Can Opener | 8.8 cm Flak in anti-tank role

Рет қаралды 86,990

2 ай бұрын

The German army entered the Second World War with the belief that the 3.7 cm caliber anti-tank guns would be sufficient to deal with enemy tanks. They quickly realized that this gun was barely adequate, and in many cases, almost useless when dealing with stronger enemy armor. Early tank guns also found themselves in a similar situation. Having to address the situation, and somewhat in desperation, the Germans turned to what they had at hand. Luckily for them, they had a large number of available 8.8 cm (3.46 in) anti-aircraft guns that had excellent ballistic properties and proved to be very good at taking out the most well-protected tanks. Too often, the German ground forces would turn to the 8.8 cm guns to turn the day in their favor in the early stages of the war. After 1942, their role as anti-tank weapons was somewhat diminished, but they remained in use up to the end of the war.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/tanke...
Article:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/88-fla...
Sources:
J. Norris (2002) 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45 Osprey Publishing
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle () Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/41 in the Anti-Tank role
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak
W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
E. D. Westermann (2001) Flak, German Anti-Aircraft Defense 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas.
German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel (29th June 1943) War Department Technical Manual
T. Anderson (2018) History of Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-45, Osprey publishing
T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey publishing
S. Zaloga (2011) Armored Attack 1944, Stackpole book
W. Fowler (2002) France, Holland and Belgium 1940, Allan Publishing
1ATB in France 1939-40, Military Modeling Vol.44 (2014) AFV Special
N. Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armored Operation North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
A. Radić (2011) Arsenal 51 and 52
A. Lüdeke, Waffentechnik Im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon
8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155
S. H. Newton (2002) Kursk The German View, Da Capo Pres
Tank Encyclopedia Magazines and Books: payhip.com/TankEncyclopedia
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by Marko P
Narrated by Ashley Shannon
Edited by Krish Wawa
Sound edited by Ashley Shannon

Пікірлер: 191

@kawaiiarchive357 2 ай бұрын

I laughed at the idea of the first armor to face the 8.8 cm was 2 mere T26s. It's like using a shotgun to kill a spider.

@bushsbakedbaby1374 2 ай бұрын

The second t26 after seeing his comrade get reduced to carbon 🗿

@shanepatrick4534 2 ай бұрын

Can you imagine what the heavy HE rounds would do to .5" of armor, or what happened to the occupants?

@graham2631 2 ай бұрын

The germans 37mm was bouncing off the KV 1, l think it was, they had nothing that could penetrate its armor. It was then they brought up a 8.8 and used it as an anti tank weapon. Why would they waste time with a heavy piece when their 37mm would go clean through a 26?

@edtrine8692 2 ай бұрын

@@graham2631 I heard the Germans used to call the 37mm the door knocker lol.

@sharonrigs7999 2 ай бұрын

It's like taking a .458 Win Mag for bunny hunting.

@oskar6661 2 ай бұрын

My grandfather served as a motorized infantryman in WW2 - subsequently becoming an aviator and flying in Korea/Vietnam, etc. After his service he moved to a small town in Germany, where he was affectionately known as "the Colonel" by the locals. At a restaurant he was approached by a large red-haired German of roughly his own age. He introduced himself and they exchanged some wartime stories. The German had been a member of a 8.8 FlaK unit. He explained that in one instance the unit had been on the move, but stopped for lunch. As was common practice, they deployed one of the unit's guns "just in case". In the middle of their meal, a dozen T-34's appeared in the distance. They engaged and destroyed seven of them with the one deployed gun, forcing the others to retreat.

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 2 ай бұрын

My uncle was an American artillerist in the Battle of the Bulge. He described being shot at by an 88 as if a gigantic sniper rifle was taking shots at them, with such high velocity that the impact was before the sound of discharge.

@Theiliteritesbian 2 ай бұрын

Read george wilsons book!

@davidhollenshead4892 2 ай бұрын

I would hate to be infantry facing any of these cannons, but at least it would be fast...

@islahinckley4746 Ай бұрын

Any gun that fires shells at supersonic speed will do that though?

