The German '88' in CMBB - additional functionality??

[TSword]

Chad, Andreas,

Fully agree, the gun should be able to fire in limbered condition as was done in africa regularly. The few 8.8's always traveled behind the tanks and were put into action as soon a tank-counterattack or heavy opposition was encountered.

The leading tanks throwing dust and smoke while the 88 got into position behing them, then the tanks retreated into save positions and the 88 blasted away relocating after a few shots.

In unlimbered pos the 10-man crew should be able to move the thing quite easily a short distance on flat and dry ground especially paved roads.

We moved fully loaded 4 ton trailers quite easily with 4 men on paved and flat roads. (The most important job was the man on the brake and steering axle, because once moving the thing has his own mind...), i know, got nearly crunched by one...

Greets

Daniel

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Doug Beman:

...I believe the overwhelming use of these guns was more like "find good positions to give cover fire to the advancing forces and/or set up an ambush to hit a counter attack from an unexpected direction." This latter was something the Germans perfected (Macksey directly mentions it several times, and I think Brazen Chariots describes it as well) in that they would hide some 88s just behind the FEBA, go forward and lure the Brits back onto the emplaced guns, and destroy them wholesale.

They did this even more with the 50mm PaK. For one thing, they had more of those.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

IIRC, SL (I don't remember what ASL did, specifically) permitted the 88 to fire while limbered, but gave it a -2 "to hit" penalty. I don't know how this translates into real life.

IMO, for CMBB, this would be a nice feature to have, but one that is not really that important because I don't have the impression that 88s were moved around that much on the eastern front.

On the other hand, this would be a pretty important feature to have for early war and for the desert, where the 88 was a very significant weapon system, and where it could be moved around with a certain amount of safety due to the fact that many early war tanks did not have HE shells.

There's still some risk, of course, but when the Matildas are 2000 meters away and advancing (slowly), moving the 88 is probably the best option.

[Doug Beman]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doug Beman:

...I believe the overwhelming use of these guns was more like "find good positions to give cover fire to the advancing forces and/or set up an ambush to hit a counter attack from an unexpected direction." This latter was something the Germans perfected (Macksey directly mentions it several times, and I think Brazen Chariots describes it as well) in that they would hide some 88s just behind the FEBA, go forward and lure the Brits back onto the emplaced guns, and destroy them wholesale.

They did this even more with the 50mm PaK. For one thing, they had more of those.

Michael</font>

[ARRPEEGEE]

The US ordinance dept contributed this:

Although usually fired from the platform, it can be fired from the wheels, with the side members of the platform extended

Now, with the sides extended, I think you could fire broadside..

[Andreas]

Originally posted by mch:

The US ordinance dept contributed this:

Although usually fired from the platform, it can be fired from the wheels, with the side members of the platform extended

Now, with the sides extended, I think you could fire broadside..

Yes - I have pictures in front of me that indicate a 45 degree angle from the axis of advance of the carriage. Also read below.

Weight (including shield and carriage):

Flak 18 - 7,400kg

Flak 36 - 8,600kg

Flak 41 - 9,600kg

Note - that does not include ammunition.

Another note on accuracy. In a prepared position, off the carriage, fairly massive steel rods were driven into the ground to stabilise the gun.

Quote from the Dienstvorschrift on fighting the 88 in the desert:

Firing while on the carriage is the norm from which there will be no deviation (grundsaetzlich). Less accurate fire will be made up for by using more ammunition. Constant (Haeufig) switching of position is neccessary.

I think that is fairly clear. A slight problem with this Dienstvorschrift is that it was only ready for distribution after May 12th 1943.

The Dienstvorschrift for the east published in September 1942 was different:

Fire from a fixed position (Bettung) is desirable (anzustreben). If surprised by the enemy, fire has to be conducted from the carriage, but only in the direction of advance (up to 180 degrees diversion from advance to left or right is allowed - zulaessig).

This stuff is translated by me from the original DVs as reprinted in Piekalkiewicz - 'Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz'

Comment: obviously there was a difference in Russia and Africa, if we believe that DVs from the war reflect reality on the ground to some degree. The fact that they differ so completely on this issue makes me believe that they were based on combat experience. Another big difference was offensive use of the 88 in Russia. From glancing through the DV (I am in the process of coming down with a cold, hence my teasyness today Michael, and also reluctance to study the DV closely), it appears offensive use as in Afrika was 'verboten'.

[ September 16, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[gunnergoz]

Andreas-

Nice job of research. This kind of material has a way of putting to rest the sort of "in my opinion" type of argumentative reasoning we see here often. Heck, I do it myself in the absence of real supporting material.

The material does underscore the fluid nature of desert fighting, doesnt' it?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

Andreas-

Nice job of research. This kind of material has a way of putting to rest the sort of "in my opinion" type of argumentative reasoning we see here often. Heck, I do it myself in the absence of real supporting material.

