Should 88s be capable of delivering airbursts on TRPs?

[Guest Germanboy]

USERNAME has a point in the 'HE ricochet' thread. So here is a collection of posts regarding this topic, collected from the HE ricochet thread. I hope that is okay with the authors.

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

I have read a number of accounts of German AA gun airbursts on pre-registered targets (e.g. cross-roads). Effect would be similar to VT Fuses, I believe. I have no idea whether high-velocity guns needed LOS to the target or whether they could do indirect fire. I imagine the way it could have worked was that the German gunners established flight-time on target and then just put a delay onto their rounds to make it go boom in the air over it. But as I said, any sort of enlightening would be very welcome.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Germyboy, i'm reading a personal account now which mentions the airbust of an 88'. The author (from 'Guns of Normandy') seems to have been frequently warned and worried about 88s using an airburst over him/his vehicles. Seems to have been a common enough tactic and I would guess it would be done in the manner you mention, definately not skipping, and requiring a bit of fore-planning I imagine.

PeterNZ

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Of course, another interesting question is, were the guns actually 88s or were they, for example, 105 mm howitzers that were misidentified. (If the fire was indirect). In any case, 105 mm airburst is pretty much more effective than a 88 mm airburst.

Also, I would be surprised if Germans fired 88s indirectly very often, because they were didn't belong to field artillery (at least, AFAIK) so they didn't have forward observation teams that are necessery for accurate indirect fire.

However, I have come upon one account of German 88mm indirect use so it happened at least sometimes. One Finnish artillery officer mentions in his memoirs that he once witnessed Germans firing their flak guns indirectly. It was either in "Vienan tykit" (Tamminen) or "Jatkosodan päiviä ja öitä" (Holmström)

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

'Company Commander' is talking (IIRC) about airbursts from a 12.8mm AA unit outside Leipzig. I could also imagine it to be long-range DF fire with time-fuses. AA HE ammo would have that I presume because you need it to go off in a bomber stream, not 2,000 yards above or below.

Point in game terms is that regardless of what kind of calibre/gun, would there be a historic reason to give the Germans limited VT-like arty support (e.g. restricted to TRPs).

I can live with that not being done until CM2, but I think it is worthwhile investigating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Yup, timed fuzes were certainly used by all countries. According to the above-mentioned regulations book they didn't need much more spotting rounds than impact fuzes. Their main weakness was that at long ranges the height dispersion was too large for them.

- Tommi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

QUOTE]Originally posted by PeterNZer:

Ahh, yes, I forgot to bring that point up TSS. It could very well be 105s or whatever. After all, throughout his account all they talk about is 88's and Tigers and SS.. seems that's all there was in Normandy

PeterNZ

[Jarmo]

Assuming it would be done with VT fuzes, there would be a question if

the guns have the necesseary ammo availlable.

At least the Flak versions almost certainly would.

I like the idea.

IIRC, this was discussed at length a long time ago.

[Juardis]

According to the story about the Allied Mobile Artillery Section (link provided by Frenchy? in an earlier thread), they captured an 88 and fired it indirectly. The story did not differentiate it from the AT variety or the AA variety, so I'm not sure which it was, but there is confirmation that an 88 was fired indirectly.

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

Jeff Abbott

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The 88 AA had timed fuses to set for a certain altitude, when firing in the AA role. The normal use was to have the shell burst at 18000 feet or 20000 feet, etc. Since those worked by how long the shell had been traveling, it was possible to dial in an "altitude" setting that would explode the shell during flight, exactly like a flak burst, at some predetermined distance.

They would probably have to test-fire to get the right distance to altitude adjustment. But with a few rounds of testing, they could indeed have bore-sighted an 88 AA at a crossroads, with the shell timed to go off in the air above it.

First I've heard of it actually being done, but it would have been possible. Only, though, in defensive situations where the defender had time to set up a combination "ambush marker" and TRP, and only for an 88mm FLAK, not the anti-tank guns.

The German tube artillery, by the way, did not have the VT fuse, which was invented by the U.S. during the war. The FLAK fuses were a specific time, whereas the VT adjusted the time of explosion based on detecting the target with a tiny radar cone in the nose of the shell (hence "variable" time).

