QB's close to useless in North Africa.

[JasonC]

P.S.

Pictures of German gun pits in the "Omars" region near Halfya pass -

http://www.lonesentry.com/battleoftheomars/appendixb.html

The effectiveness of the 88 was not nullified by the arrival of Grants with 75mm HE. The following is a report from the Gazala battles -

""The greatest single tank destroyer is the German 88 MM anti-aircraft gun. For example, on May 27th at 8:00 AM., Axis forces having enveloped Bir Hacheim, a German tank force of sixty tanks attacked the British 22nd Brigade some distance to the northeast. The British moved to attack this force with 50 light and medium American tanks. It soon became apparent that this British force was inadequate and the Brigadier commanding ordered a second regiment of 50 tanks into action. In ten minutes the 88 MM German AA guns destroyed 8 American medium tanks of this reinforcing regiment. All day thereafter the British engaged the enemy half-heartedly and finally withdrew. Sixteen American medium tanks were lost in all. These sixteen fell victims without a single exception to the 88 MM AA gun."

Notice that loss of 8 Grants was considered serious. Note further that this loss took 10 minutes to inflict, but that was still consider extremely fast. In 10 minutes a battery of 88s could fire hundreds of times. The per shot accuracy needed to get this tactical effect is not high in absolute terms. That even their heaviest tank could be killed at range, at all, was the important tactical issue for the tankers.

It was not necessary to destroy 100 tanks to stop an attack that had 100 tanks available (because the defenders also have numerous other weapons available, whether their own tanks or other towed guns). When a few were lost without significant effect in return, at long range, the rest did not try to press because the potential losses from doing so appeared too high. Weapons of superior range dominate areas by threat, without needing to execute that threat to the full, in much the same way one man with a loaded rifle can intimidate 50 unarmed men.

[ December 15, 2003, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Bastables]

Sigh,

A Battalion of 88s would comprise 5 batteries meaning 20 guns.

5 Light div only had the standard heer FlaK regt, which has a component of 3 batteries of heavy FLaK, 12 guns per battalion. This is not a battalion of FlaK therefore your use of the word Battalion of 88s is misleading. It also glosses over the fact that only two thirds of the guns were actually in defensive positions.

Omar November 1941 till 1942 is neither the location of Halfya nor the battles of Battleaxe earlier in the year of June 1941, again you introduce "evidence” that has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual engagement.

When I can get some one to host it I will post the two pictures from jentz that show the 8,8cm of Halfya in a sandbagged position, and not these stone sangers that the British purport. Using British guesstimates of German defences in a failed operation is perhaps a dubious source at best.

[JasonC]

Some day Bastables will look at an actual TOE for any actual unit at a definite period and compare its reported equipment strength, and then he will stop making it up. He won't find a single Flak battalion with 20 88s.

Kursk era. The following divisions had organic flak battalions LSSAH, DR, T SS and GD. Number of 88s with each division - 12, 12, 10, and 11. I/38 Flak in the same battle, 3 batteries 88mm, 2 of light flak. I/61, same. II/38, same. II/43, same authorized but only 3 88s per battery actually present.

Normandy, Gerob's OOB. 5 FJ has an organic Flak battalion. 5 batteries, 3 heavy and 2 light. Total 88s - 12, 4 each in the 3 heavy batteries. 1SS also had a 5 battery Flak battalion - 3 heavy and 2 37mm. 2SS, 9SS, 10SS, 12SS, and 17SS all had 4 battery Flak battalions - 3 heavy and 1 37mm. The number of guns is given for 12SS and 17SS - 12 88s for each. 2 PD (Heer) had a 4 battery Flak battalion with 2 heavy and 2 light, and had 8 88s. 21 PD (Heer) had a 3 battery Flak battalion with 2 heavy and 1 light, and had 8 88s. 116 PD (Heer) was authorized a 3 battery Flak battalion with 2 heavy and 1 light, number of guns not given. Gerob comments on Lehr "usually the Flak battalion of a PD was authorized 8 or 12 88s, but Lehr had 18".

Find me any single Flak battalion with 36 88s as you first suggested, or even with 20 88s. They don't exist. The 5 battery organization was never used for all 88s. It was used to add additional light flak to a 3 battery battalion of 88s. A battalion of 88s had 12 of the heavy pieces, just like an artillery battalion (which had 12 105 or 150s in 3 firing batteries). Additional platoons in the heavy batteries had a few 20mm, and the light batteries in the 4th and 5th batteries typically had 3 firing platoons with 3x37mm or 4x20mm.

As for the location, Omar Nouvo is 5 miles inland from Halfya pass. Sidi Omar is as far again further inland. They are the same position, the right flank of it (from the German point of view). The Germans held this position from May to November. The attack mentioned on that site is the one that took it, which is obviously when photos of it by the Brits have to date from. They aren't going to have pictures of it while it is in German hands.

The gun pits in the pictures clearly have a layer of sandbags on top of piled stone walls, not simply piled sandbags. The description, of the 88s just having room to traverse the gun, over these walls, fits the British eyewitness description from the earlier fight, of muzzle visible in stone sangers. It seems to me it also does not seriously contradict the German side testimony of sandbagged gun positions. Piling stone walls up around the position and sand-bagging it are similar things (compared to sinking a hole in the ground deep enough to hold the gun), and in the photos they clearly combined wall making with use of sandbags.

As for the designation, independent artillery units were always referred to by their regimental designation. A battalion was specified merely by prefacing the regimental designation with a roman numeral. Thus I/38 Flak regiment, for example, is a Flak *battalion* that fought at Kursk - the 1st battalion of the 38th Flak regiment.

P.S. for those in Rio Linda, "sanger" or "sangar" is a military term originally from India, in use as slang in the British army. It means "temporary shallow fortifications, normally built of loose stone."

[ December 16, 2003, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

Crickets chirp.

Does Bastables ever admit anything, when he is clearly misinformed?

[Bastables]

No because there was never as you say a battalion of 88 at halfya, because there is no such thing extent (part of my point). There was a FlaK battalion, which is a different animal, and only two of three 8,8cm batteries were deployed in defensive positions. This is not the same as a ?battalion of 8,8s.?

One of the 4 88 in sand bagged position at halfya. as you can see the 8,8cm are at ground level. not dug in.

http://d13-th.gameszone.ro/upload/88s_at_Halfya-a.jpg

http://d13-th.gameszone.ro/upload/88s_at_Halfya-b.jpg

No the Sidi Omar battles of Crusader took place in near the opposite end of the halfya position closer to the sand seas and therefore the units positioned there near the end of 1941 (during Crusader) faced entirely different set of softer ground conditions to the one faced by the single 8,8cm batty at rocky Halfya near the cost (earlier in the year during a different and separate British offensive).

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Crickets chirp.

Does Bastables ever admit anything, when he is clearly misinformed?

All the time, this could be described as "projection."

So sorry that dealing with your usual disassembly of equating different years, battles and conditions as perfect substitutes of the topic, nevermind the tenditious use of sources (and the CM boards in general) was less important than working and getting the on with the holiday season.

Don't worry I'll have time for more of your crap after January.

[ December 21, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]