Accuracy Data for 88mm Flak

[rexford]

Using the doubled dispersion data which is supposed to model the random scatter of rounds on the battlefield, the Tiger 88mm is acually a little better than the Panther 75mm at many ranges:

HIT % When Range is Known

Tiger 88mm APCBC

100% at 500m

93% at 1000m

74% at 1500m

50% at 2000m

31% at 2500m

19% at 3000m

Panther 75mm APCBC

100% at 500m

97% at 1000m

72% at 1500m

49% at 2000m

29% at 2500m

18% at 3000m

I have seen data for the 88mm Flak in the past which suggested that the scatter was much greater than the Tiger 88, based on lower hit percentages for the case where the range is known and the dispersion is doubled.

Could someone post accuracy data for the 88mm Flak firing AP type ammo, with a reference?

Thanks.

P.S. made some changes to number typo's.

[ August 14, 2004, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[John Kettler]

rexford,

Good info, but then with you, that's pretty much the norm! Also, please see my three fabulous books

post below. You, Jeff Duquette, Paul Lakowski, et al. will benefit. Believe I may also have resolved anomaly which drove Loza's translator to distraction. Loza says emphatically his Lend Lease Matilda tank had a Bren, but describes not the usual magazine but a drum or disk magazine. Maybe he's describing the drum magazine used on Brens for AA work, which with close quarters in a tank, may have been used in lieu of the tall magazine and held lots more ammo, consistent with some of his descriptions of how the coax was used. The Bren on Matilda thing is but a sidebar to what awaits you

in my thread.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Mr. Tittles]

Its actually so close to be within measurable tolerance levels. The fact that the Panther is listed as 97% at 1000m and the Tiger is 91% amkes me wonder.

The 88mm Flak DID have a rather large rangefinder and it could easily find range data more accurately than a Tank that relied upon a TC with ordinary binoculars. The data above is for the case of a stationary target WHEN the range is known?

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Its actually so close to be within measurable tolerance levels. The fact that the Panther is listed as 97% at 1000m and the Tiger is 91% amkes me wonder.

The 88mm Flak DID have a rather large rangefinder and it could easily find range data more accurately than a Tank that relied upon a TC with ordinary binoculars. The data above is for the case of a stationary target WHEN the range is known?

Stationary target at known range.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy7.html

Footnotes

1. 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Tank Combat in North Africa. Note that there is a significant difference in accuracy between the early Pzgr. and the later Pzgr.39 fired from the 8,8cm Kw.K.36. [up]

2. 8,8cm Kw.K.36. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37 is ballistically the same as the Kw.K.36, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.36 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Flak would be similar for these ammunition types. [up]

3. 8,8cm Kw.K.43. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 8,8cm Pak 43/41 are ballistically the same as the Kw.K.43, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.43 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 43/41 would be similar. [up]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy7.html

Footnotes

1. 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Tank Combat in North Africa. Note that there is a significant difference in accuracy between the early Pzgr. and the later Pzgr.39 fired from the 8,8cm Kw.K.36. [up]

2. 8,8cm Kw.K.36. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37 is ballistically the same as the Kw.K.36, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.36 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Flak would be similar for these ammunition types. [up]

3. 8,8cm Kw.K.43. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 8,8cm Pak 43/41 are ballistically the same as the Kw.K.43, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.43 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 43/41 would be similar. [up]

Thanks for identifying the material and sources.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_accuracy7.html

Footnotes

1. 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Tank Combat in North Africa. Note that there is a significant difference in accuracy between the early Pzgr. and the later Pzgr.39 fired from the 8,8cm Kw.K.36. [up]

2. 8,8cm Kw.K.36. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37 is ballistically the same as the Kw.K.36, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.36 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Flak would be similar for these ammunition types. [up]

3. 8,8cm Kw.K.43. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics. Although the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 8,8cm Pak 43/41 are ballistically the same as the Kw.K.43, the accuracy is specified only for the Kw.K.43 in the reference. It is likely that the accuracy for the 8,8cm Pak 43 and 43/41 would be similar. [up]

I have a British reported dated November 18, 1944, where the 88mm Flak fires the 88mm Pzgr APCBC round at 9.6 kg. Report held by PRO as WO194/749, on German 75mm and 88mm APCBC against oblique armour.

So it seems that the 88mm Pzgr APCBC fired by the Flak 36 was not just an early war round, but was being made for that gun through late 1944. Different APCBC were made for the 88mm tank guns.

While this is speculation, it seemed that the greater dispersion when the 88mm Flak fired, as opposed to the Tiger 88mm, might have due to the characteristics of the flak gun, which does not provide as stable a platform as a Tiger tank.

