German 8.8 Flak - Not Good Enough?

[Specterx]

I did some extensive tests on this, and here are the results:

Summary: Two units each of four different weapons systems (88 FlaK, 88 Pak43, 75mm pak, Nashorn) were faced off with eight vanilla M4 shermans (one sherman per german unit) in eight "lanes", i.e. each unit had only one target. All units were Regular.

Terrain Type: Open Ground

Distance Between Combatants: 700-710 meters

Results:

Turn 1

88mm Flak 1:

Shot 1: Missed

Shot 2: Front upper hull hit on target, KO'ed target

Target was destroyed after 20 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: None

Crew Status: OK

88mm Flak 2:

Shot 1: Missed

Shot 2: Missed

At this point began taking fire from Sherman, first MG bursts supressed the crew, they became "Shaken". Continued taking fire throughout the turn.

Shot 3: Missed

Shot 4: Missed

Shot 5: Missed

Hit by HE shell from Sherman and KO'ed after 50 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: MG fire plus 75mm HE

Crew Status: Shaken, then routed.

88mm Pak43 1:

Shot 1: Missed

Shot 2: Missed

Began taking fire at this point from main gun, no MG fire.

Shot 3: Front hull hit on target, KO'ed target.

Target was destroyed after 29 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: 75mm HE

Crew Status: OK

88mm Pak43 2:

Shot 1: Hit target track, immobilized target

Shot 2: Front upper hull hit on target, KO'ed target.

Target was destroyed after 19 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: MG bursts, one 75mm shot

Crew Status: OK

75mm Pak 1:

Shot 1: Missed

Shot 2: Front hull hit on target, KO'ed target.

Target was destroyed after 20 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: none

Crew Status: OK

75mm Pak 2:

Shot 1: Front hull hit on target, KO'ed target.

Target was destroyed after 10 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: None

Crew Status: OK

Nashorn 1:

Shot 1: Missed

Hit by enemy AP round on first shot, KO'ed.

Unit was destroyed after 6 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: MG bursts, 75mm AP

Nashorn 2:

Hit by enemy AP round on first shot, KO'ed.

Unit was destroyed after 6 seconds.

Enemy Fire Received: MG bursts, 75mm AP

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

Conclusions:

All AT guns involved displayed exceptional accuracy, and, out of the 5 guns that were not under HEAVY enemy fire, every one destroyed its target within 30 seconds, and only one took more than 20. No more than three shots were used in any case, and in 20% of the cases only one shot was required. In 3/5 of the cases only two shots were required.

Furthermore, I've discovered that the ROF of the 88's is identical to that of the 75mm Pak (about 5 seconds per shot).

The one gun that was taken under heavy fire had its accuracy sent to hell, and after 5 shots and 50 seconds it finally succumbed to a HE shell. The Pak43s showed more resistance to MG fire, possibly due to that big shield that it has.

The Nashorns proved to be... useless. Both were KO'ed with ONE shot, which is interesting indeed. The one vehicle that got a shot off missed.

----------

The test would seem to show that the 88's aren't any more or less accurate than any other gun. The Flak version is easy to supress and thus easier to KO, due to the lack of crew protection.

Keep in mind that things such as a moving target and crew supression can SEVERELY affect accuracy, as demonstrated here. The crew that was taken under only moderate fire, and only became "Shaken", became effectively neutralized and soon died. Just having a moving target would throw your aim off, as those big things are hard to turn.

Any Q's post here.

[Jeff Duquette]

A couple of my own personal thoughts on Flak 88mm.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>1) The crews were relatively large compared with a tank crew. When it comes to a crew sensing its own fire obviously the more eyes looking down range the better.

2) It is apparent from studying combat photos\films of 88mm gun crews in action that the gun commander (binos glued to eye balls) and range finder specialist will stand to one or the other side of the gun while it is firing. This gives these fellows a considerable advantage over tank crews when considering obscuration issues (dust, smoke and flash which often obscure a gunner sensing the fall of his own shot). Obscuration issues have been addressed by various operational study groups during WWII and is quite quantifiable.

3) Organic TO&E of Flak 88 crews included a Em. type coincidence range finder (1.5m or 1.6m Em I think). Range finders are obviously a real advantage in increasing first round hit probability, as well as reducing the amount of bracketing a crew must conduct against longer ranged targets…say targets @ 1200m plus. And yes this sort of thing was also studied by various WWII operational groups and is quite quantifiable for those willing to put some elbow grease into research.

4) Quality of optics and magnification of optics also does play a part in long-range fire. And again this has been studied and quantified by operational groups during the war. This information is also available to non-casual historians and non-casual simulation designers that are willing to put some elbow grease (and financing) into research.

Several of the above could realistically be applied to many towed anti-tank weapons (German, Soviet or Anglo-Allied) and/or their crews.

Just my two cents worth.

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Preacher]

When I play nothing is ever good enough

Preacher

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

A couple of my own personal thoughts on Flak 88mm...

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Outstanding post.

[Richard Morgan]

German Boy

My father was in armoured cars. I suppose that makes me lucky to have had that particular dad, or come to that, lucky to be who I am :confused:

He hardly said anything about the war. Only VERY occasionally would the odd line come out and that would always make you think. I discovered one of his war dairies recently though. In it, he mentioned that 4 CLY had suffered heavy casualties at Villers-Bocage and that it was subsequntly amalgamated with 3 CLY, becoming 3/4 CLY, or as he rather acerbically put it, the 4th of the 3rd, as the 4th's command structure more or less took over. He even noted down the names of the officers in the newly formed composite battalion. I don't have this to hand at the moment, the diary is in Cornwall, I am in London, but I will get it next time I am down.