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Ай бұрын

@@islahinckley4746 He was used to the 155 howitzers he was working with.

@islahinckley4746 Ай бұрын

@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 155s also fire supersonic shells, the 155mm gun m1 had a muzzle velocity that was 13m/s faster than the 88

@user-kd2ij7te5v 2 ай бұрын

In Germany we called the thing 8 8 - “ eight eight” rather than “eighty eight”

@hornii-chan 2 ай бұрын

Wäre mir neu 🤷

@soundofeighthooves 2 ай бұрын

@@hornii-chan warst wohl nicht beim Militär.... Acht Achter

@jojoanggono3229 2 ай бұрын

I think it was simplified as ack ack

@peabase 2 ай бұрын

As a child, I used to play on an 'Acht-Acht' at a nearby military museum in Tuusula, Finland. In Finnish service, it was known as 'Rämäpää' or 'Hothead', after the manufacturer, RMB or Rheinmetall Borsig.

@user-xb5bh9ig1v 2 ай бұрын

@cesarvidelac 2 ай бұрын

Sorry, the muzzle velocity is measured in meters per second, not milliseconds.

@irememberhistory 2 ай бұрын

I hate narrators and AI who don’t know what the hell they are reading!

@cesarvidelac Ай бұрын

@@irememberhistory Yes, also some humans don't know what they read, unfortunately.

@Wien1938 2 ай бұрын

15:25 There were NO SS Panzer Divisions in late 1941. Liebstandarte was a reinforced motorised infantry regiment equivalent to a German brigade size force, [Das] Reich & Totenkopf were both motorised infantry divisions. None had tanks, though each had a small number of StuGs.

@BeardedGuy_Tawhid 2 ай бұрын

Das Jaegar!

@nomenestomen3452 2 ай бұрын

The 88 was Germanys real wonder weapon, not these expensive and resource consuming rockets and jets that came either too little or too late. The 88 and the StuG. They both had the most K/D ratio of any German military brand with thousands of destroyed airplanes, tanks, bunkers, infantry, artillery etc.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

The 8.8cm was no better than the UK 3.7 inch AA gun or the 90mm AA gun. In fact the 8.8cm was inferior in performance to those AA guns. The reason the 8.8cm stood out is because no one else needed to lug a huge barn-door gun around to fight tanks. It was massive overkill and a waste of resources. The built a highly complex gun system and fitted it with all the latest AA equipment and then NEVER USED THAT EUIPMENT when it was used in the ground role. Also a Panzer Division had 200 75mm guns and 12 8.8cm. It was very much a rare gun among the German Army Artillery park.

@chooyongming110 2 ай бұрын

10:33 rare picture of general rommel holding a camera

@alexwilliamson1486 2 ай бұрын

Had the fortune to meet an old tanker from WW2 at Duxford, Land warfare museum, in the late 90s, I was still in Army at the time so our conversation inevitably lead to his exploits in Normandy not long after D Day. He said he was engaged by 88s and told of a number of his comrades killed, one anecdote which will live with me for ever, was when a solid shot entered his Sherman and landed between him and the radio operator, still red hit and smoking, his Sherman had a neat 88mm round hole in the glacis….daylight clearly now coming in.. He was knocked out 5 times throughout the campaign. I distinctly remember how small he and his comrade was, not because of age, but just his stature. An incredible generation. What a fearsome piece of ordinance this gun was. Great vid.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

Any solid shot that landed 'red-hot' and did not explode was either faulty or a round at the limit of its range-even both!.

@shanepatrick4534 2 ай бұрын

I just got a great 1/35 scale Dragon version of the 36-37. This video will help with building and painting for sure

@SuperDarkSamurai1 2 ай бұрын

One of my favorite field weapons of WWII and truly a well designed weapon. He forgot to mention the Flak 41 variant of the 88.

@tarjei99 2 ай бұрын

The 88 got its anti-tank debut in the Spanish Civil war.

@andrewstrongman305 2 ай бұрын

The '88' was designed from the start to be a dual-purpose weapon, or they wouldn't have had any anti-tank ammunition for them.

