German turned FLAK 18 88mm into an artillery piece

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

You won´t get any objections from me that the German infantry guns were less than optimal. Personally I would replace both the 75mm and the sIG33 with 120mm mortars. The PAW came far too late, so either take the overly heavy PAK 40 or priotise Tungsten ammo for PAk38 on the regimental level until it is ready (with hand held weapons like the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck widespread below that level) to have some long range AT ability. Less than perfect than what is available.
SP 150mm SIGs and even towed division versions would still be highly useful. Without HESH rounds the 75mm IG is just not nearly as useful as the 120mm and should be replaced. At the regiment level four 120mm could do the same job as the entire IG company IMHO even without their direct fire capability. The PAW would have been an ideal IG/AT weapon replacement, but it was available far too late to matter. I'm partial to the tungsten ammo for the PAK38 (or a much better PAK38 Stielgranate 42 design...I mean why couldn't they develop a 75mm version that could shoot further and be more accurate?): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/73_mm_PG-9.jpg/300px-73_mm_PG-9.jpg
If they didn't make any of the squeeze bore weapons they should have had enough for the PAK38s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Pak_41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_cm_Pak_41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.8_cm_sPzB_41
The PAK40 should have been no less than a division level weapon IMHO, probably replaced by the 88mm field gun from 1943 on too.

But I still keep to my opinion that an 88mm multi-purpose gun would be a disaster if it were the main light artillery of the German army, mainly from a mobility POV. Germany had in total less than 25000 vehicles which could move the Pak 43 reliably in anything but ideal conditions (not to mention the total mobility disaster the two-wheeled 43/41 was). And that are the vehicles which also move the German heavy AA and heavier artillery. OTOH pretty much any vehicle can move a weapon a third as heavy. And still the Wehrmacht had to give up PAk40s which could not be moved. The Pak 43 has obvious advantages in effectiveness over a 75mm divisional gun (which would have been far more effective than the pure AT Pak 40 of otl) both in AT and in artillery function, but strategically it can´t fill the same role. It would too often be impossible to get the guns to the position where they are useful. With the available resources it could only supplement it. The alternative would be to drastically shorten the barrel of the 88 to make it lighter, but that would sort of defeat the purpose to have a long range and high AT capablity.
I didn't suggest that the 88mm field gun be the main artillery weapon, the howitzers should be for that; an 88mm field gun would be a division level AT weapon and a CB/longer range harassment weapon that outranged the howitzers and other enemy division weapons they'd face. I'm not saying the PAK43, rather a "Kanon 36", a L56 (or maybe slightly less) 88mm field gun. Horse hauling is definitely doable with a weapon like that. A Opel Blitz could handle it too. IMHO the PAK43 shouldn't have been made for the reasons you describe and they should have made a field gun version of the L56 88mm.
 
Mixed up the guns there. The guns encountered early in Barbarossa were of course the earlier USVs. They were not the driving force to develop the PAk 40 either, which had been in development since 39. But the main focus had been on the 50mm, which suited German AT doctrine better. And until 43 they were still useful with tungsten ammo even against tanks like the KV-1. The performance of captured Soviet divisional guns persuaded the Germans that the 75mm should get higher priority and captured examples were used as intermediate solution.

The AP performance of the captured Soviet field 76,2mm guns (the F-22 and USV) was not above the 5cm pak, both using the AP ammo of same technology. So, again - Soviet tanks were the driving force behind the Pak 40 getting priority.
AP performance of the captured Soviet F-22 guns went up once the barrel was re-bored so the new & much more powerful ammo (a modification of the ammo for Pak 40) could be used, the barrel received muzzle brake (so the recoil system and carriage are not over-stressed during the firing). Commands for gun elevation and azymuth were located on same side of the barrel, so the single gun aimer can do the aiming. 'New' gun got the Pak 36(r) name.

But I still keep to my opinion that an 88mm multi-purpose gun would be a disaster if it were the main light artillery of the German army, mainly from a mobility POV. Germany had in total less than 25000 vehicles which could move the Pak 43 reliably in anything but ideal conditions (not to mention the total mobility disaster the two-wheeled 43/41 was). And that are the vehicles which also move the German heavy AA and heavier artillery. OTOH pretty much any vehicle can move a weapon a third as heavy. And still the Wehrmacht had to give up PAk40s which could not be moved. The Pak 43 has obvious advantages in effectiveness over a 75mm divisional gun (which would have been far more effective than the pure AT Pak 40 of otl) both in AT and in artillery function, but strategically it can´t fill the same role. It would too often be impossible to get the guns to the position where they are useful. With the available resources it could only supplement it. The alternative would be to drastically shorten the barrel of the 88 to make it lighter, but that would sort of defeat the purpose to have a long range and high AT capablity.