The material does underscore the fluid nature of desert fighting, doesnt' it?

Thanks mate - you are right, it is a good indicator of some things that were different. And why it is difficult to draw conclusions based on observations in either the wrong theatre, or a different time period.

[Andreas]

Sorry, I am thinking slowly today. Basically what I think I am saying is: Based on the evidence from the DV, I would agree with BTS' reasoning to not allow the gun to fire while limbered. In a typical CM battle, it is probably also right that it is not allowed to move (after looking at the hassle of it). In operations, the gun can be moved between battles, provided a prime mover for it is on the map. All that seems to me to be a fair reflection of use conforming to the DV. In Africa, it would be a different question.

I agree with Michael that soldiers often ignored DVs (hey, I was one myself and I ignored them even when my life did not depend on it). I would just like to see some evidence in the form of AARs, memoirs, and pictures that would support this assumption.

[Doug Beman]

Originally posted by mch:

The US ordinance dept contributed this:

Although usually fired from the platform, it can be fired from the wheels, with the side members of the platform extended

Now, with the sides extended, I think you could fire broadside..

Shiver me timbers!

DjB

[Little_Black_Devil]

Thanks again for the responses guys, some good food for thought.

There are some pretty convincing arguments and sound information which does lead me to begin doubting the real usefullness of firing the gun whilst still limbered - at least on the Eastern Front. I would imagine that this feature would likely prove more useful in North Africa.

What I still can't agree with though, is the idea of permenent placement of the heavier guns once deployed (either at setup or after the one and only de-barkation/deployment). I don't understand what this "permanent" placement is supposed to signify or abstract, because the gun [in reality] was indeed capeable of being deployed and re-deployed within a relatively timely manner.

On average, this gun took about 4 minutes to deploy (in its conventional deployment), off of its wheel limbers, pegged into the ground and then putting its first rounds downrange. It took roughly the same amount of time for the gun to pack up and be prepared to move.

As each turn in CM, is representative of one minute, that collectively adds up to 8 minutes, or 8 turns. Surely, within 10 turns, the gun could concieveably unhook from the prime mover, deploy, possibly fire a few rounds, pack up, hook up to the prime mover and be mobile again.

Assuming an average scenario is about 30 turns, there is ample time (or turns) to bring the gun into action in at least two different locations - IF the situation calls for and allows for it.

So - if your initial deployment, has allowed you to make the best possible use of the gun, and clear a given area of enemy (within your initial LOS) then it makes sense to pack up the gun, and move it to yet another position, where it can continue to contribute its firepower to the rest of the battle making use of a new LOS.

In some ways, the current inability for the heavier guns to re-deploy, makes them defacto "disposeable guns", when clearly - the '88 in particular, was more than a one use weapon.

Perhaps I just suck at placing my guns.

Or perhaps, it makes sense to make at least some provision which allows me to move my gun and theorectically re-deploy it multiple times, limited only by the guns continued existence (obviously) and the length of the scenario.

I think that the time required to limber/unlimber - and vulnerability while limbering/unlimbering are sufficient safeguards to prevent the '88's hypothetical ability to re-deploy, from being abused through "gamey" tactics.

Comments?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

On average, this gun took about 4 minutes to deploy (in its conventional deployment), off of its wheel limbers, pegged into the ground and then putting its first rounds downrange. It took roughly the same amount of time for the gun to pack up and be prepared to move.

Comments?

Where did you get this figure? Deighton has Halftrack/MOT leFH 10,5cm howitzers putting the first round downrange in 30mins during the 1940 campaign in France.

Here is a much more intresting disscussion on firing the 88 on wheels. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=010172

[ September 16, 2002, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Foxbat]

I think the idea of using 88s especially the original Barndoor FLAK monsters offensively on the eastern front where LOS was likely to be under 2000m is hard to imagine..

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Sorry, I am thinking slowly today. Basically what I think I am saying is: Based on the evidence from the DV, I would agree with BTS' reasoning to not allow the gun to fire while limbered. In a typical CM battle, it is probably also right that it is not allowed to move (after looking at the hassle of it). In operations, the gun can be moved between battles, provided a prime mover for it is on the map. All that seems to me to be a fair reflection of use conforming to the DV. In Africa, it would be a different question.

I agree with Michael that soldiers often ignored DVs (hey, I was one myself and I ignored them even when my life did not depend on it). I would just like to see some evidence in the form of AARs, memoirs, and pictures that would support this assumption.

Get well soon, ya big lug!

[TSword]

Andreas,

Sorry but your conclusion is somehwat contradictory to what you posted:

Quote from the Dienstvorschrift on fighting the 88 in the desert:

quote:

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

Firing while on the carriage is the norm from which there will be no deviation (grundsaetzlich). Less accurate fire will be made up for by using more ammunition. Constant (Haeufig) switching of position is neccessary.