What the Germans might be able to elaborately plan and prepare with an AA gun only, the Americans could do on the fly at any target of opportunity with the real tube artillery.

[Slapdragon]

Sure. This is all similar to the use of Allied tanks for indiect fire. In theory US tanks that used the 75, 76, and 90mm guns could be used for indirect fire with proper tables and with setup. It was done a few times, usually at the onset of major attacks. Tankers fired indirect in training and in theory could have the tables and other data to do it. Of course the Wespe, Hummel, Priest, M8, Bishop, and some others also could fire indirect and had much more training

The problem is, how often was it done in combat? Not often I surmise, because it is seldom mentioned. I suspect that Allied tanker had enough to do and it was an adhoc thing that required someone to help units align their guns.

The only way then to handle this would be to have a bumped up point value for units that could be purchased with the ability to fire short range indirect fire. VT fire would be similar since you need to know where you are, where the target is, and you need to figure it as a fire mission so you can adjust the fuse settings (except the US 105mm which could fire ground / radar VT fuses, which explode above the ground, compared to the air radar VT shells which explode near a metal mass and were used for AA).

So this would be just like buying 105 VT, you just buy the vehicle with the added vehicle (or ignore it if you are designing a scenario). While I doubt the coding effort by BTS would be worth it (afterall, we are talking about rare events), it seems it could be done easily, and would then just be a different unit to represent the unusual skill / use of the VT.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

They would probably have to test-fire to get the right distance to altitude adjustment. But with a few rounds of testing, they could indeed have bore-sighted an 88 AA at a crossroads, with the shell timed to go off in the air above it.

First I've heard of it actually being done, but it would have been possible. Only, though, in defensive situations where the defender had time to set up a combination "ambush marker" and TRP, and only for an 88mm FLAK, not the anti-tank guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is exactly how I imagine it was done, and how the first-hand accounts surmised it had been done. Only that sometimes they would just register in important supply routes they knew the Allies had to use (e.g. because it was the only decent road in the region) and just shell it at random to make things 'interesting' on the other side. That would be outside CM though.

The way you describe it, as part of a well-planned defense, would be applicable in a CM -style situation (on larger maps) though. Again, I think some deep thinking is necessary to translate it into game terms (certainly not a solution a la 'buy an 88 and a TRP and off you go with airbursts at no extra cost') Maybe an 88 FOO or somefink. Something to mull over for CM2?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

1. The problem is, how often was it done in combat? Not often I surmise, because it is seldom mentioned. I suspect that Allied tanker had enough to do and it was an adhoc thing that required someone to help units align their guns.

*snip*

2. So this would be just like buying 105 VT, you just buy the vehicle with the added vehicle (or ignore it if you are designing a scenario). While I doubt the coding effort by BTS would be worth it (afterall, we are talking about rare events), it seems it could be done easily, and would then just be a different unit to represent the unusual skill / use of the VT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Slapdragon

1. My readings indicate it was not a rare event in a combat situation, but I would have to go back to stuff in storage to back that up. I also think that the comparison to Allied tanks is flawed. The range for tank indirect fire would have been outside CM maps if I understand that correctly. If you want to model that, just get a 75mm FOO for the Allies. Also, the Germans may have used their tanks in that way too. Anyway, that Allied tank indirect fire is not included is not an argument for the exclusion of 88 AA airbursts.

2. I completely agree, there should be a high cost.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 01-15-2001).]

[109 Gustav]

According to CM, the velocity of an 88mm flak gun is 773 m/s. Lets say that you are trying to use a timed fuse for a target 2000m away. For the round to be effective, it needs to be within say, 50m of the target either way. The fuse must be set to detonate the round between 2.65 sec and 2.52 sec. Therefore, you must set the fuse to within .13 sec of the correct time if you want to cause any damage to the target. Any more time, and the round will travel past the target and explode. Any less and it will fall short. I have no idea how closely you can set the fuse, but getting it to a tenth of a second sounds pretty hard.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[Guest YK2]

Hey Germanboy, get your ass over to the new pool thread on the double......

