88's being used as artillery pieces for indirect fire

[Casarez]

Hello,

There is a debate about the use of 88s as artillery pieces for indirect fire and how common it was. A person posted the following sources and I was wondering if anyone had these that they could look them up:

"78 Sturm Division Ia/Nr. 63/43 g. Kdos., 16.3.1943", U.S. National Archives, Captured German Records, Series T-78, Roll 620.

Hermann Jung, Die Ardennes-offensive, 1944/45 (Gottingen: Musterschmidt, 1971), P. 349

Also does anyone have any other sources that talks about this. Was this a common practice?

[David W]

I can offer no evidence, but I would have thought that the very high muzzle velocity of the 88 would have made it a most unsuitable gun for indirect fire.
It certainly was the case with the Tiger, as the battailons had to be bolstered with the PzKpfw III N to give them an H.E capability.

[tirola]

I don't think that high muzzle velocity is bad for indirect fire.
The ZIS-3 was also commonly used in that role.

[Casarez]

I don't think that high muzzle velocity is bad for indirect fire. The ZIS-3 was also commonly used in that role.

Yes it was but the Soviets tended to do direct fire as opposed to indirect fire with their arty. Or am I mistaken?

[David W]

No Rick, you are not mistaken, the Zis would have probably been used almost exclusively in a 'direct' role.

[Casarez]

No Rick, you are not mistaken, the Zis would have probably been used almost exclusively in a 'direct' role.

OK, I thought so. I am aware arty devices were used in direct fire mode and that even 88's were used in direct fire mode. I am curious if 88's were ever used in the indirect fire mode.

[Vagandubo]

Well, I really think it is a myth that the 88 was used for indirekt fire.
If you watch "Band of Brothers", they always fight the 88. In part 2 or 3 they fight an artillery site that is a menace for the landing zones at the beach. They fight against 75mm artillery guns.

Around Bastone in the Ardenna wood, the Easy company is under artillery attack. Again someone states to be under fire from the 88s. I think it is the same myth as it is with the Tiger and the SS: Every German Tank is a Tiger, every single German man was in the SS, every artillery gun the 88
:-)
Cheers,

Phil

[Casarez]

Well, I really think it is a myth that the 88 was used for indirekt fire.
If you watch "Band of Brothers", they always fight the 88. In part 2 or 3 they fight an artillery site that is a menace for the landing zones at the beach. They fight against 75mm artillery guns.

Around Bastone in the Ardenna wood, the Easy company is under artillery attack. Again someone states to be under fire from the 88s. I think it is the same myth as it is with the Tiger and the SS: Every German Tank is a Tiger, every single German man was in the SS, every artillery gun the 88

Yes well I am on your side of the arguement. The thing is people saying it did happen made reference to the two sources I posted above. Someone else did post though that the 78 Sturm Division never had any 88's in 1943 so that could be wrong.

In BoB they were supposed to be 105s and the show does acknowledge near the end of that episode that the guns were not 88's but 105's. One of the people argueing for this mentioned that episode and we told him to go re-watch it and pay attention to the end.

Now you are correct that in the later episode they say they are being shelled by 88's but there is nothing to prove that and can be easily chalked up to the phenomenon you talk about. I am just curious about the sources claimed since I do not possess them to check out.

[Martin Block]

The document '78 Sturm Division Ia/Nr. 63/43 g. Kdos., 16.3.1943' is a report evaluating the organisational structure and the equipment of the division in action during the first half of March 1943.

The 78. Sturm-Div. did infact have 8,8 cm Flak guns. Heeres-Flak-Art.Abt. 293 with two 4 gun batteries was an organic part of the division. According to the above mentioned report the attachment of the Abteilung to the divisional Art.Rgt. had proven itself. Quote "Sie konnte in besonderen Lagen im Erdbeschuss zur Verstärkung der Artillerie im indirekten Richten mit herangezogen werden" which basically translates that the 8,8 cm guns in special situations had been used in indirect fire mode to reinforce the artillery.

The report doesn't go into any detail, but it is commonly known that everything that goes up, will eventually come down again. Yes, the 8,8 gun did have a very flat trajectory, but on long range and with special range tables for ground targeting I don't see why it couldn't have been used as artillery in certain situations. Hitting targets behind hills etc. like howitzers can, would of course have been out of the question. But since 8,8 Flak shells could be time fused I could for instance imagine a devastating effect of a salvo exploding right above a certain target.
The division at least was satisfied with having the Abteilung and wanted it to further stay attached to the artillery regiment.

In this context it may be of interest that in June 1943 the OKH ordered equipment of one battery in the artillery regiments of no less than 12 infantry divisions (15., 26., 68., 82., 88., 167., 294., 327., 332., 333., 335., 387.) under H.Gr. Mitte with 8,8 cm Pak 43/41 due to its good performance as field gun. And I wouldn' call the trajectory of these guns flat! That this allocation was not considered to be just a boost in a/t capability is IMHO shown by the fact that ammution allocation ( 1. Munitions-Ausstattung) was ordered as 160 HE rounds and 40 AP rounds per gun.

Just my 2 Cents,

Martin Block

[Martin Block]

P.S.: Hermann Jung, Die Ardennes-offensive, 1944/45, P. 349 must be a misquote. There's nothing 8,8-used-as-artillery related on that page. A quicky thumbing through the book led to nothing all. But I may have overlooked something.

Martin Block

[Casarez]

The 78. Sturm-Div. did infact have 8,8 cm Flak guns. Heeres-Flak-Art.Abt. 293 with two 4 gun batteries was an organic part of the division. According to the above mentioned report the attachment of the Abteilung to the divisional Art.Rgt. had proven itself. Quote "Sie konnte in besonderen Lagen im Erdbeschuss zur Verstärkung der Artillerie im indirekten Richten mit herangezogen werden" which basically translates that the 8,8 cm guns in special situations had been used in indirect fire mode to reinforce the artillery.