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

I think that is fairly clear. A slight problem with this Dienstvorschrift is that it was only ready for distribution after May 12th 1943.

The Dienstvorschrift for the east published in September 1942 was different:

quote:

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

Fire from a fixed position (Bettung) is desirable (anzustreben). If surprised by the enemy, fire has to be conducted from the carriage, but only in the direction of advance (up to 180 degrees diversion from advance to left or right is allowed - zulaessig).

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

This stuff is translated by me from the original DVs as reprinted in Piekalkiewicz - 'Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz'

Fact 1: In DV for use after May 1943, it's absolutely clear that it was desirable to fire the 8.8 while being on wheels (limbered pos).

Fact 2: In the EARLIER DV published Sept. 1942 contradicts Fact 1 a bit in emphasizing that it is DESIRABLE to fire from fixed positions, no mention is made that firing on the carriage is prohibited.

Now we can conclude that after May 1943 the 8.8 in essence was fired while on wheels, if the DV was taken as a guideline.

In reading between the lines it may be obvious to say that the way the 8.8 was used depended highly on the tactical circumstences. In 1941 & 42 in the desert vs. heavy armored Brit. tanks were the firepower of the 8.8 was essential for the fast moving formations it's highly probable that the 8.8 was mainly used on the carriage because time and movability is of utmost importance. On the other hand a fixed fortified positions may be more desirable for untrained Flak-crews in a defensive posture.

However according to DV of 1943 and after the 8.8 had to be preferably deployed on the carriage.

Btw. german troops were trained to use their brain and not to adhere strictly to some DV, which were ment as a guideline.

Greets

Daniel

[Andreas]

Daniel, please read my post closely. One (43) was the desert DV, the other (42) was for the eastern front. I only translated snippets from it - things I did not translate cover the offensive use of the 88. A matter of course in the desert, with instructions how individual guns should be commanded by an officer. Verboten in Russia, due to problems with the availability of prime movers and carriage (Lafetten) that did not allow this. This alone affects the incidence of firing while mounted.

So unless you can dig out a DV for the east that says something different, I am inclined to stick by my conclusions.

While soldiers often disobey DVs, this was a clear statement that an officer could use to disallow the offensive use of the gun.

The DVs seem to take combat experience and operational factors into account. As the development of German DVs did during the war.

So sorry, but you have to bring some evidence if you want to convince me.

[TSword]

Andreas,

I speak german, so you can send me the whole DV if you have it in digital form....keen interest...

Verboten in Russia, due to problems with the availability of prime movers and carriage (Lafetten) that did not allow this

Well, great ! So there were not enough prime movers to relocate a 8.8 battery at once, interesting.

I think it is somewhat dubious to backup the thesis of only unlimbered deployment on the ground of availabiltiy of prime movers for a game like CM. What matters is the ability to use the gun in limbered position and nothing else. Weapon + carriage + prime mover = One can use the weapon in limbered position.

Andreas, i don't want to start a fight with you, so take this as my last statement and personal opinion. Btw. i can life with the way it's now (barely..)

Greets

Daniel

[Andreas]

Daniel, I have no intention to start a fight either. I sensed there may have been a misunderstanding in your post regarding the coverage of these two DVs.

I am happy to scan the pages for you, but to be honest, you may want to just get the book. At €16 it is worth it. Get it at Amazon.de.

Regarding the prime movers and carriages, that is the reason given in the eastern front DV. As you will know, there was a continuous shortage of half-tracked vehicles in the theatre, and the risk of losing mobility due to some dashing cavalry/gun charge was probably deemed unacceptable. In the desert, things were different - warfare was more mobile, and engagement ranges were much longer, increasing the survivability of non-armoured prime-movers significantly.

If you have access to any later-war DVs from the east, I'd be keen to see them. Clearly, the German manuals evolved over time, and took the experience of warfare in (with a time-lag for institutional digestion, as proven by the somewhat latish date of publication of the desert DV), so I would expect a 1944 manual to look different from the September 1942 one, which was probably based on experiences from around winter 41/42.

[Poobear]

Originally posted by JonS:

Hmm.

Regards

JonS

Is that an 88mm or are you just excited about CMBB coming out?

[TSword]

Andreas, thanks for the link !

[Sitting Duck]

Was the '88 useful in providing defense from fighter or fighter-bombers? I'd guess that it might be better suited for hitting the high altitude planes rather than low-level ground attack aircraft.

Just curious...

[Guest Mike]

Yep - you're right Sitting Duck - it's useless against low-level attack.

[Michael Emrys]

But the 20mm and 37mm were hell on wheels, especially the quad 20mm.

Michael