@Unlucky_RifleMan331 2 ай бұрын

Synopsis "well designed big gun was useful because it was well designed and big"😂 great vid!

@23GreyFox 2 ай бұрын

What do you mean with "they quickly realized"? The Flak 18 and later versions were designed from the beginning to attack ground targets as well. That's why AP rounds also existed long before WW2.

@stevenobrien557 2 ай бұрын

They used them in the ground role in Spain too. This video is terrible.

@JeanLucCaptain 2 ай бұрын

“I DON’T have to take this PaK from you! I got Flak for that!” Some German late war.

@michaelmcbride1204 2 ай бұрын

One Bad Mo-Fo!!!! Nuff said!!!

@henkormel5610 2 ай бұрын

Why not mentoining the 50mm and 76mm Flak guns? It was well known by '39 the 37mm was only sufficient at that moment. The 88 was developed as a double purpose gun and was avalible in two lengts. Muzzle velocity is mesured in m/s, this meams meters per second not milisecond.

@rubberwoody 2 ай бұрын

Because the video is on the 88. Not the 50

@henkormel5610 2 ай бұрын

@@rubberwoody The 88 dind't come falling out of the sky. It is a devellopment of the Great War dual purpose naval gun. The 50 mm and later the 76 mm replaced the 37 mm before the 88. It adds a timeline.

@alhemicaribastovani9029 2 ай бұрын

Great video ❤

@jokesonyou1373 Ай бұрын

Great vid!

@JGCR59 2 ай бұрын

Great Video :) Maybe be off topic for this channel but it would be very interesting to showcase how the 8,8 cm Flak worked in its intented anti-aircraft role with range finding, central battery fire control, fuze setting and all

@kratzikatz1 2 ай бұрын

Available here on YT😊

@JGCR59 2 ай бұрын

The Flak 18 designation was a sort of cover, like the MG 13 and other such designations, the Reichswehr and early Wehrmacht pretended that these guns were just developments from late WW1 weapons to pay lip service to the ban on new weapons in the Versailles Treaty.

@stevenwestswanson9263 2 ай бұрын

Great Video!

@teamgonzo9289 2 ай бұрын

Great color footage!!! 👍

@jessphuqette1716 2 ай бұрын

Gods own 30-06 sniper rifle

@prestonopp 2 ай бұрын

You didn’t talk about the self propelled version on a half track that was designed as a bunker buster! Saw some use in the invasion of France, I believe as a result of the experience in Poland.

@geoffhunter7704 3 күн бұрын

Very true, it was Gen Rommel who advocated using the 88 as a Tank Killer in 1936 and promoted the fitting of sights this being trialled in Spain in 1937 and used in France in May 1940 to great effect.

@Your.God.is.a.Delusion 2 ай бұрын

@4:03 ummmm usually M/S mean meters per second for veolcity, not milliseconds per km... Although both could make sense.

@mauriciomorais7818 2 ай бұрын

Sorry, saying 840 milliseconds is just not right. It will take more than 1000 milliseconds (1 s) for the round to travel 1 km. The round travels at 840 m per second, so it takes approx. 1.2 seconds to run 1 km. If you want to go the milliseconds per km route, then one should say the round has a muzzle velocity of '1200 milliseconds'. Which is counter-intuitive because the lesser this value, the faster the round.

@samuelruetz5175 2 ай бұрын

I think this may be an AI voice reading from a script, which would explain the screwup.

@radekc5325 2 ай бұрын

Yeah AI voice makes those kinds of mistakes.

@rubberwoody 2 ай бұрын

It's not an AI. TE doesn't use AI. Just a script reading error when the script says "m/s"@@samuelruetz5175