...
I didn't suggest that the 88mm field gun be the main artillery weapon, the howitzers should be for that; an 88mm field gun would be a division level AT weapon and a CB/longer range harassment weapon that outranged the howitzers and other enemy division weapons they'd face. I'm not saying the PAK43, rather a "Kanon 36", a L56 (or maybe slightly less) 88mm field gun. Horse hauling is definitely doable with a weapon like that. A Opel Blitz could handle it too. IMHO the PAK43 shouldn't have been made for the reasons you describe and they should have made a field gun version of the L56 88mm.

I'm not sure that it is stressed enough; the Pak 43 is not a version of the plain vanilla 8,8 cm Flak 18/36/37. It was a relative of the much more powerful 8,8 cm Flak 41. The '8,8 cm FK' that uses L56 barrel along with it's 'normal power' ammo would've allowed for a much lighter cannon. Not unlike the Soviet 85mm D44 cannon, that weighted 1725 km, with range of 15+ km on max elevation of 35 deg.
Use of the lefh 18 carriage - greater elevation, and weight admittedly greater than the D44.
 
I didn't suggest that the 88mm field gun be the main artillery weapon, the howitzers should be for that; an 88mm field gun would be a division level AT weapon and a CB/longer range harassment weapon that outranged the howitzers and other enemy division weapons they'd face. I'm not saying the PAK43, rather a "Kanon 36", a L56 (or maybe slightly less) 88mm field gun. Horse hauling is definitely doable with a weapon like that. A Opel Blitz could handle it too. IMHO the PAK43 shouldn't have been made for the reasons you describe and they should have made a field gun version of the L56 88mm.
So basically you want to put the older Flak 18 onto a split trail carriage to reduce the weight. That seems more reasonable than how I understood your idea. I find it always difficult to estimate how such changes affect the weight, but I estimate it would bring it down by half compared to the flak mount. That is still a heavy brute, but not too much for most towing vehicles. And it keeps the gun useful against all enemy tanks (with - not overly - limited range against some Russian late-war designs). I still think a 75mm solution has advantages, but I withdraw my objection.
 

Deleted member 1487

So basically you want to put the older Flak 18 onto a split trail carriage to reduce the weight. That seems more reasonable than how I understood your idea. I find it always difficult to estimate how such changes affect the weight, but I estimate it would bring it down by half compared to the flak mount. That is still a heavy brute, but not too much for most towing vehicles. And it keeps the gun useful against all enemy tanks (with - not overly - limited range against some Russian late-war designs). I still think a 75mm solution has advantages, but I withdraw my objection.
The combat weight of the FLAK 18 was about 5000kg, so half the weight would be 2500kg. That's 750kg more than the Soviet D-44, but with better AP and HE abilities. If it keeps it's range from the FLAK mounting it would be roughly comparable to the Soviet 122mm 2A18 Howitzer of the 1950s. It would well outrange any division level artillery, but have issues against corps level guns.
 
The picture with two cannons, the Pak 36(r) to the left, and F-22 to the right. Please note the ammo on the pic, for respective cannons - there was more than twice the propellant in the German upgrade of the gun. The casing's length was ~715mm for the German (looks like the casing from the Pak 40 was used as base), and 385mm for the Soviet ammo.

russki.jpg
 
Biggest factor is chemical erosion not mechanical so (unless its a squeezebore) type of propellant, finish on the tube, manufacturing quality of tube and propellant etc and ofc its not pure number of shells fired but shells over time, 300 rounds at one a day had different effect from 300 in a single day.





And where have you ever seen anything on scale of issue of radios to german units or the ability of artillery batteries to generate FOO teams anywhere?

The standard issue radio 'manpack' can fit in a pack consists of three units, but unless you set up a 50 foot ground antenna which makes you static, pathetic range. The germans concentrated their radio sets at command levels and in AFV and recon units but these are not netted either to supporting artillery units or critically across the whole of the artillery in range. They don't need ( in their view) to have the ability to call in accurate observed fire on the bounce because the divisions have infantry gun companies, mortars or Assault artillery which can fire direct or with a fairly short wire link and Stukas.

The whole point of mobile warfare is to avoid prolonged material heavy engagements.

