Question about 88s

[Matt]

In real life were 88s ever used in an indirect fire mode?

I'm asking because I recently purchased the 6 DVD volume of Band of Brothers and in episode two Winters is chosen to lead an attack on a fortified German artillery position - 4 x 88s.

Then I throw in Saving Pvt Ryan and see that after they land Tom Hanks' platoon is given the very difficult task of taking out some 88's firing on the beaches in what appears to be indirect fire.

Now I know these movies are for entertainment value and if left up to hollywood to get something militarily correct they'd be wrong 99% of the time but it seems there are lots of references to 88s and indirect fire. What gives?

-Matt

[Andreas]

Yes.

I believe the position in BoB historically contained 10,5cm lFH 18 and not 88s though.

[Soddball]

In BoB they do say later on that they took out 105s, not 88s.

[Matt]

So you think in BoB they are eluding to 88-itis much the same as GIs coming under fire by German tanks and calling anything they see Tigers but when Winters gets back to report what they actually took out he gets it right?

If 88s were used in the indirect fire mode in real life, can we use them this way in CMBO/CMBB?

-Matt

[MikeyD]

All this TALK of 88s is historically accurate though. Not because 88s were used all that often, but to the G.I. on the ground every anti-tank gun on a hillside and every shell that falls was an 88! You even see it in contemporary reports. A picture of a Panther with its "88mm gun", a photo of 75mm Pak40s labeled as "Captured 88s".

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Matt:

So you think in BoB they are eluding to 88-itis much the same as GIs coming under fire by German tanks and calling anything they see Tigers but when Winters gets back to report what they actually took out he gets it right?

If 88s were used in the indirect fire mode in real life, can we use them this way in CMBO/CMBB?

-Matt

In Hollywood (and vets memories it seems) everything is an 88. Which is quite interesting, since the 88 and the normal artillery have quite different characteristics at the impact end - I guess not a lot of soldiers in a combat zone aspire to be grogs though.

We can not - it was not done on a regular basis, but it did happen. The big problem for doing that with an 88 is barrel life, I believe. It is also more effective in DF, and the gunners would not necessarily have been trained in all the procedures for indirect fire to the same degree as the gunners on a howitzer.

[Redwolf]

Important to point out that Ambrose's book contains the error labeling the battery as 88s, but that the TV series corrects the error.

A pretty rare but very positive event.

I read several reports that 88s Flak when firing indirect were the only artillery where the shells were truely faster than sound, making an impact without warning. I never bothered to calculate this through, and it obviously depends on the firing angle. Anybody has some more dependable info on this?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I read several reports that 88s Flak when firing indirect were the only artillery where the shells were truely faster than sound, making an impact without warning. I never bothered to calculate this through, and it obviously depends on the firing angle. Anybody has some more dependable info on this?

total BS. Most if not all artillery rounds are faster than speed of sound. Only a few hollow charge and HE from stub-barrel guns might be subsonic.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

I read several reports that 88s Flak when firing indirect were the only artillery where the shells were truely faster than sound, making an impact without warning. I never bothered to calculate this through, and it obviously depends on the firing angle. Anybody has some more dependable info on this?

total BS. Most if not all artillery rounds are faster than speed of sound. Only a few hollow charge and HE from stub-barrel guns might be subsonic.</font>

[Brightblade]

It seems like the 88 could be used for indirect fire, thought not necessarily for artillery purposes. I read about a story where the platoon leader of a Tiger platoon decided to use his guns in a different way.

The platoon rested behind a hill with a spotter in the top floor of a building so he could see over the hill. Suddenly a company of T34 appeard on the other side of the hill (I can´t remember if they were on march or preparing for rest themselves). The platoon leader evaluated the situation and then he decided this: it was too dangerous to attack a whole company of enemy tanks with only one platoon of Tigers, but something needed to be done anyway.

He knew the trajectory of the 88L56 was quite flat, but it was still curved. So he ordered his Tigers into positions and ordered to aim at the crest of the hill. The spotter in the house watched the shots and gave corrections. The enemy was completely surprised by this fire and it took quite some time before they noticed where the fire came from.

This way the platoon managed to take out several T34 (can´t remember the exact number)before the rest of the company mounted and escaped.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

It seems like the 88 could be used for indirect fire, thought not necessarily for artillery purposes.

Err, but they were used as indirect artillery. I posted a very nice picture of British gunners using captured 88s in that way. I know that the Germans did as well.