OK, so they did have 88's. Does it describe what these "special situations" were?

The report doesn't go into any detail, but it is commonly known that everything that goes up, will eventually come down again. Yes, the 8,8 gun did have a very flat trajectory, but on long range and with special range tables for ground targeting I don't see why it couldn't have been used as artillery in certain situations. Hitting targets behind hills etc. like howitzers can, would of course have been out of the question. But since 8,8 Flak shells could be time fused I could for instance imagine a devastating effect of a salvo exploding right above a certain target.
The division at least was satisfied with having the Abteilung and wanted it to further stay attached to the artillery regiment.

Well my questions are these:

1. If they were used how effective were they compared to dedicated arty pieces?
2. Did these special range tables exist for these crews to use? Are there any examples of these tables for 88's?

In this context it may be of interest that in June 1943 the OKH ordered equipment of one battery in the artillery regiments of no less than 12 infantry divisions (15., 26., 68., 82., 88., 167., 294., 327., 332., 333., 335., 387.) under H.Gr. Mitte with 8,8 cm Pak 43/41 due to its good performance as field gun. And I wouldn' call the trajectory of these guns flat! That this allocation was not considered to be just a boost in a/t capability is IMHO shown by the fact that ammution allocation ( 1. Munitions-Ausstattung) was ordered as 160 HE rounds and 40 AP rounds per gun.

Could it have been a boost to their AA protection in addition to AT protection? What type of rounds did 88's normally fire at aircraft, HE or AP? I would suspect HE which would make the issuing of more HE rounds than AP rounds not out of the ordinary.

[Martin Block]

As I said the report does not go into any details, so there is no direct answer to your questions about 'special situations', effectiveness and possible indirect fire range tables in it. The 78. Sturm-Div. report simply states that the division was pleased with the indirect fire support provided by the 8,8 cm Flak guns of H.Flak-Art.Abt. 293 at several occasions.

With regard to the 12 8,8 cm batteries for infantry divisions I mentioned: These were 8,8 cm PAK, i.e.anti-tank guns, NOT Flak guns. Since the guns had a roughly comparable performance as 8,8 Flak guns at low angle firing this example is IMHO not far fetched. And the HE rounds coming with these PAK guns were provided for use against ground targets.
The order states that Schusstafeln (range tables) H.Dv. 119/329, H.Dv. 119/150, H.Dv. 119/151 were to be provided for each battery. These were probably the range tables used for targets in visible range. In addition range tables for maximum gun range were to follow as soon they had been completed ('Schiessbefehle für die dem Erhöhungsbereich entsprechende Höchstschussweite werden nach Fertigstellung zugestellt'). Since the guns were relatively new and originally intended for a/t use, very long range tables apparently had yet to be established.


Martin Block

[Casarez]

As I said the report does not go into any details, so there is no direct answer to your questions about 'special situations', effectiveness and possible indirect fire range tables in it. The 78. Sturm-Div. report simply states that the division was pleased with the indirect fire support provided by the 8,8 cm Flak guns of H.Flak-Art.Abt. 293 at several occasions.

ah ok, I was genuinely curious.

With regard to the 12 8,8 cm batteries for infantry divisions I mentioned: These were 8,8 cm PAK, i.e.anti-tank guns, NOT Flak guns. Since the guns had a roughly comparable performance as 8,8 Flak guns at low angle firing this example is IMHO not far fetched. And the HE rounds coming with these PAK guns were provided for use against ground targets.
The order states that Schusstafeln (range tables) H.Dv. 119/329, H.Dv. 119/150, H.Dv. 119/151 were to be provided for each battery. These were probably the range tables used for targets in visible range. In addition range tables for maximum gun range were to follow as soon they had been completed ('Schiessbefehle für die dem Erhöhungsbereich entsprechende Höchstschussweite werden nach Fertigstellung zugestellt'). Since the guns were relatively new and originally intended for a/t use, very long range tables apparently had yet to be established.

D'oh, I missed that my mistake.

[Reb]

Casarez

the 88 Flak could be used for anti-personnel work but in a direct fire mode. Most if not all German high velocity pieces had HE ammo available. I've read several allied accounts of the shell bursting almost at the same time as they heard the sound of the gun (or even sooner at close range) An 88 AT round actually lodged itself in the wall of a building where Ernest Hemingway was partying with friends in the 4th Div.

theoretically any gun could do indirect fire I suppose if you point it up in the air - the shell will come down and probably in a predictable pattern. But High velocity guns are bad for that - barrel wear is much worse than say, for a howitzer. The HE rounds are mostly for protection. Except with tanks of course - the British often cursed their lack of an HE capability with home grown tanks.

With US troops '88' was slang for damn near any German gun. I've read numerous accounts of troops who heard the whine of incoming 88 rounds. not hardly.... But in the first war everything was a '77'. They were after all soldiers - not technicians.

btw - I thought that BOB episode with the 88s that were actually 75s was excellent. It showed the slang use of '88' but had the actual weapons used. Who could ask for more? (answer: me. the episode the the Stug III!)

cheers
Reb

[donwhite]

In the book 'The Anvil of War: German Generalship in defense of the Eastern Front' there is a chapter on military improvisations by General Raus (I think) about the activities of the Panzerkorps he was in (I forget the designation-it was not part of 4th Pz Army but part of the detachment of the left (with 6, 7 & 19 PD's) around Belgorod(?)) during the Kursk Offensive. He mentions a heavy Flak Regiment been deputised to act in the Artillery role due to the lack Artillery in the Army detachment. I'll have to chase the book up again to see if he mentions anything about direct or indirect firing.