The British ( and the US and French) do not have these things because they developed a different way of controlling artillery based on the ability both to call down very large fires from multiple regiments quickly and observed fire from a single gun on a point target. They get speed because in the British system the volume of fire from multiple batteries covers a wide area - the STandard cONCentration 100x100 yds or Stonk, the Franco US because they have enough skilled manpower to produce multiple fire calculations continually and pick the right one from the file drawer when its needed.

Not quite sure what you have been reading on CB fire but from the summer 42 in the west German artillery is a minor factor on the battlefield and in Russia while it can be important from Smolensk on wherever the front stabilises Soviet artillery is able to operate continually and is a serious problem because it is only suppressed by being overrun or bombed.

POW interrogations from Normandy indicate that German artillery commands arriving n the west were specificlly ordered never to fire more that 4 rounds or twice from a single position.

One of the things you need to realise is both the Western allies and the German had learned the lessons of WW1 and were trained ( or in the case of the US the lessons of 1916 to be accurate). One of those lessons was that the British ( and French) artillery was both technically and materially superior so for the Germans getting into a slugfest based on an artillery war is an entirely losing proposition. Having an inferior artillery arm is acceptable, if that also means you have the ability to fight a fast paced mobile war able to bring the whole campaign to an end in a single season.
My understanding is that the U.S. in WW2 also emphasized quickly computing the targeting data for their field artillery. (I seem to recall reading that the U.S. Made extensive use of pre calculated data tables and other aides that sped up the computing of necessary data.) Reportedly the Germans were un pleasantly surprised at times as to how quickly the U.S. Field artillery could bring down accurate fire on newly observed targets. Combined with VT fuses it made for an even more lethal combination.
 
Yet the US M10 and M36 probably fired more rounds in indirect fire mode than in direct fire
98aae508dc37834c0d01e0575fa73b0a.jpg

Interesting connection there. The gun on the M10 was derived from the T7 cannon used in the 1920s to test the concept of a universal gun. Set on a cruciform carriage the weapon was to equip the infantry division and be used as a direct fire/AT weapon, a field artillery weapon, and as AA Artillery. In a mid 1920s issue of the US Field Artillery Journal there is a article written by one of the project officers. Ultimately the Army dropped the universal gun concept, but it lived on in other armies. A Austrian artillery officer proposed the same in the 1930s, calling it a "Tank und Flieger" or TuF cannon. The Red Army tested a 76.2 cannon for this application & possiblly a 85mm caliber cannon as well. Not sure if the idea percolated over to the French of British.
 
As a potential option other than the FLAK18, how about the short naval 88 as a field gun?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-45_skc13.php

Looking on these smaller 8.8cm guns, they seem like easier fit on an AFV. Basically - Heer saying the LW: we don't want your freakin 8.8cm L56, we'd rather use the KM version, since, being smaller and lighter, it will fit our needs better. We want it in/on an AFV, and as a towed gun. We'll stick the muzzle brake on it so the recoil is evan more manageable, and carriage and whole gun are lighter. And have the HE ammo with reduced charge available, too.

Granted, this is not along the lines of the PoD here, but it might supply the Heer with a long-ish range gun, that can also double as a better AT gun than the 7.5cm Pak.
 
My understanding is that the U.S. in WW2 also emphasized quickly computing the targeting data for their field artillery. (I seem to recall reading that the U.S. Made extensive use of pre calculated data tables and other aides that sped up the computing of necessary data.) ...

Yes, tho the "file drawer" is a myth derived from a old lecture by a non artillerist who did not understand how the system worked. The US artillerist in WWII could use two different 'modern' tools for finding tube elevation and fuze time. One was a book of tables with that and dozens of correction factors. A good computation chief could race through that in seconds. The other tool as a specialized slide rule that showed elevation & fuze time & a few other items for range entered. This was not only very fast, but once corrections for variables were found they could be entered on the scale as a new corrected indice obviating the rentry of corrections for each calculation.

The Brits used range drums on the cannon, which the US Army moved away from. Both the US Army and the Brits decentralized the execution of the gunnery solution from the FO to the firing units. They used differing techniques but arrived at the same point. One core difference is the Brits placed less emphasis on precision for common classes of artillery missions. That cut out precious seconds of computation time with the idea being a hail of fire over a somewhat wider area sooner vs a more precise strike thirty of sixty seconds later. When time was not pressing the Brits would add in all the fine tuning to the computation. The bulk of US Army artillery units lacked any combat experience in 1944 & were still sticking to the full school book procedure. A portion of the few combat experienced US artillery units were experimenting with refinements that streamlined the gunnery solution.
 

