88mm artillery

[offtaskagain]

Originally posted by Skipper:

> Does anyone know how much barrel wear was an issue for the 8,8?

Quite an issue. Especially when firing AT rounds - iirc, we are talking about about life expectancy less than 100 shots then. Several times more if firing HE.

The gun was progressively redesigned from Flak 18 to 36 to 37 to allow for a faster barrel change among other things. The Flak 41 was an 88 L/72? flak gun.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Skipper:

> Does anyone know how much barrel wear was an issue for the 8,8?

Quite an issue. Especially when firing AT rounds - iirc, we are talking about about life expectancy less than 100 shots then. Several times more if firing HE.

Thanks - I suspected that from reading about the problems the Pommies had when using LAA in the ground role. So there would be a serious disincentive to use them in the ground role.

Jon - thanks for that info. Also, got the money today, but came home too late for the pub. But I got the official ' Royal Artillery Commemoration Book 1939-1945' , published in 1950 for members of the service. It is heavy and looks great with maps and stuff, and I shan't mention the price. Suffice to say that my wallet hates Devon (Honiton, to be precise) and second-hand bookstores.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

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

> Does anyone know how much barrel wear was an issue for the 8,8?

Quite an issue. Especially when firing AT rounds - iirc, we are talking about about life expectancy less than 100 shots then. Several times more if firing HE.

The gun was progressively redesigned from Flak 18 to 36 to 37 to allow for a faster barrel change among other things. The Flak 41 was an 88 L/72? flak gun.</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

... I got the official ' Royal Artillery Commemoration Book 1939-1945' , published in 1950 for members of the service. It is heavy and looks great with maps and stuff ...

[green]Good for you![/green] I've seen that referenced all over the place, and it should be rather interesting. With any luck it will contain enough hints to be able to figure out techniques.

Just had a quick squizz at bookfinder.com. Gulp!

Regards

JonS

[Mattias]

Originally posted by Skipper:

> Does anyone know how much barrel wear was an issue for the 8,8?

Quite an issue. Especially when firing AT rounds - iirc, we are talking about about life expectancy less than 100 shots then. Several times more if firing HE.

Skipper,

Where have you read this? It strikes me as very odd considering the fact that an AA cannon is designed to deliver HE shells to great heights, something that is achieved by maximizing the Vo of these, HE, shells.

I'm pretty much certain that on some Flak 88's the HE shells actually had a higher Vo than the AP ammunition and unless there is something very special about the latter type of round the wear should not be higher when firing them.

--

Gander and Chamberlain puts the average service life of an early Flak barrel to 2000 - 6000 rounds depending on barrel type (Or is that driving bands or powder charge compisition?). The figure is reduced to 1500 on the Flak 41. Finally, on the Pak's the number would be 1200-2000.

M.

[ March 06, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[edward_n_kelly]

Originally posted by Mattias:

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

> Does anyone know how much barrel wear was an issue for the 8,8?

Quite an issue. Especially when firing AT rounds - iirc, we are talking about about life expectancy less than 100 shots then. Several times more if firing HE.

Skipper,

Where have you read this? It strikes me as very odd considering the fact that an AA cannon is designed to deliver HE shells to great heights, something that is achieved by maximizing the Vo of these, HE, shells.

I'm pretty much certain that on some Flak 88's the HE shells actually had a higher Vo than the AP ammunition and unless there is something very special about the latter type of round the wear should not be higher when firing them.

--

Gander and Chamberlain puts the average service life of an early Flak barrel to 2000 - 6000 rounds depending on barrel type. The figure is reduced to 1500 on the Flak 41. Finally, on the Pak's the number would be 1200-2000.

M.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

... I got the official ' Royal Artillery Commemoration Book 1939-1945' , published in 1950 for members of the service. It is heavy and looks great with maps and stuff ...

[green]Good for you![/green] I've seen that referenced all over the place, and it should be rather interesting. With any luck it will contain enough hints to be able to figure out techniques.

Just had a quick squizz at bookfinder.com. Gulp!

Regards

JonS</font>

[Brian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Does anyone know how much barrel wear was an issue for the 8,8? That would probably come into consideration when used regularly as indirect artillery.