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Actually, 1/10th of a second intervals are standard on timed fuses today, in the U.S. field artillery (where I did my time).

The 88 Flak, though, might be calibrated somewhat differently. The fuses they would be using would be the AA ones, which were meant to specify a particular altitude. As in, you can dial in 18000 feet or 19000 feet. I do not know the fineness they actually had, but from general air combat things I think FLAK without 500 foot adjustments, if not 100 foot adjustments, would have been pretty useless (the planes would just fly between the levels).

If you assume the adjustments are 500 feet, what does that mean in terms of time, at an altitude of 20000 feet? A first approximation ignores air resistence and just uses the parabola - rising 20,000 feet in the air is 6154 meters (about). A little quadratic with 773 initial gives a time of 8.42 seconds. Increase the height to 20,500 or 6308 meters gives 8.64 seconds, or .22 difference.

OK, so the shell is moving slow enough at that altitude, a 1/10th second gradation is adequate to discriminate the altitude in about 250-foot intervals. For FLAK use that may have been enough, or they may have had 1/20th of a second or 1/5th, but they had to have at least that much fineness or their would not have been any bombers going down, which there were.

In flat trajectory fire, if they had 1/20th of a second fineness they could have hit a target to 40 meter discrimination, and if they only had 1/10th of a second, to 80 meter discrimination. So you try it. If it is in the wrong place by 10 meters, you move the gun a litte.

No problem...

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Actually, 1/10th of a second intervals are standard on timed fuses today, in the U.S. field artillery (where I did my time).

Interesting. How well can you get the rounds to burst at the right time?

I do not know the fineness they actually had, but from general air combat things I think FLAK without 500 foot adjustments, if not 100 foot adjustments, would have been pretty useless (the planes would just fly between the levels).

Maybe not. 88 flak guns were fired in batteries, with radar giving the battery the angles and range to fire. The guns had a device similar to a ship's engine room telegraph that gave gun crews the firing information. Therefore, if you want to shoot to a 100 or 500 ft level of accuracy, you must have a radar set guiding the guns to that same level of accruacy. And sadly, I do not know how accurate German radar was at the time.

A little quadratic with 773 initial gives a time of 8.42 seconds. Increase the height to 20,500 or 6308 meters gives 8.64 seconds, or .22 difference.

And just when I thought I was understanding one of these grognard's discussions on 88s. Maybe I should have stayed awake in Physics class.

OK, so the shell is moving slow enough at that altitude, a 1/10th second gradation is adequate to discriminate the altitude in about 250-foot intervals. For FLAK use that may have been enough, or they may have had 1/20th of a second or 1/5th, but they had to have at least that much fineness or their would not have been any bombers going down, which there were.

Didn't it take a couple thousand shells per bomber, though? The only statistic I have says 8,500; not sure on the reliability.

In flat trajectory fire, if they had 1/20th of a second fineness they could have hit a target to 40 meter discrimination, and if they only had 1/10th of a second, to 80 meter discrimination. So you try it. If it is in the wrong place by 10 meters, you move the gun a little. No problem.

Limbering the gun, moving it out of that nicely prepared foxhole, moving it a couple yards behind you all because that idiot gun captain wants to put a couple of shells in the general direction of some soldiers you can't even see without binocs... If I was a member of that gun crew, yes there would be a problem.

Oh yeah, almost forgot. Excellent post.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[This message has been edited by 109 Gustav (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Bullethead]

The use of German flak guns to fire airbursts at ground targets is well-documented. No surprise, considering they had more time fuzes for their HE than impact, given the guns' main role. This is the main reason US grunts hated the 88 and other big flak guns so much. For an example of being on the receiving end of this, read MacDonald's Company Commander.

The 8.8cm Flak 18, 36, and 37 all used the Zeit Z S/30 family of time fuzes. These fuzes had a maximum running time of 30 seconds (hence the S/30). Like all German time fuzes, these were set using a hand-cranked device that was so accurate that there were no time markings on the fuzes.