Deleted member 1487

Looking on these smaller 8.8cm guns, they seem like easier fit on an AFV. Basically - Heer saying the LW: we don't want your freakin 8.8cm L56, we'd rather use the KM version, since, being smaller and lighter, it will fit our needs better. We want it in/on an AFV, and as a towed gun. We'll stick the muzzle brake on it so the recoil is evan more manageable, and carriage and whole gun are lighter. And have the HE ammo with reduced charge available, too.

Granted, this is not along the lines of the PoD here, but it might supply the Heer with a long-ish range gun, that can also double as a better AT gun than the 7.5cm Pak.
Actually that might have been an ideal StuG weapon. The L56 is too much gun for the chassis, but an L45 might work. Plus it can work as an indirect fire field piece and still do well as an AT gun. Plus if they ever figure out APDS rounds they'd have a fine platform even with hardened, capped steel penetrators to smash even an IS-2.
 
The first item is the specialized slide rule I refered to earlier. Officially titled 'Graphic Firing Table" or GFT we called it in the vernacular a "Stick"
GFT 2.jpg
The side visible has two scales, one for a three increment propellant charge, the upside down scale is for a single increment charge. The line on the slide is set on the range & tube elevation read off its scale. A 'corrected' line is drawn with a pencil right or left of the primary & from that is read the elevation after adjustments.

Next item is a chart from a WWII Fire Direction Center. The caption claims a 155 battery. A battalion FDC would look the same other than a few more people and usually multiple chart tables.
Fire Chart.WWII.2.jpg
The protractors we used were exclusively to find range. That in the illustration seems to have some other data on. I've seen illustrations of range protractors with a GFT built into it, but never used one.
 
Interesting connection there. The gun on the M10 was derived from the T7 cannon used in the 1920s to test the concept of a universal gun. Set on a cruciform carriage the weapon was to equip the infantry division and be used as a direct fire/AT weapon, a field artillery weapon, and as AA Artillery. In a mid 1920s issue of the US Field Artillery Journal there is a article written by one of the project officers. Ultimately the Army dropped the universal gun concept, but it lived on in other armies. A Austrian artillery officer proposed the same in the 1930s, calling it a "Tank und Flieger" or TuF cannon. The Red Army tested a 76.2 cannon for this application & possiblly a 85mm caliber cannon as well. Not sure if the idea percolated over to the French of British.

The US 90mm was almost there, just 260 pound heavier than the 3" M7 tube and breech, both approx. 52.5 caliber long and was known as the triple threat.

But the Army fought so hard to keep 90s off of tanks and tank destroyers, with Gen. Bruce vetoing the T53 90mm SPG in 1942, cancelling an initial order of 500
usspg-T53-90mm

Only after the new M10 (Standardized June, 1942)was struggling in AT work, did the T71 get greenlit in September 1943, despite Bruce still not liking the upgunned M10.

It took almost a year to got from T71 to M36 being Standardized, on June 1, 1944 with an initial order of 300 units.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well I found some other options for the 88mm field gun:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_88mm-30_skc97.php
The Germans did have the older L30 naval 88s with near 25 lber performance. So how about replacing the infantry guns with them? Instead of having 75mm and 150mm IGs, they could have say 6x 88mm L30 support guns for the regiment that could theoretically double as AT weapons. They had good range and their weight was very low, something like 644kg with naval mounting, which is PAW600 weight. Range was about 12km max. Replace the infantry guns and AT guns at the regiment level with the L30 88mm. Save the longer 75mm PAK40 for the division level AT. The Germans discovered that the 75mm IG was too short ranged to really work so they developed the IG37 and 42 in 1940, about 100kg lower weight than the L30 88 for the former, but only 50kg lower weight for the latter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Infanteriegeschütz_37
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_Infanteriegeschütz_42
Might as well up-caliber and have the extra HE throwing weight and AT capabilities, especially as it is off the shelf. Having a rapid fire, higher HE, AT capable IG weapon at the regimental level would be pretty damn useful to break up massed Soviet infantry and even AT attacks, given how useful the British 25 pounder was for doing the same to the Germans. But this way with it being an infantry gun weapon for the regiment, the division artillery doesn't have to worry about figuring a fire control scheme for it and with the existing HEAT shells it would be plenty to kill any Soviet AFV until the IS-2 shows up. Plus with the increased HE weight it can destroy buildings and fortifications much more easily than a 75mm IG gun.
 
Top