Barrel wear was indeed an issue for the 8.8cm, Andreas. Hogg makes the point that the design of the weapon was changed several times in an effort to try and make it easier and more efficient to change the barrel liner sections.

The Germans however proved too clever even for themselves with the Flak 41, which had the join between two sections of liner just where the shoulder of the cartridge case was, with consequence problem that it would often expand and make extraction difficult. It was never really cured, despite moving to brass, rather than steel cases and even changing the number of liners. Pity, 'cause the Flak 41 was the best of the marque as far as AT performance goes.

The general rule of thumb though, is obviously, the higher the MV, the more barrel wear and the shorter the barrel life. The Germans tried to improve on that through the above mentioned use of multiple loose liners. They also tried (comparatively) novel shell designs, utilising different numbers of driving bands made of various materials. Even so, they never cured it. On some of their proposed superheavy AA guns, the barrel life was so short that they'd have barely lasted a single raid, with a life of only ~400 rounds.

The British, as far as I can tell in comparison simply bore the cost and changed the barrel as often as necessary or possible in their various marks of 3.7in. I suspect the Americans did similar.

Where that wasn't possible, occasionally strange things occurred. My father who served in Darwin during WWII, would relate stories of one 3.7in AA gun whose barrel had run its course but there was no replacements available. Excessive use and wear had resulted in a noticeable problem with accuracy. Apparently it tended to throw its shells in one particular direction. The resourceful gunners merely produced a correction table and continued to use the gun against the frequence Japanese air attacks until it was declared unsafe.

[MikeyD]

Until last week I would've been in the 'highly unlikely' camp on the 88 indirect fire debate, until I spotted on the PBS (BBC?) 'Battlefield' series combat footage of 88s in Russia being fired at about a 40 degree elevation. Too steep for direct fire and too shallow for AA.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Until last week I would've been in the 'highly unlikely' camp on the 88 indirect fire debate, until I spotted on the PBS (BBC?) 'Battlefield' series combat footage of 88s in Russia being fired at about a 40 degree elevation. Too steep for direct fire and too shallow for AA.

Not necessarily - I think BH posted somewhere somefink about low level barrages against likely avenues of FB approach. Could it be for one of those?

Brian thanks - very helpful. So basically they would last through a very limited number of indirect fire preparations, and not much more?

[Marlow]

Not an 88, but it looks relevant. Apparently American TD units were used in the indirect fire role quite commonly. Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II has quite a bit of discussion about TDs as artillery. The 3 inch gun on the TDs would have many of the same limitations as an 88 (high velocity, integrated charge, barrel wear), but they were still used in this role on a frequent basis.

[MikeyD]

M10 TDs had indirect fire sighting devices (also included in poost-war M48 MBTs but not M1A1a), and the interphone connection box at the bottom of the fighting compartment was often repositioned to allow room higher gun elevation.

This was due to the fact that the U.S. had many more TDs than the Axis armies had tanks, and fire support was the next logical use for the vehicles.

Germans, on the other hand, had more use for dedicated ant-tank weapons... but as the was progressed probably had to make due with whater was available for whatever mission was available. aka 88s as artillery.

[Andreas]

Shermans were used in indirect fire roles as well, especially during the later stage of the campaign in NWE. A big difference to me would be that the Germans never became that profligate in their use of artillery.

[M Hofbauer]

IIRC the main reason for the excessive barrel wear was the use of "Führungsringe" (~ the rings guiding the shell through the rifling, dunno how to translate, Andreras will understand) made of copper.

[JonS]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

IIRC the main reason for the excessive barrel wear was the use of "Führungsringe" (~ the rings guiding the shell through the rifling, dunno how to translate, Andreras will understand) made of copper.

Driving bands?

Probably, though I would think that the incredibly high temperatures and pressures didn't help much

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Shermans were used in indirect fire roles as well, especially during the later stage of the campaign in NWE.

Also in Italy, and Korea, where terrain prevented tanks from operating as tanks.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

IIRC the main reason for the excessive barrel wear was the use of "Führungsringe"

I think you'll find you're using that word incorrectly; everyone knows it actually refers to what Hitler wore on his right hand after marrying Eva Braun.