As to how the Germans would set these fuzes to burst at the right place relative to the target, they had tables showing what fuze setting to use at a given range. Thus, the real question was determining the range. For this, there were at least 2 main methods: by pure eyeball and using an optical rangefinder, which was a standard piece of equipment for big flak guns. Either method would probably result in firing a few shots and tweaking the fuze setting based on observation to get the setting optimized. However, this would only take a few seconds due to the high ROF of the gun and its muzzle velocity.

So IMHO, guns like the 88 Flak should be able to shoot airbursts anywhere on the map very rapidly. If they had a TRP-like thing you there, they'd be able to do it even quicker because, like an arty TRP, all this would be is a marker showing where you've already got the range and fuze settings figured.

BTW, just to make sure we're on the same wavelength, any TRP-like thing used by an 88 should be totally separate and distinct from an arty TRP. They would be created by different people on different communications nets for entirely different purposes. The thing the 88 would use would be much more akin to an HMG's recording its T&E settings to hit various places in its sector of fire or for its PDF.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Jeff Heidman]

One thing to think about with 88 firing air bursts in CM is that we are talking about pretty short ranges.

In my experience, in CM I rarely am firing my 88s at grunts anyway, usually reserving them for vehicles.

At the ranges you typically see in CM, any 88 firing at infantry will probably not last for long, since they are a big, fat, juicy, and vulnerable target to small arms/MG fire.

So letting them fire VT like is probably not that big a deal, although modelling those first few rounds inaccuracy could be difficult. At least with direct contact fusing, close is good enough. With air fusing, a small error in range estimation is going to result in a clean miss.

Jeff Heidman

[tss]

jasoncawley@ameritech.net wrote:

Actually, 1/10th of a second intervals are standard on timed fuses today, in the U.S. field artillery (where I did my time).

I have one schematic drawing of a WWII timed fuze. However, the explanations are quite lacking. Finnish army used four types of timed fuzes, with two different parameters. These were:

A) The fuze type:

- "burning fuze" that had a powder trail that burned with specific speed. The fuze was set by turning a dial that lenghtened or shortened the trail.

- "clock fuze" that had a mechanical clock system that exploded it when the set time had elapsed.

Range setting

- distance -- this was used with guns with integated propellant charges

- time -- for guns with separate shot and propellant.

The drawing is of a "burning fuze", but I don't know whether the settings are for range or time. If it is a range fuze, the granularity is ~50 meters (one distance tick per 100 m). If it is a time fuze, the granularity is ~0.5 seconds. I think that the range explanation is more probable, since the scale then goes upto '130'. Flight times of 130 seconds were impossible with Finnish guns of the time, so it probably means 13 km. The first tick is at '9', which would then correspond to 900 meters.

Note that both "burning" and "clock" fuzes were ignited by firing them. This is in contrast with 88 mm flak shells that were automatically ignited the second that they were taken from the automatic timer-setting device.

The timer-setter of a flak gun was calibrated for a particular loader. The loader practiced until he could achieve a near-constant loading speed. However, I would be very surprised if he could achieve better than 1/10 s accuracy in his loading. Also, after the shell was taken out of the time-setter, it would blow up after the set time, no matter what had happened. So, I would feel very uneasy shooting targets closer than 500 meters, because if the loader fumbled around for a second, the shell would go off before firing.

I would guess that Germans had also traditional timed fuzes, but I don't know whether AA crews would have them or not.

In flat trajectory fire, if they had 1/20th of a second fineness they could have hit a target to 40 meter discrimination, and if they only had 1/10th of a second, to 80 meter discrimination.

The Finnish artillery regulations state that for a 76K02, the maximum effect is achieved with air bursts of 15 m or lower, and adequate effect at 25 m or lower. The shrapnel effect extends to 45 m to the sides.

According to Enqvist's "Itsenäisen Suomen rannikkotykit", a 88mm flak HE shell weighted 9.0 kg. The 76K02 HE shell weighted 6.35 kg, and so 88mm gun probably had a little better shrapnell effect, maybe ~50-55 meters. (A 12 kg 107mm round had an effect at 65 m).