[blackbellamy]

During dry conditions at sea level, when the temperature is 65 Fahrenheit, the speed of sound is approx 342 meters per second.

For comparison, the muzzle velocity of the 105 mm IeFH 18, which was the standard divisional field-piece used by the German army, was 470 meters per second. The famous French 75 had a muzzle velocity of 550 meters per second. The 88 had a velocity of 1000, and no German AA piece had a velocity of less than 820.

Looking at other tanks and guns we see a wide variance, but in almost no case is the muzzle velocity less than the speed of sound.

Now I'm no expert in ballistics, and it's possible that the shell decelerates significantly after it leaves the muzzle, but I just don't see it slowing down by 50% or more. So in an example where an observed enemy gun is firing at your position from 2000 meters, you would see a little puff of smoke, and the sound of the firing gun would reach you in about 5-6 seconds. Unfortunately the round would reach you in half that time.

[JaegerMeister]

The Germans used 88's in the Ardennes offensive in Dec '44 for indirect fire support, i've read it in several accounts and seen footage of them in action. Therefore i presume they used them on the eastern front too.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Would the difference not be if it is DF or indirect fire, since in the case of indirect the sound travels a shorter distance than the shell?

I think it is more the case that with indirect fire the shell has long since been decelerated by aerodynamic resistance below supersonic velocities. Direct firing 88s still retained their supersonic velocities at their normal ranges.

Not sure about this, but the reason for the 88 being universally disliked was that it was capable of reliable DF airbursts, and that the explosion happened before you heard the round fired.

Not only before you heard the muzzle blast, you also didn't hear the approach of the shell. Blackburn has several passages where he describes this effect. First there is the blast of the shell going off, then you hear the shriek of the shell's approach.

Michael

[Swift]

Originally posted by Matt:

In real life were 88s ever used in an indirect fire mode?

I'm asking because I recently purchased the 6 DVD volume of Band of Brothers and in episode two Winters is chosen to lead an attack on a fortified German artillery position - 4 x 88s.

I would like to congratulate you on a must splendid purchase If I had the money I would get them also. I don't now about the 88 IRL but in a later episode they get hit again with what they claim to be 88's

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

The Germans used 88's in the Ardennes offensive in Dec '44 for indirect fire support, i've read it in several accounts and seen footage of them in action. Therefore i presume they used them on the eastern front too.

I think someone posted several months ago in a CMBO thread about 88s being used in an indirect fire mode in Normandy.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by blackbellamy:

...it's possible that the shell decelerates significantly after it leaves the muzzle...

It does. How quickly depends on a lot of factors, but it is generally the case that most indirect fire shells have gone subsonic in the first 1000-2000 meters. This in comparison to their maximum range which is about ten times that.

Michael

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Matt:

In real life were 88s ever used in an indirect fire mode?

I'm asking because I recently purchased the 6 DVD volume of Band of Brothers and in episode two Winters is chosen to lead an attack on a fortified German artillery position - 4 x 88s.

That is technically correct. 88s were artillery after all, AIR DEFENSE artillery.

I remember a discussion we had on 88s in an indirect fire role. Although it happened on occasion, by far most reports of 88s are probably a case of "88itis", as one poster so eloquently put it. However, one of the few instances someone stated back in that thread was the use of an 88 battery in an indirect fire role in Normandy. However, those were most likely not the ones from that example in your BoB story.

IIRC Zetterling does a good job of taking a closer look at the usage of the 88 in Normandy, and of rectifying some common misperceptions about that, in his book Normandy 1944.

[M Hofbauer]

btw, sorry, I wrote that last post offline, and did not account for the posts since my original post here.

I think the issue of ballistic "detour" (as opposed to direct distance the sound takes) and the issue of decelaration are valid concerns. Obviously, their importance and relevance increase exponentially with firing range.

[Bertram]

On the contrary, the issue with a "detour" of the shell is highest if you want to do indirect fire at a short distance, with a high trajectory. Extreme case: firing straight up. The sound will be there instantly (distance is 0), the shell will arrive after gravity and drag stopped it, and it travelled the same distance down again (bit more time in the second half of the journey due to drag).

Disregarding drag, and if I got my physics right: V = V0 + AT, with A = -10 (-9.8, but lets keep it simple). So the shell would stop after 100 sec, and be back in 200 sec. (Distance travelled would be 1/2 A(T square)+ V0 T = 50.000 mtrs, or 50 km up and the same down. This is obviously to high, and a result of ignoring drag).

