88 as an IDF artillery piece

[atiff]

Hi all,

We've all heard the stories of German "88 artillery" in NW Europe but I haven't got any real proof that late-war 88's were used as IDF artillery. Can someone point me to some? (for me and someone else I'm talking to about this)

Was the gun and ammo used "straight out of the box" or was the standard HE round depowered to reduce velocity and hence provide more "fall" fo the projectile?

[flamingknives]

In the desert, 88s were used at extreme ranges with the standard time-fused AA shell to create a shrapnel effect - this was apparently used against unbuttoned British tanks to either get the tank commander or even to get fragments into the fighting compartment.

Not sure how effective it was, but British TCs knew what was going on.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

In the desert, 88s were used at extreme ranges with the standard time-fused AA shell to create a shrapnel effect - this was apparently used against unbuttoned British tanks to either get the tank commander or even to get fragments into the fighting compartment.

Not sure how effective it was, but British TCs knew what was going on.

It was also common practice to fire time-fused HE over entrenchments to try for an airburst effect.

Michael

[Alsatian]

Good description of this in Company Commander, by Charles B. MadDonald (1947; reprinted in 1999 by Burford Books: Short Hills, NJ). It's his memoirs from just before the Buldge, through V-E day. I'm reading it now; interesting time period piece.

In one company action (23rd Infantry Regimnet, 2nd ID), he describes the effect of a battery of 128mm flak guns used against him near Schkopau, a small industrial town west of Leipzig.

"The flak gunners seemed to have discovered our presence in the town. They turned the full force of the twelve flak guns against [one of my platoons], and the streets reverberated with the terrifying crack of the big shells exploding in mid-air to send thousands of deadly fragments whining to the ground below. Tile roofing on the houses clattered to the ground from the concussion. For the first time we realized something of what our flyers had endured, only now the weapons were even more deadly against us than against the targets for which they had been designed." (p. 210)

Essentially, his company and another one holed up in the safety of buildings, while it stormed tiny bits of metal outside. They weren't going anywhere. Despite his suspenseful language, his company suffered few casualties, and no kills, from the flak because they were hunkered down pretty well. He does describe some other units taking kills, as well as some officers from regiment too who had come forward to try to get things moving. Simply, MacDonald's company couldn't move until the guns were taken care of.

...

"The TDs moved to the edge of town and blasted away at the enemy postiions, but the enemy gunners answered with such deafening barrages of the deadly air bursts that the TDs abandoned the project." (p. 210)

Why the flak peppered the TDs with shrapnel instead of trying to knock them out directly, MacDonald never explains, but as you see the TDs were ineffective too.

...

Eventually, the Germans spike the guns and withdraw in the middle of the night. When MacDonald's company captures the scrapped guns at dawn:

"We came upon the big guns, and I could see their immensity by the smoldering light of the fires. It was no wonder that their barrages had been so terrigying and deadly. The guns were 128mm pieces, and the fuzes in the shells could be set for either air or contact bursts." (p. 214)

[Andreas]

TDs are open topped. If you detonate a 12,8cm HE/Shrapnell round over them, it is very bad news for the chaps in the turret. Probably much easier to achieve a result then by hitting them directly (all you want is for the TDs to go away, killing them is a bonus).

The 8,8cm Flak manual, of which parts are reprinted in this book details when to use time-fused airburst.

Tried and tested technique.

[Zitadelle]

First, IDF- Israeli Defense Force????

I imagine that you are abbreviating for indirect fire.

At AMPS this weekend, I picked up the latest Nuts and Bolts- Issue 14 on the Nashorn. There is a reference in the guide that the Nashorn- which was armed with the Pak 43/41 88mm/L71- being equipped with indirect sights (in addition to the stereoscopic 'Y' sight). The indirect sights allowed the gun to be used in an indirect mode with a range of 10,000 meters.

[JonS]

Look up < 'Mac' Troop > in the index of 2nd NZ Divisional Artillery here: http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2Arti/_N144838.html for examples of the RA using the 88mm in an indirect role.

Regards

JonS

[Mr. Tittles]

I wonder what the resolution would be on the ranging of the airbursts. By this, I mean the incremental change in range that could be dialed in. Could they jump it in increments of 50 meters lets say? A good thing about a flat trajectory is that longs and shorts could still have an effect on target because the shell is not at a tilted angle.

A FlaK battery was all wired together. All the guns could be connected to a central command point by cables. Theres a good website with pics that shows this as well as the unlimbering process. I wonder if known targets like a bridge or cross road could have been easily called up by the command point and all guns would then dial it in.

[JonS]

Air-burst ranging was one of the preferred methods of the RA in the desert. It requires two OPs, and some basic trig.

[atiff]

IDF = InDirect Fire, doesn't it? Like DF = Direct Fire. I've been using both for years with no questions.

JonS - can't find Mac Troop for some reason - can you give a more direct link?