Note that hitting with a 76K02 was easier since its muzzle velocity was 460 m/s with a half-charge and 605 m/s with the full charge. With the half charge, a 50 m granularity would correspond to 0.1 second fuze accuracy and with a full charge to a 0.08 s accuracy.

However, the round slowed down pretty quickly and at its impact velocity was 200-250 m/s, depending on the charge and range. With those speeds, a 1/5-1/4 s accuracy would be enough. Of course, the actual average speed would be somewhere between those extremes.

I think that the largest problem on using air bursts with the 88 flak is its high muzzle velocity. As even a small mistake in estimates will cause the round to miss airbursts can be attempted only against targets whose ranges are known exactly, i.e., registered targets.

Also, if (and that's a big IF) the guns used the AA fuzes, the problem of loader's consistency becames very relevant. Few people can achieve 1/10 s consistency in their actions and that 1/10 would be enough to cause the round to miss. Again, the AA fuzes would probably be used only against targets with flight time of several seconds (1.5-3km) or so, since otherwise the error marginal would be uncomfortably small.

- Tommi

[TheDesertFox]

Well,

As the Brits put it: This gun was

"Antiaircraft, antitank and antisocial"

As for 88s firing "Airbursts" into enemy targets.... The german FLAK guys did it frequently. How do you think they were such an annoyance to the allied soldiers ?

For the tech specs: They used either AZ 23/28 fuzes or the time fuzed Z S/30 rounds which easily could be adapted to the time necessary to explode above target.

Tactically: All 88 Flak units were able to do both jobs, AT and AA, because they weren´t commited to be AT in the first line. 88s were "Luftwaffen guns" and not AT guns. Every 88 platoon (at least 4 88s) carried all tools necessary to switch between AA role and AT role.

There is more than enough written in books about the problems between the commmanders of Flak Corps and the Infantry division commanders who more than often used the 88s as a last stop gap toys to delay the breakdown of the defense lines.

I recommend to read "Janusz Piecalkiewicz - Die 8,8 Flak im Erdkampfeinsatz", this might be tranlated to english.

Helge

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

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Banshee]

The way 88mm (and btw the Germans had a lot of 128mm AA cannons too) would be represented in CM would be to have a FO calling in fire. Since the scale of CM is much smaller than what the books (like Company Commander and A Screaming Eagle in Holland) are talking about.

This conversation brings up a point which I think is a flaw in CM, the lack of 88mm FO's of any kind. 88mm were big indirect fire contributors, but CM doesn't have any in the indirect role. I think CM should have 88mm FO's, 88mm VT FO's, and 128mm VT FO's modeled. The use of 88mm's as artillery is well documented (they were preferred rounds in some cases because they travelled faster than sound and would explode before people could hear them, thus causing more damage with their initial rounds).

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-15-2001).]

[Guest wwb_99]

I remeber reading accounts of the Germans using 88mms in indirect roles in fixed defensive situations, particularly on D-Day. But I gathered that it was not that common an occourance, only happening with very prepared defenses. And after D-Day, the battlefield was a little too fluid for the necessary preparations to be made. I would not be suprised if they were also used in this role along the westwall, but I have no data to back this up.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[illo]

I've read that 88mm AA batteries were used as indirect artillery at east front when there wasnt proper artillery around and enemy air activity was low. Sorry but i dont remember the source.

[Sergei]

I have heard that Finnish army had a technique for using Maxim MG's in indirect role. I have seen some tables of how large hit percentage it would have had on standing or lying targets at different ranges. I don't know if it ever was utilized in war, I think that is just waste of ammunition and not practical at all. Then again, modern AGL's can be used in the same way.

[109 Gustav]

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

The 8.8cm Flak 18, 36, and 37 all used the Zeit Z S/30 family of time fuzes. These fuzes had a maximum running time of 30 seconds (hence the S/30). Like all German time fuzes, these were set using a hand-cranked device that was so accurate that there were no time markings on the fuzes.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, looks like they could set the rounds to explode more precicely than I had figured. (Munch, munch, munch) Crow doesn't taste that bad after all.