@MrKotBonifacy 2 ай бұрын

@@radekc5325 It doesn't sound like an "AI voice", it's rather a case of a hired narrator who has no effing idea what he's talking (= reading) about. He only get a printed text wit time stamps, and off he goes, without any "mental input" of his own. The thing is, many, if not most of these higher quality videos on YT are not produced by a single person, it's usually a team work - someone is doing shooting and (probably the montage too), and then there are people who do animations and "after effects", and then there's a guy (or a lass) with a pleasant voice who reads the narrative - who has no idea... (as explained above). Speaking of which, nonsenses "like that" often appears in "localised" (i.e. translated) manuals and software as well - the translator has never seen the device (or program), has no idea what it is doing and how it looks - he/ she only gets a text file, and translates it without any understanding "what the eff", and this produces all sort of nonsenses. Once I saw some garden device that according to manual was "to be mounted on a wooden pole, APPROXIMATELY 25.4 mm in diameter" - ??! Well, that "trans-dimwit" saw "approx. 1 inch", and without any thinking looked up a table, and it said 1" = 25.4 mm, so... ;-) Or, an English text says "a thumbnail" - meaning "a small preview picture", not the real nail on a real human thumb - which seems to be "no brainer" in IN THE WIDER CONTEXT, yet the translator ("no-brainer" one) picks a local word that means literally a thumbnail - the one on human hand... But I digress here ;-)

@JGCR59 2 ай бұрын

That engagement against the Bulgarians mentioned at 17:49 is ironic because those Bulgarian Tanks destroyed were most likely Panzer IVs

@Ed-ig7fj 2 ай бұрын

As Terraflow (below) points out, the 88 round was supersonic; you didn't hear it coming until all hell broke loose. Bill Mauldin, the cartoonist/GI of "Willi and Joe" fame, drew several cartoons referring to the GI's hatred of the weapon. My Dad went peacefully ashore at Normandy about a week after the invasion, so he picked up a Luftwaffe Helmet and a Shore Battery badge off of dead Germans. The Luftwaffe ran the AA batteries, hence the helmet. To the end of his days, dad always called them Krauts. --Old Guy

@randydewees7338 2 ай бұрын

The sight at 4X 17.5 degree FOV had an apparent field of view of 70 degrees. Quite large for the day, though I'd bet there was a pretty small "sweet spot". Good NTL for situational awareness.

@zippy5131 2 ай бұрын

No mention of the Sdkfz8 from Krupp, a very interesting piece of kit used in Poland and then France... Never used again... Strange.

@joseph-sj7do 2 ай бұрын

British had 3,7 inch AA Gun (92mm) which was equal to the 88 , even used it at Army Exercises in 1936 when UK had first Tank Division in World before Germany had one Panzer Division , inexplicably the Tank Division was disbanded and it was decided 3,7 would be resyricted to AA only. Always pyuzzled the German Afrika Corps that it was not used as an Anti Tank Gun, Von Luck in his book (cannot temember title but very good tead) describes how only time he experienced them being used against Tanks was when Tobruk was captured and as the Panzers entered the Port the 3,7 AAs were levelled and foted on Panzers but did not have Armour Piercing Shells only High Explosive but they did serious damage to Panzers not enough to destroy them .

@bitterdrinker 2 ай бұрын

What isn't mentioned in this video is that the 88mm was developed from a naval gun. AP rounds existed for it from the outset. The 3.7 was only ever envisioned as an AA gun. AT guns of different caliber already existed. Developing an AT capability would have been very costly.

@wbertie2604 2 ай бұрын

The 25lber was supplied with anti-tank rounds and booster charges so there was no great need to make the 3.7 inch dual purpose.

@dpeter6396 2 ай бұрын

Dress makers measure in cm !! Engineering is done in mm. Please!!! 76 yr old artillery guy.

@nos9784 2 ай бұрын

German big gun bore diameters were measured in cm.

@rubberwoody 2 ай бұрын

Sometimes countries do things different than other countries

@Julianna.Domina 2 ай бұрын

Germany has used Centimeters for big gun sizes for a long, long time

@TallDude73 2 ай бұрын

Great gun. Is the voice over AI? The velocity is "m/s", so in meters per second, not milliseconds, at 4:02

@rubberwoody 2 ай бұрын

The voiceover is not AI.

@kiowhatta1 2 ай бұрын

I wonder if the avg rounds per target was due to deflection, near misses or failed penetration

@tekis0 2 ай бұрын

Great video on the "88."