Or maybe the Tiger gun was just different enough to be much better.

The Pzgr round fired by the Flak 36 was a large capacity round with an extra large HE burster.

[ August 16, 2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

The known range accuracy for 88mm Flak 18, 36 and 37 against a 2m x 2.5m target are (doubled dispersion):

500m, 98% (100%)

1000m, 64% (93%)

1500m, 38% (74%)

2000m, 23% (50%)

2500m, 15% (31%)

3000m, 10% (19%)

Quite a bit less than the Tiger 88 at most ranges (Tiger dispersion hit % in brackets).

The 88mm Flak fired a large HE capacity Pzgr APCBC round weighing 9.6 kg through November 1944, according to a British report I have (PRO holds the report by number WO 194/749). Tiger 88mm fired a smaller HE capacity APCBC round (Pzgr 39).

It is difficult to match the above stats for 88mm Flak rounds with a known range against the stories from North Africa where British crews would sometimes bail out if an 88mm Flak MISS came close, cause they were sure the next round would be on target.

Doubling the dispersion kinda kills the accuracy with a known range, and it is probable that the best crews were able to put their rounds in a consistent fashion closer to the intended aim point (a combination of better gun sight settings and good weapon alignment/maintenance would be needed here).

[Mr. Tittles]

The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's " Dreaded Threat".

In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37.

During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s.

30 degrees Penetration

88mm Pzgr APCBC- Early 88mm Flak Ammo

100....500.....1000.....1500......2000m

98.....93........87.......80......72mm

30 degrees Penetration

88mm Pzgr 39 APCBC- Tiger E Round

100....500.....1000.....1500....2000m

127....117.....106.......96......88mm

The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr with penetration less than 100mm at 30 degrees. In May 1941 Hitler had demanded a Tank weapon capable of penetrating 100mm at about 1500m and the improved Pzgr.39 could approach that. The 88 was retained for the Tiger I instead of installing the 75 L/70.

-------------------------------------------------

In terms of 0 degree penetration, we used the slope effects in our book on WW II BALLISTICS with the 30 degree figures noted above and arrived at the following 0 degree figures for early 88mm Flak APCBC and small capacity 88mm APCBC (as used on Tiger E):

0 Degree Penetration

Early 88mm Flak large HE capacity APCBC

100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m

123....116....108.....99.......88

0 Degree Penetration

Tiger E Smaller HE Capacity 88mm APCBC

100m...500m...1000m...1500m....2000m

162....149....134.....120......109

(162).(151)..(138)...(126)....(116) (Our book)

The 88mm Flak APCBC which fought the KV and T34 tanks during 1941 and early 1942 was less effective than the round fired by the Tiger E. A British firing report shows that the later 88mm Flak round with a large capacity HE burster (and 9.54 kg weight) penetrated 8% less than the Tiger E APCBC, but the above data shows about a 23% average inferiority for early 88mm Flak ammo.

We believe that the early Barbarossa 88mm APCBC round not only contained a larger HE burster than the Tiger round and weighed less, but was softer steel which resulted in about an 8% drop in penetration for burster size and reduced weight, and about a 15% decrease due to less effective metal.

The stories where 88mm Flak hits on KV tanks resulted in no damage may be due to nose shatter (shatter gap), which occurred with U.S. projectiles when the metal hardness fell below a given threshold and the round over penetrated the armor resistance.

http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm#PENETRATION_VS._ARMOR_BASICS

[Mr. Tittles]

I think the number of Tiger Is and 88mm Flak need to be considered. There were probably never more than a few hundred Tiger Is operational at most times. 88mm Flak were in the thousands. Granted many Flak guns were guarding cities, many were also in Army field Flak battalions.

My thought would be that there would be no need to continue producing a sub standard AP round. Both weapons would probably use the improved 88mm AP in the field. Any old AP would be relegated to home guard or other non-front units.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I think the number of Tiger Is and 88mm Flak need to be considered. There were probably never more than a few hundred Tiger Is operational at most times. 88mm Flak were in the thousands. Granted many Flak guns were guarding cities, many were also in Army field Flak battalions.

My thought would be that there would be no need to continue producing a sub standard AP round. Both weapons would probably use the improved 88mm AP in the field. Any old AP would be relegated to home guard or other non-front units.

It appears that the Germans still were using the 9.6 kg large capacity rounds in the 88mm Flak 36 guns during late 1944, which seems to be a fact.

The British did not say that the Flak guns originally used Pzgr, then switched to Pzgr 39, and then were found using Pzgr.

There are many factors that lead to somewhat off looking WW II decisions which we are not aware of, and may never know much about.

[Mr. Tittles]

Ammunition is produced in great quantities. Its possible that the older ammo could have lingered on in stockpiles and was used even though it was not being produced at that time.

