a tank, it was better suited to a tank destroyer that hides in ambush. The Tiger and Tiger-II probably did more to cost the Germans the war then they ever could of to win it, they were far too heavy, too slow, their engines and transmissions couldn't handle the size and weight. Germany would have been much better off building Panzer IV's with long 75s which with the excellent quality German ammo were more than adequate to defeat Allied tanks even at the end of the war. The Panzer was smaller, much faster and more manouevreable and they didn't break down all the time, you didn't need to strengthen bridges etc. For me, mounting the 88 imn a tank was a bad idea, and the Tiger was a bad idea, the Tiger II an even worse idea.

The British 17pdr, despite being on 76.2 mm calibre could match the 88 in performance and was much more suitable to the FVs of the time. If the British had built the Comet in numbers earlier in the war and given it a sloping glacis plate like the Centurion it would have been more than a match for the Tiger and Panther as it was much more maneucvreable and could match them in firepower in protection.

People are blinded by the myths of the 88 and Tiger, strategically, they were disasters, especially at a time when Germany needed to produce tanks and guns that were simple, reliable and used as few precious resources as possible, something that the Tiger and 88 definitely didn't do. In my honest opinion, the Panzer IV with long 75 would have served the Germans much better than the Tiger of Tiger II. Panther was a decent tank, but even so, why waste time and resources developing panzers just to impress Hitler? From mid-1942 onwards, the Germans should have produced Pz-IVs, if all the effort and resources hadn't been WASTED on Tiger I & II and Panther they could have had so many more EFFECTIVE Panzer IVs.

In my opinion, development of Tiger series was one of Hitler's major strategic errors and an example of his Wagerian obsession with size and power (maybe he had a tiny penis!). It must have been very upsetting for the Aryans to be beaten by all those subhuman slavs with there crudely built tanks, but I'd take a crudely built T-34/85 or IS-series over a Tiger-series any day, at least I wouldn't have to worry about constantly breaking down and getting bigged-down in soft ground, not being able to cross bridges etc.

If you step back and look at it with dispassion, the 88 was a useful stop-gap, but when long 75 was developed the 88 should have gone back to it's original role, AA with ocassional emergency AT use. Remember that most Tiger series tanks were destroyed by their crews because they broke down or get stuck somewhere, and Allied tankers often though later Pz IVs were Tigers anyway because they could destroy Allied tanks at distances only the Tiger was SUPPOSED to be able to accomplish.

Tigers as great vehicles is a MYTH if only you take all the pros and cons into account, which most don't they just think of aces like Wittman who used them more like armoured bunkers than Panzers.

[- Barbarossa Isegrim -]

I think the 88 has always been totally over-rated, the British 3.7-in AA gun was smaller, lighter and out-performed it, except the British never fitted it to a tank. The Germans were lucky they have 88's early in war, because they couldn't stop the British, French and some Russian tanks with other guns unless they employed extreme tactics.

Uhm.. no. The 3.7 icnh AAA was big heavy beast, weighting around 9 tons, while the Flak 88 was only 5 tons or so.

The 3.7inch surely outperformed the 88 in an AA role, if you look at its ballistics, but that was it... it was strictly an AA gun, strictly in static position, because its shear size made it impossible to manouver quickly into another position on the battlefield when needed, or to hide it for ambush. AFAIK the 3.7" also had problems with depressing the barrel lower, which again made it unsuitable for ground use..

The reason the 88 was great was not it`s sheer performance. It was it`s uneqaulled versatilty COMBINED with its performance. It could be easily deployed anywhere, it could depress its barrel enough, it has optical equipment to fight tanks as well, and the crew was trained for that, too. It could fire very quickly. Its performance was good enough to fight anything, and it mobility enabled it to be there when needed.

The British 17pdr, despite being on 76.2 mm calibre could match the 88 in performance and was much more suitable to the FVs of the time.

Uhm, the 17pdr wasn`t really equal in peformance to the 88s, ie. the long KWK 43... in fact the 17pdr was only marginally better than Panther`s long 75mm.



As for your comments on Tigers and Panthers...

1, Germany`s only hope was to rely on quality, as they were obviously outproduced by combined economy of the USSR, USA, and UK.
2, You have some very false impression on how Tigers operated and their reliability and costs...

a1, Raw materials didn`t matter, as German raw material (ie. steel, alumimun etc.) production was second only to the USA. I.e.. Germany alone produced more steel than the UK and USSR combined.
a2, A Panther, according to German sources, cost only around 10% more labour hours to complete than a PzIII. What would you rather have, 10 Panthers or 11 PzIIIs?

b, The Tiger`s servicibility rate was as high or higher than that of the PzIV, IIRC around 70%. Panther was marginally poorer, at around 60-65% servicibility rate.

c, Tigers and Panthers WERE NOT, repeat WERE NOT used as mobile pillboxes, stationary bunkers, dug-in AT guns etc. If you read a detailed history on German defense fights, you will know that they were always used as mobile reserves to cunduct dynamic defense, that means that if the Germans lost a territory held by the infantry and PAK, the Panzer were called forward, and lauched a coutnerattack as soon as they could to retake the terriotory, until the enemy had not yet been able to dug in, bring forward the heavy weapons and reinforcements; when he is still weak and can be easily overpowered.

d, I bet you are surprise in that, but its a fact that Panthers were the MOST MANOUVERABLE TANKS of WW2... they had the best (lowest) ground pressure on soft ground, and a state of the art transmission that enabled them to turn around their own skid... Tigers also had VERY GOOD floatation properties, the Konigstiger had eqaul floatation on soft ground to that of the T-34, due to it`s very wide tracks were combined with an overlapped roadwheel design, despite the common myth they sank all the time - they did not.
I.e. read US tankers who tell you they get mired on grounds where Tigers operate with ease, and that their Sherman requires a large radius to turn, while the Tiger simply turns on it`s skid...

[Trommelfeuer]

bigbuddha, please have a look at http://www.panzerlexikon.de/
there are some good movies of Panthers / Tigers (...and many more...) in action.

Check out the Video-Clips, especially "Ein Panther beim Steigungstest! Zu sehen ist, wie ein Panther und ein erbeuteter M3 Lee versuchen ein Hindernis zu überwinden - 31 sec."

MFG, Sven