(al numbers metric)

With a gun that has such a high muzzle velocity you need to use a high level trajectory at short distances. When using low level trajectories the shell either wont clear the blocking terrain, or wont drop enough after clearing this terrain to hit the target behind it. This is of course why only DF and AA guns had such a high muzzle velocity.

Bertram

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Bertram:

On the contrary, the issue with a "detour" of the shell is highest if you want to do indirect fire at a short distance, with a high trajectory. Extreme case: firing straight up. The sound will be there instantly (distance is 0), the shell will arrive after gravity and drag stopped it, and it travelled the same distance down again (bit more time in the second half of the journey due to drag).

Disregarding drag, and if I got my physics right: V = V0 + AT, with A = -10 (-9.8, but lets keep it simple). So the shell would stop after 100 sec, and be back in 200 sec. (Distance travelled would be 1/2 A(T square)+ V0 T = 50.000 mtrs, or 50 km up and the same down. This is obviously to high, and a result of ignoring drag).

(al numbers metric)

With a gun that has such a high muzzle velocity you need to use a high level trajectory at short distances. When using low level trajectories the shell either wont clear the blocking terrain, or wont drop enough after clearing this terrain to hit the target behind it. This is of course why only DF and AA guns had such a high muzzle velocity.

Bertram

artillery pieces usually have different charges for different ranges. for short range, they usually would use a smaller charge, not an over-elevation (in excess of 45°)

I think you are misassessing the real world use of artillery as explained in your post. The instances where you would have high-angle short-range fire are very rare in real life. For such occasions, howitzers and mortars are built.

Even at shorter ranges, the usual drop in regular artillery fire suffices for usual terrain features. And you will (practically) never have an artillery gun fire straight up so that it comes down after 100 meters. It would use direct fire that way, or not fire at all.

[JonS]

One thing you guys are all overlooking is that the 88 uses fixed rounds, while field artillery uses seperate or semi-fixed rounds.

The 88 always fires at 18,000,000m/s (or whatever it is) because it only has one propellant charge. In addition, in the ground role it would usually fire at low angles.

Field artillery, on the other hand, can vary its muzzle velocity to acheive differing ranges and trajectories. What is recorded in books though, is invariably the max MV which is usually super-sonic. Taking the case of the L118 (the modern UK Light Gun), it has seven different propelling charges. The first three have an MV that is sub-sonic, the top three are super sonic (the top one, 'charge super', is really supersonic), while the middle one is called 'trans-sonic.' Sometimes its supersonic, sometimes its not, it depends on environmental conditions (air density, chargebag temperature, barrel wear, etc). Having a range of charges means that the stress on the barrel for short and medium ranges can be minimised, and that targets tucked in behind hills can be engaged with high arcing, low powered, looping shots.

In general, the lowest charge that will acheive (ie, 'reach') the target is used.

So, in additon to the looping trajectory of the round, which may cause sound to arrive before a super sonic round, and drag pulling super-sonic rounds into the sub- range, you have some field arty rounds that are simply sub sonic from the get-go.

Regards

JonS

[ November 13, 2002, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

I read several reports that 88s Flak when firing indirect were the only artillery where the shells were truely faster than sound, making an impact without warning. I never bothered to calculate this through, and it obviously depends on the firing angle. Anybody has some more dependable info on this?

total BS. Most if not all artillery rounds are faster than speed of sound. Only a few hollow charge and HE from stub-barrel guns might be subsonic.</font>

[Bertram]

As mentioned the 88 fired one charge. The height of the explosion for AA purposes was set by a time fuse. This was also used to devastating effect in direct fire, giving air burts without the need to hit anything (like the VT fuse, but with a bit more math needed for the setting).

I was not suggesting that an 88 (nor any other arty piece) would fire indirectly at targets at 100 mtrs by using a high trajectory, I was using the straight up trajectory as extreme case to argue that the sound of indirect fire could, even with supersonic shells, arrive before the shell, depending on the traject.

Bertram

[JonS]

Originally posted by Bertram:

The height of the explosion for AA purposes was set by a time fuse.

Minor quibble: actually, all the time fuze sets is the distance from the muzzle that the explosion occurs at. The height of burst is set by the elevation of the barrel.

Regards

JonS