The Tiger I and the 88mm Flak used different firing methods (electric in Tiger, percussion in 88mm Flak) but except for fuze changes, I believe ammo could be interchanged. I have seen photos of Tiger Tanks with three different colored ammo types; black (AP), Green (HE) and yellow (evidently a Flak round).

German consumption of 88mm ammunition for the Flak/Tiger program was phenomenal. Millions of rounds of 88mm were being fired every month. I find it difficult to believe that the Germans would not try to standardize the two applications of the 88mmL56 (no other vehicle used this weapon).

[rexford]

Our book shows two 88mm Flak rounds at 9.54 kg, an early war version and a later war improved version:

"The 88mm Flak APCBC which fought the KV and T34 tanks during 1941 and early 1942 was less effective than the round fired by the Tiger E. A British firing report shows that the later 88mm Flak round with a large capacity HE burster (and 9.54 kg weight) penetrated 8% less than the Tiger E APCBC, but the above data shows about a 23% average inferiority for early 88mm Flak ammo."

Based on our research the Germans continued to produce the 9.54 kg Pzgr APCBC round for their 88mm L56 Flak units, and the Tiger used the slightly more effective Pzgr 39 APCBC ammo at 10.0 kg (Tiger APCBC has more penetration, due in part, to a smaller HE burster).

Our conclusions may be different from Mr. Jentz , since we have good reason to believe there was an improved Pzgr large HE capacity APCBC round fired by 88mm Flak units and the improved round was used by the British in their firing tests with German 75mm and 88mm APCBC ammo against oblique targets.

There is definite evidence of an improved Pzgr round, at around 9.6 kg, which shows up in many of the British documents that we have. Not just one report. And it appears that the improved Pzgr round was produced through 1944 and was not replaced with the 10 kg smaller HE capacity round fired by Tiger.

We've done quite a bit of research on the APCBC round fired by the Flak guns using British intelligence reports, data that the British captured from the Germans and British firing tests.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

I find it difficult to believe that the Germans would not try to standardize the two applications of the 88mmL56 (no other vehicle used this weapon).

British evidence shows that the Tiger 88mm L56 and the Flak 88mm L56 fired different APCBC rounds at least through late 1944. Tiger used small capacity round, 88mm Flak used large capacity round.

Tiger 88mm APCBC had 0.59% of weight as HE burster, 88mm Flak ammo had 1.65%.

German 75mm APCBC had 0.20% of weight as HE burster, one of the smallest percentages for a WW II armor piercing round with a burster.

88L71 APCBC has same percentage as Tiger round, 0.59%.

[Jeff Duquette]

Lorrin Said: “British evidence shows that the Tiger 88mm L56 and the Flak 88mm L56 fired different APCBC rounds at least through late 1944. Tiger used small capacity round, 88mm Flak used large capacity round.”

The heavier and more accurate 8,8cm Pzgr.39 FES was employed by both the FLAK18 & 36 as well as the 8,8cm KwK36. The Flak18 & 36 were employing the more accurate round as early as 1942.

The less accurate APCBC round employed by the 8,8cm Flak18 & 36 is the 8,8cm Pzgr.Patr.mBd.Z. This round was not employed by the KwK36. The 8,8cm Pzgr.Patr.mBd.Z round has a higher level of shot scatter, or a larger dispersion pattern than the FES round.

Flak 18 & 36 firing pzgr 39 FES had a 50% dispersion zone at 1000m of 0,2m (horizontal) and 0,4m (vertical).

Flak 18 & 36 firing Pzgr.Patr.mBd.Z had a 50% dispersion zone at 1000m of 0,4m (horizontal) and 0,7m (vertical).

KwK 36 Firing pzgr 39 FES had a 50% dispersion zone at 1000m of 0,2m (horizontal) and 0,4m (vertical).

The greater accuracy issue appears to be associated with ammunition type rather than the Tiger-1’s main gun being more accurate than the Flak-36.

Source information:

1) H.Dv.481/541 “Merkblatt fur die Munition der 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18, und der 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 36” dated May 20, 1942.

2) H.Dv.481/60 “Merkblatt fur die Munition der 8,8 cm Kampfwagenkanone 36”, dated Jan 1, 1943.

[Mr. Tittles]

Die Munitionsfertigung für die 8,8-cm-KwK 36 sah wie folgt aus (in 1.000 Schuß):

Bezeichnung ___________1942___1943____1944

8,8-cm-Sprenggranate ___14,1__1.392,2__459,4

8,8-cm-Panzergranate39__21,2___324,8___394,4

8,8-cm-Panzergranate40___0,8_____8,9 ------

The 8,8-cm-Panzergranate39 is being produced at a rate of 890 a day in 1943. Tiger I tanks are being produced at 1 to 2 a day during the same period. Clearly the Tiger I could not fire this much ammo. I would assume that starting in early 1943, the FlaK guns are also using this improved AP round.