[JonS]

nah - wasn't it where Goebbels (sp?) kept his nose?

[Brian]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Brian thanks - very helpful. So basically they would last through a very limited number of indirect fire preparations, and not much more?

Just as they would only last through a limited number of any firing, Andreas. As far as I'm aware, the German army did not issue a specific round for artillery work, instead relying upon the basic HE round, the 8.8cm Sprgr Patr L/4.5.

As it was a fixed round, the muzzle velocity for it would have been exactly the same if it was used for AA or indirect fire. The only difference in it when used for each role was that it was fitted with a time fuse AZ 23/28 for AA and an impact fuse, the Zeit Z S/30 for indirect artilery.

This would mean that the barrel would wear at the same rate, no matter which role it was used for. So, if your batteries are firing indirect, they'll need to replace those barrels at the same rate as if they were firing AA.

[Frw Koslov]

Eric,

Many Luftwaffe Feld Divisions had 88's as their entire artillery ToE.

Not strictly true, they may have used their HAA batteries as arty because of a lack of real guns or howitzers.

There was a classic incident North West of Caen where a non-Lufty officer came across one of 16FD(L)'s HAA 88mm batteries and asked them to engage Allied armour. The battery commander told him to poke off as they were a Flak unit and not trained in engaging ground targets. The senior officer then draws his pistol and points out that unless the battery commander co-operates he will be shot dead on the spot.

17FD(L) (which could not be considered a particularly well turned out Feld Division) had 105mm guns and 150mm howitzers in 17LAR.

On the issue of indirect fire from 88's, I believe it maybe possible, but highly unlikely and not something you would see happen - there are just too many more suitable weapons to do this with to bother.

Incidently, talking of smallarms indirect fire, never seen a SMLE used for indirect fire (or even mentioned in the training manuals) but the Vickers is capable of indirect when fitted with basically a mortar type sight it can provide fire out to 4000yds (included in the training manual). This was done in WW1 to provide area harassing fire onto the enemy's rear postions.

Frw. Koslov

(re-enactor of 835 Ostbattailon, Luftwaffen Feld Division 17)

[Claus B]

The barrel wear of the 8,8cm Flak was apparently dependant on the type of propellant? At least that is the impression you get when reading the "Datenblätter" for the gun:

2000-2500 rounds "b. Röhr.-Pulv. B"

6000 rounds "b. Röhr.-Pulv. M"

For comparision, the 10,5cm lFH 18 is rated at 10,000 - 12,000 rounds, the 10cm K 18 at 6000 rounds.

Claus B

[Mattias]

In the German language version of Gander & Chamberlians book on German weapons the "Rohrlebensdauer" is set to:

2000-2500 (Kupfer-Fb)

6000 (Sintereisen-Fb)

The numbers are the same but this source seems to point at the Führungsringe / driving bands, the life of the barrel being dependent on the material used. Or is the "Fb" reference related to the composition of the charge??

M.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mattias:

In the German language version of Gander & Chamberlians book on German weapons the "Rohrlebensdauer" is set to:

2000-2500 (Kupfer-Fb)

6000 (Sintereisen-Fb)

The numbers are the same but this source seems to point at the Führungsringe / driving bands, the life of the barrel being dependent on the material used. Or is the "Fb" reference related to the composition of the charge??

M.

I don't see how it can possibly be anything to do with the charge, whereas (despite the fact I don't sprechen Deutsche worth a damn) copper and sintered iron would seem like quite reasonable materials for driving bands. I'm rather surprised that the copper band should give a shorter barrel life than the sintered iron one, though.

All the best,

John.

[Gary T]

If you watch any of the numerous German newsreels from the war there are plenty of instances where 88's are being used in an indirect role in the Soviet Union.

[Frw Koslov]

But are they actually being "used" as that?

News reels show what the people filming want to show. "Here is a mighty German artillery battery all armed to the teeth with our wonder weapon - the 88mm" - if you were going to stage fire such a line up, you'd do it somewhere safe and point them in the air...

Koslov