Regards,

Richard.

[Richard Morgan]

I just re-read my first post... Dad was actually in 3 CLY (Well, it was very late at night and I was knackered)

Trivial I know, but one likes to be accurate in these things!!!

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

German Boy

My father was in armoured cars. I suppose that makes me lucky to have had that particular dad, or come to that, lucky to be who I am :confused:

He hardly said anything about the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just found the passage in the 7th AD history stating the losses of the AC drivers of 11th Hussars (the AC Rgt. of 7th AD) - 54 KIA drivers from Normandy to the Elbe.

My grandfather only talks about the war now, and only to me. He never talked to his sons about it.

[tss]

rexford wrote:

Odd things happen in real life that don't occur in calculations, as we have been shown many times.

Once again my canonical example on this: A Finnish 75mm Pak40 team fired at own tank at range of 15 meters and missed. Then reloaded, fired again, and hit, blowing the venerable T-26 to pieces.

At no point did they stop to wonder why the tank had a big blue swastika on it or why the tank commander kept shouting to them to hold fire in clear Finnish.

- Tommi

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

rexford wrote:

Odd things happen in real life that don't occur in calculations, as we have been shown many times.

Once again my canonical example on this: A Finnish 75mm Pak40 team fired at own tank at range of 15 meters and missed. Then reloaded, fired again, and hit, blowing the venerable T-26 to pieces.

At no point did they stop to wonder why the tank had a big blue swastika on it or why the tank commander kept shouting to them to hold fire in clear Finnish.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we go again with the uberFinns. Those trigger happy Finns would stop at nothing to rack up even more tank kills to justify their superior kill ratios over other nations, even if its their own tanks!

Regards

Jim R.

[Tero]

The überFinns shined also in the ordnace expenditure. I have not seen any other army admit their gunners used up to 20 or 40 rounds to kill a single plain vanilla tank (in this case T-34).

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:

The überFinns shined also in the ordnace expenditure. I have not seen any other army admit their gunners used up to 20 or 40 rounds to kill a single plain vanilla tank (in this case T-34).

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, but those where Soumi 9x19mm rounds...

[Andrew H.]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

Once again my canonical example on this: A Finnish 75mm Pak40 team fired at own tank at range of 15 meters and missed. Then reloaded, fired again, and hit, blowing the venerable T-26 to pieces.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if they'd missed with the second shot, they probably would have picked up the Pak 40, charged the T-26, and rammed it.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Yeah, but those where Soumi 9x19mm rounds...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually 75mm and 50mm rounds respectively.

It takes only one 9mm bullet to kill a tank.

[Runyan99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Specterx:

[QB----------

The test would seem to show that the 88's aren't any more or less accurate than any other gun. [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%, and that is the problem as I see it. The 8.8 cm Flak, with a crew of 7, a highly sophisticated range finding system, and some of the best sight optics available in WW2, is not any more or less accurate than the short 75mm gun on a Sherman tank in CM.

Also, at long range it seems obvious that misses in CM are distributed randomly, where in fact the gunners should be bracketing the target constantly, increasing the to-hit chance with each shot. That means that generally, you should only see rounds falling short, or going long, with very little spread to the left or right, unless the gun is very poor or the gunners themselves are very bad. Some of the long range tests that people have run show a target surrounded by random misses.

I hope that CMBB does a better job of simulating some of these qualitative differences between guns.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99:

I agree 100%, and that is the problem as I see it. The 8.8 cm Flak, with a crew of 7, a highly sophisticated range finding system, and some of the best sight optics available in WW2, is not any more or less accurate than the short 75mm gun on a Sherman tank in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cory, after watching a shoot-out between 75mm Shermans and 75L48 armed Panzer IVs in a scenario (Panzer IV 4 - Shermans 0 after three rounds) I simply posit that this is not correct. The Shermans could not hit the broadside of a particularly large barn at that range, while the Panzer IVs achieved a number of hits (we did not continue the scenario because it taxed the machine of my opponent too much). Also, range-finders were used by other German guns, down to HMGs and other nations as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99:

Also, at long range it seems obvious that misses in CM are distributed randomly, where in fact the gunners should be bracketing the target constantly, increasing the to-hit chance with each shot. That means that generally, you should only see rounds falling short, or going long, with very little spread to the left or right, unless the gun is very poor or the gunners themselves are very bad. Some of the long range tests that people have run show a target surrounded by random misses.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Despite this visual appearance, as Dan pointed out in the other thread on gun accuracy, bracketing is actually modeled. Obvious case of WYSINWYG.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Runyan99:

The 8.8 cm Flak, with a crew of 7, a highly sophisticated range finding system, and some of the best sight optics available in WW2, is not any more or less accurate than the short 75mm gun on a Sherman tank in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonsense, see the hit chance display in the LOS or target tools.

Whether the difference is big enough is a different question, but every quite hard data posted in this thread indicates that WW2 units in fact missed as often as CMBO units. And that the anecdotes from books, even creditable books, are overly impressed, lying, or cases of good luck.