Still, given the number of FlaK guns that may have been fielded in Army Flak battalions; could there have been a limit on the number of these rounds available?

[rexford]

If the 88mm L56 Flak APCBC (9.6 kg) round was designed to be fired at 810 m/s and the 88mm L56 Tiger round (10 kg) was designed to be fired at 780 m/s, there is a chance that they were not meant to be interchanged.

Instead of speculating on whether they were or were not interchangeable we should point out the possibility and leave it at that.

[Mr. Tittles]

The main problem would be sights and fuze.

[DesertFox]

Originally posted by rexford:

there is a chance that they were not meant to be interchanged.

Just curious,

wherefrom could someone get the idea that they could be interchanged ? I was under the impression that they used different cartridges ? Also, I think FLAK and KwK differed significantly in size and form of the chamber ? They both had the same caliber length, but that does not mean they could exchange ammo. Or am I missing something ?

cheers

[ August 23, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: DesertFox ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by DesertFox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford:

there is a chance that they were not meant to be interchanged.

Just curious,

wherefrom could someone get the idea that they could be interchanged ? Have you ever looked at the different cartridges ? It´s pretty clear that no FLAK 18/36/37 88/L56 could in any case exchange its ammo with the KwK 88/L56.

FLAK and KwK differed significantly in size and form of the chamber. They both had the same caliber length, but that does not mean they could exchange ammo.

cheers </font>

[DesertFox]

Rexford,

that ammo question made me curious and I digged a little in my book shelf where I found an interesting bit of information that rendered my initial assumption to be wrong.

The piece of info refers to the KwK 88/L56 and reads:

"The gun was still fired electrically fired, as were all German tank guns, and used the same type of ammunition as the FlaK 18, 36 and 38 guns, although it was referred to as Panzergranate (PzGr) to identify stocks as tank ammunition."

The above quote is from:

88 mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 & PaK 43 1936-45, John Norris, ISBN 1 84176 341 1, 2002 Osprey Publishing Ltd, page 36, Line 17-20

hope that helps a bit

cheers

Helge

[Mr. Tittles]

The Tiger I and 88mm Flak both used a similarly sized overall piece of ammunition. I believe the Panzer III and Pak38 also had the same ammunition but they also may have had different fuze technologies. Panzer IV 75mmL48 was only compatible with other 75mmL43 and 75mmL48 AFV weapons. 75mmL46 ATG was unique as well as the Panther 75mmL70.

It would noy be that difficult to swap a 88mm AP projectile from a Flak gun to a Tiger cartridge either.

[rexford]

Mr. Tittles,

I'am beginning to believe that the doubled dispersion is too critical for guns like the 75L58 using APCBC. Makes corrections too impossible, as you point out.

Maybe something a little smaller, like 1.4x for combat conditions.

Waddayouthink?

[Mr. Tittles]

My gut feeling is that the distribution needs to be tighter.

Basically, this is an density or area distribution question. The Germans were probably annoyed that the data was not circular in that all the points were centered about an aim point. They therefore broke up each hit location into its x and y component.

Suppose that we apply the sigs to area instead of the individual lengths? So for a 1 m by 1m area, the first sig would 1.48 sq m or 1.2mx1.2m? The 95% 2 sig would be 2.91 sq m or 1.7m x 1.7m or a total vertical component of +/-0.85m from the aim point?

Notice that doubling the 1mx1m data dispersion yields 4 sq m (2mx2m).

Perhaps the Germans were saying that doubling the 50% zone gives a battlefield fudge when the range was known.

[ August 26, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

[rexford]

The British did not use a doubled dispersion when they calculated hit probabilities, and their firing trials suggest that the single dispersion was a satisfactory figure when it comes to matching firing tests with calculations.

The British found that random dispersions follow a bell shaped normal distribution curve, so using that sort of curve seems to be reasonable.

Whether firing tests on a nice quiet proving grounds, or shots against a simulated Tiger model on a quiet piece of Italian terrain, would simulate one's ability to aim precisely and consistently on a battle field is another matter.

The other point to keep in mind is the Churchill IV trials, where three tanks out of five shot relatively straight and true, and two tanks had guns that fired very poorly and had extreme dispersions with a known range.

The German dispersion curves probably represent the average of the good, the bad and the middle of the road types. Where the average dispersion is built up by the very poor guns.

Double dispersion might be good for initial shots by worried or hurried gunners using less than excellent weapons.