Now I see why the 88 was feared more than conventional direct fire guns. It fires a supersonic round, so all of a sudden, there's an airburst spraying shrapnel around, and you had no warning at all that you should have ducked.

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

Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.

But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.

And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.

-Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On the radar direction of German FLAK, that is a story of measure and countermeasure actually. The Brits invented chaff during WW II to fool the radar sets on those 88s. Pathfinder planes (Mosquitos usually in the RAF) flew ahead of the bombers and dropped their loads of tinfoil, cut to the wavelength of the German radar. The bombers came soon after, but at a somewhat higher altitude, and the chaff was also fluttering downward in the meantime.

The result was the German radar directed FLAK was fooled into firing too low, below the bombers. But the Germans rapidly figured out what was going on, and disabled their radar directors. They then had to use some other means of estimating the altitude of the attacking formation. After a number of ad hoc means (adding this, eyeballing that, etc) they finally hit upon one that really worked. A fighter would pull alongside the formation, look at the alimeter, and radio the answer down to the gun crews! And then bug out of Dodge, obviously - LOL.

Then the FLAK crews firing timed, without benefit of radar.

As for the difficulties of setting up the airburst, I never suggested that they could do it on the fly, real time, in a firefight. Far from it. I explicitly stated that while it seems possible, it could only be done in an ambush situation, in which they had time to pre-sight and register the target exactly, with a trial shell or two probably needed as well. I think they could certainly have pulled it off with that sort of time to prep.

Think about it this way. If the engineers have time to plant a buried minefield and strong barbed wire obstacles, the infantry have time to build sandbag and log-top bunkers, and the artillery has time to plot exact registrations, then an 88 FLAK could arrange a timed airburst at a crossroads. And moving the gun a bit to prep an ambush would happen anyway, to find the best spot.

Would they bother to? There I am a little more skeptical. I bet somewhere, somebody probably did so. But I sincerely doubt it was a regular practice, or deserves inclusion in CM. Just buy a module of 105mm arty FO and put a TRP on the crossroads, and the result will be quite close enough. More likely, too.

As for the stories about how common it was for the Germans to shell the Americans with "88s", I think that probably stems from the infantryman's perspective that everything was an 88. Any flat-trajectory gun firing HE, above an infantry howitzer anyway, is going to give the supersonic "whizbang" effect of the shell arriving before the "report". The Germans called the Russian 76mm duel purpose field artillery pieces "whizbangs" for that same reason. Perhaps they too were 88s?

Another fellow was talking about the settings he saw on a fuse, topping out at 130, and wondered if that meant 13 km. For an AA gun, I doubt it - that is 42,000 feet up, much higher than the planes flew. It is more likely the figure is the time in tenths of seconds, 13 seconds the longest setting. Then the .5 lines he saw would mean 1/20th of a second settings, which as my previous calculations showed, would be about what you would need to put a shell within 100 feet of altitude when firing just about straight up.

13 seconds, incidentally, for the 88 muzzle velocity gives a height of ~27000 feet with that time setting, probably minus a bit for air resistence, perhaps to 25000 feet. About right for the heights they might shoot - the bombers generally came in between 18000 and 24000 feet (heavies at high altitude - the mediums dropped from more like 10000 to 12000 feet).

In sum, I think they could technically do it with the means available. At some time, somebody probably did do it, as a one-off thing, and created an anecdote about it that was true enough. But the supposed regular practice of it strikes me as the familiar phenomenon of exaggeration of the enemy's means.

[Guest JonS]

Possibly OT, but what the heh ...

Towards the end of the Desert Campaign 2(NZ) Div partly made up for its lack of organic medium artillery support by creating a battery of 88's previously captured from DAK. IIRC they had 4. These guns were used to fire indirectly.