@othertalk3313 2 ай бұрын

3:40 - Why was the rate of fire so much lower when used in the ground attack role (15 per min) when compared to air attack (20 per min)?

@TanksEncyclopediaYT 2 ай бұрын

Harder to load (breach is rather high up) and harder to aim (you have to actually hit the tank, you can near-miss the plane and the shrapnel will do the work)

@stubi1103 2 ай бұрын

I am German and my father was Pilot as Nightfighter in WW 2 in Denmark. (2 te NJG3) We must not forget that the 8.8 revealed a major misplanning by the army, namely going into a multi-front war without sensible anti-tank guns. What would we have done without the 8.8 when we went to France? The French would be back on the Rhine in 1940 or further, many German successes were completely misinterpreted by our leadership. Imagine if we had managed to equip the 8.8 grenades with proximity fuses for anti-aircraft defense, just as MIT in the USA had managed to do in 1944, an incredible innovation. No Anglo-American bomber would have dared to fly to Germany more...

@anon-iraq2655 2 ай бұрын

That's a pattern for all German actions in ww2, going in unprepared Other exams I can think of is that Germany had information on the kv ranks from finish war but we're shocked by them and had few tanks that can stand up to them

@stubi1103 2 ай бұрын

@@anon-iraq2655 Thank you very much Sir but what is kv ranks?

@anon-iraq2655 2 ай бұрын

@@stubi1103 sorry kv tanks، it's a series of Russian heavy tanks

@stubi1103 2 ай бұрын

@@anon-iraq2655 Ok thank you. 👍

@lordterra1377 2 ай бұрын

Yet in Warthunder prewar German vehicles have to fight up to 1944 tanks. Amazing how balanced that game is....

@johnmosesbrowning1855 2 ай бұрын

The totally inadequate 3,6 cm PAK („Panzer Abwehr Kanone“) was nicknamed „Panzer Anklopf Kanone“ oder auch „Panzer Anklopf Gerät“, translating to „Tank Knock Canon“ or „Tank Knocking divice“, knocking here did not ment to knock out but knocking to alert the Tank Crew to the present of the german army.

@Wardads1 2 ай бұрын

At 18.54 there is the 8.8cm Flak 16 .From WW One ( 1917)

@tundralou 2 ай бұрын

Did they give the crews any ear protection😅

@garyjohnson9297 2 ай бұрын

I thought that all through its deployment , that it was known as the Flak 88mm

@JGCR59 2 ай бұрын

At 16:50 it should be Charkov in Ukaine (Kharkiv in ukrainian transcription) not Krakow in Poland.

@robertsolomielke5134 2 ай бұрын

TY-Good one. There was a dedicated AT version (not mentioned?) said to have hit the engine of a T-34 and sent it 5 meters away. A great gun by all measure , but really I think the British 3.7 ' AA could do similar work if it ever had the chance?

@user-fm9wf3od6r 2 ай бұрын

there was a 8,8cm AA-Gun already in the first world war,check it out! it was actually mounted on trucks. But THATs not the version 18

@user-fm9wf3od6r 2 ай бұрын

actually it was a AA/Anti-Balloon gun, later on also used as AT-gun,mounted on truck

@user-fm9wf3od6r 2 ай бұрын

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/8,8-cm-Flak_16

@WynnofThule 2 ай бұрын

The 88 wasn't good because it had a higher MV or fired heavier shells or some other minutia. It was good because it was there and it worked. When you pointed it at something, you could be sure it'd soon be nothing.

@michaelpielorz9283 Ай бұрын

a little bit confusing, just say No no no not the germans (:-)

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

Wrong. It was massive overkill and if the British had used its 5.5 in howitzer as an anti-tank gun then it too would have destroyed every WW2 tank with a direct hit. Any gun of 8,8cm that scored a hit on a 1939-43 tank was going to destroy it. It was the use of a large calibre gun that was the ace and it could have been any gun of 8.8cm or over. The average ammo expenditure for the Flak 18/36 in Russia and North Africa was 10 rounds per claimed kill at medium ranges and 20 rounds at long range. For AA work it was 3,000 rounds per downed aircraft. I bet you didn't know that!