Anyway, I understand the airburst idea, but that can be done with "almost-LOS" (ie just fire over their heads a bit, even if you can't quite see them). But what about IDF in the sense of "HE lobbed at some significant angle, coming into contact with the ground and throwing mud everywhere"?

[JonS]

atiff,

the link is to the index of an online book - I can't really give a more direct link, because Mac Troop pops up a number of times. The entry in the index provides sub-links to each of the references in the main body. Go to the link I gave above, then scroll down to 'M'. Mac Troop is the first entry after all the 'Mc's.

I'm not sure what you are asking in the last paragraph of your question. If it is 'can regular IDF gunners see the plume from ground impacts, and adjust from that?' then the answer is 'yes' (though it can't be done in CM for game-play and balance reasons IIRC). But in the desert air-bursts (from 'regular' guns and howitzers) were sometimes preferred for the following reasons:

1) the burst was higher, and therefore could be seen from further away

2) the airburst got above the problems caused by ground haze and mirages

3) the flat ground tended to play tricks with depth perception.

Regards

JonS

[ April 19, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Bastables]

W. Pickert in his, DAS III Flakkorp in der Normandie-Schlacht, Points out that the korps 8,8cm gun secondary role was to provide indirect fire support for frontline units. (during 1944 normandy).

[dieseltaylor]

Atiff

"IDF = InDirect Fire, doesn't it? Like DF = Direct Fire. I've been using both for years with no questions."

A plea for unambiguous headings. I was distinctly avoiding this subect as post-war use by the Israeli Defence Force was not interesting to me.

In general abbrevs. and acronyms etc . should be avoided in headings as what is common knowledge is never quite as common as you thought, particularly on forums with both international and noobie participation!

As it happens a very interesting topic - thanks for raising it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by atiff:

Was the gun and ammo used "straight out of the box" or was the standard HE round depowered to reduce velocity and hence provide more "fall" fo the projectile?

Since the 88 was a one piece round, "de-powering" it would have been challenging operation in the field.

Michael

[fridericus]

i read the history of the 17th ss PzGDiv. "goetz von Berlichingen.

when they defended the rhine area between Karlsruhe and Speyer, they used their 88 in an indirect fire role. WITH AP-AMMO! when firing indirect, the 88 was able to hit with AP-ammo around 5m near the target at a range of around 11km. so the 88-artillery of this Div destroyed enemy tanks by using the 88 with AP-ammo in an indirect fire role.

the 3 books are written by officers of divisionstaff and the title is "Die Sturmflut und das Ende" (The Stormtide And The End)

[atiff]

Originally posted by JonS:

atiff,

the link is to the index of an online book - I can't really give a more direct link, because Mac Troop pops up a number of times. The entry in the index provides sub-links to each of the references in the main body. Go to the link I gave above, then scroll down to 'M'. Mac Troop is the first entry after all the 'Mc's.

Found it eventually, here:

...

- McIntyre, Brig ‘Mad’ (RA), 473

- ‘Mac Troop’ (RA), 473, 476, 481, 488–9, 491, 493, 501, 511, 532

- McIntyre, Capt P., 8n

...

Not where I expected it, maybe my page is formatting differently to yours. Anyway, thanks.

I'm not sure what you are asking in the last paragraph of your question.

I mean, airburst can be done with a fairly flat trajectory and still be self-observed. Ie, you can use it to fire (and detonate) over the heads of troops, which maybe you can't see because of trees, bush, etc. In the post above, I mean high-angle fire, such as over intervening hills/forests, in a traditional 105mm manner, utilising a forward observer.

[atiff]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Since the 88 was a one piece round, "de-powering" it would have been challenging operation in the field.

Michael

Thanks, I should have remembered that

[JonS]

Originally posted by atiff:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

I'm not sure what you are asking in the last paragraph of your question.

I mean, airburst can be done with a fairly flat trajectory and still be self-observed. Ie, you can use it to fire (and detonate) over the heads of troops, which maybe you can't see because of trees, bush, etc. In the post above, I mean high-angle fire, such as over intervening hills/forests, in a traditional 105mm manner, utilising a forward observer. </font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

From a practical point of view I can't see any reason why it couldn't be used for indirect fire as the '88 could certainly fire above 45 degrees unlike the dedicated AT guns. My guess is that it probably was used in this role when the lack of any alternative dictated these guns be used this way, i.e. when nothing else could fit the bill.

I wouldn't have thought it would be an ideal situation but simply being able to get some HE on or close to an over the horizon target is better than nothing.

Regards

Jim R.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

From a practical point of view I can't see any reason why it couldn't be used for indirect fire as the '88 could certainly fire above 45 degrees unlike the dedicated AT guns.

You misunderstood - for indirect gunners, high angle is above 45, low angle is below. Both ranges get used, but they give different results at the target end, and in particular now-a-days low angle is preferred as it reduces to signature that can be picked up by CB radars.

Jon