Unfortunately I'm about 6000km from my sources right now, but its covered in the Official History of NZ during WW2, the volume that covers artillery (surprisingly enough )

Be cool

Jon

[Simon Fox]

Hey Jon great to see you online

It is hard to avoid the impression that those who are dismissing this as rare are doing so on the basis of feeling that the 'every German gun is an 88' syndrome is operating here. I am sorry but I just don't buy it. We are not talking about it operating in the AT role here. Certainly the impression that every AT gun was an 88 is real enough when you read accounts but what we are talking about is German guns firing high-velocity shells with airbursts without trees to set them off. So what other logical conclusion could the observer come too?

Personally I don't think this is a high priority issue but I do think it was a real, possible and not uncommon practise, and probably a little easier to accomplish than some people seem to think. There are absolutely bucketloads of accounts of this from all participants which can't be glibly dismissed as isolated 'anecdotes' or cases of 'enemy exaggeration' especially as all nationalities are not universally prone to this phenomenon. A good one for CM2 with it's probably greater scale.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

[Guest Germanboy]

There are a number of excellent posts here. Great stuff. I am sorry I could not respond to this earlier - I hate it when life comes between me and an itneresting discussion.

A couple of points:

Bullethead - I agree about the TRPs. They should be different and (to repeat myself) expensive, because of the lethal effects that this kind of fire would have.

109G - would you not like to shove the gun around as a soldier? No, but you can always volunteer for the assault company if you prefer that. Soldiering on grunt level is about being ordered to do things you don't like.

Size of the battlefield - another reason to focus this discussion on CM2. I believe it is only useful for the Germans on 2+km (probably more) maps. These are really quite on the large side for CMBO, but I expect to see a lot of them in CM2.

As for preparing it - yes that would be a longish process. But the Germans could have done it easily in Normandy, Italy, at the Eastern front, in Holland and the Siegfried Line battles. E.g. Rommel had prepared a defense in depth south of Caen with fortified villages and whatnot, that must have taken time. Advances by the Allies were painfully slow between June and early August, so there would have been time.

Measuring the distance is straightforward trigonometry, and I know for a fact that German Bemessbatallione (arty counter-battery observation units) had surveying equipment, so why should the 88 units not have that.

Rarity - again, I have read a number of first-person accounts, almost all of them UK, but also MacDonald, Ganther (sp?) and Toland (bad, don't bother) for the US. Anybody interested is invited to go back and do a search with my username on my approach to suggesting changes in the game. I have made very few suggestions for changes in the game, and these have never been of the sort of 'Hey I just picked up this book and it talked about X why is that not in CM?' I only do this when I feel sufficiently certain that there is a body of evidence to support my suggestion. I feel this is the case here, for CM2, mind you. I am not intend on wasting peoples' time with these things. The reason I started this thread now was that I noticed there are a number of new faces around who might be able to contribute. I was not aware of previous discussions and should really have done a search first.

What I will now do is to get my act together, do some more research on it, and as soon as we get a CM2 board, copy this thread there.

Another thing - I may be daft now, but would indirect 88 fire still be supersonic? I would not think so, but I may be wrong. I thought it would only be supersonic if it is direct fire.

YK2 - not bloody likely, BTW.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[CMplayer]

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

This conversation brings up a point which I think is a flaw in CM, the lack of 88mm FO's of any kind. 88mm were big indirect fire contributors, but CM doesn't have any in the indirect role. I think CM should have 88mm FO's, 88mm VT FO's, and 128mm VT FO's modeled. The use of 88mm's as artillery is well documented (they were preferred rounds in some cases because they travelled faster than sound and would explode before people could hear them, thus causing more damage with their initial rounds).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This brings up another question. Would it

be historically viable to have offboard

88's in a _direct_ fire sniping role? For

example, a very well-concealed 88, several

hills away, providing direct,long range, harassing fire onto the CM map. Its

location, range and height (off map) could

be specified to calculate LOS issues, and

the hapless Allied player would have to 1) figure out that it is out there somewhere

and 2) try to figure out where the fire is

coming from by quick-analyzing the

shellholes and damage, in order to

determine its dead spots.

Such a weapon could be a bit sporadic and unpredictable like a fighter bomber, since

it could have targets on 'other' maps at the

same time. It might be bad for play balance

in QB's, but could be very interesting

in scenarios.

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-16-2001).]