@WynnofThule 6 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 I didn't know the exact numbers, but I knew tank/antitank hit rates were in that area and that it took a *lot* of shells to down an aircraft Needing that kind of volume of fire at a moment's notice only makes it more important that all the guns in a unit reliably work when they're asked to and can be repaired or replaced when they don't.

@bwilliams463 2 ай бұрын

I watched a vid on KZfaq which stated that the first time the 88s were used in an anti-tank role was in the African campaign. I have to give credence to the information given here; can you tell us any books or reference materials about their earlier anti-tank usage?

@TanksEncyclopediaYT 2 ай бұрын

There is a list of sources in the description. To answer your question, scriptwriter highlighted this one: www.amazon.com/No-155-8-8-Flak-Vol/dp/8372191344?&linkCode=sl1&tag=tankencyclope-20&linkId=14cab7e56d3859581f184ebff5dd6dc5&language=es_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

@bwilliams463 2 ай бұрын

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT Thank you for the information.

@mylesdobinson1534 2 ай бұрын

Definitely Spain was the first. Also a question, did the British and Empire troops use their 3-inch and 3.7 anti air guns in the role of anti-Tank? I have seen them used in the role of artillery, especially in Italy

@fauzin3338 2 ай бұрын

@@mylesdobinson1534 Yes, but rarely due to how British Heavy Anti-Aircraft units were organized. They're predominantly organized to defend major objectives under the Royal Artillery Regiment, as was often the case in the Northern Africa campaign, instead of being incorporated into maneuver elements as the Germans did (Panzer, Panzergrenadier Div). The 3.7" was also a tad heavier and bulkier than the Flak 18/36, making its usage as an AT gun quite undesirable even if its tank-killing capability was potent. May someone correct me if I'm wrong here. IIRC, there was an engagement in Tobruk where the British forces utilized 3.7" guns in AT role and successfully took out a few tanks but were ultimately overrun by German infantry assaults. There were also cases of similar usage during the Invasion of France and after D-Day (but this is unclear). The 3.7" was ultimately developed into the 32-pounder AT gun, which was mounted on the A39 Tortoise heavy assault tank. The towed version was also developed but never adopted into the service. Such was the end of the British AT gun lineage, AFAIK.

@wbertie2604 2 ай бұрын

@@mylesdobinson1534 25 lbers tended to be used instead and were supplied with ammunition for the purpose

@Slaktrax 2 ай бұрын

''840 milliseconds''? What is this? Does the narrator even understand anything to do with weapons?

@geoffhunter7704 2 ай бұрын

The 88MM was the best A/T Gun of WW2 its MV of 819 MPS (Mtrs per second) was very good compared with the British M1937 AA 94MM MV 792 MPS however this gun was AA only but the 88 as an AA gun it was mediocre at 27.000 FT, V the 94MM at 32.500Ft.Both the US and Russia developed their Standard AA Guns the 90MM/85MM as Tank guns @823 and 800 MPS respectively but the 90MM US AT Round was not quite able to knock out Panthers and Tigers with one shot it usually took 2-3 shots to brew up these tanks.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

No it was not. No gun designed as an AA gun is going to be better than a gun of the same calibre designed as an AT gun. The 88 AA was a huge target and on the front line would never last long once its position is discovered. In Normandy The Flak Arm REFUSED to let its guns be used for direct AA fire. The average number of 8.8cm rounds fired per tank claimed was 10 at medium ranges and 20 at long range.

@geoffhunter7704 3 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 You're wrong the 88 was the most feared A/T Gun of WW2 as the testimonies of many Allied Tank Crews verify but as an AA Gun it was mediocre the 105mm flak 41 was far superior but was rarely used as an A/T if at all and read Lt Peter Elstob's Warrior for the Working Day where he repeatedly states his fear of the 88mm as it would brew up his Sherman (s) in 1944/45.The 88 on its trailer as you say was bulky and it needed a clear field of fire as in Gazala May 1942 where the British Tank's were slaughtered at ranges of 1-1.5 miles and the A/T Hurricanes with their twin 40mm Vickers A/T Gunswere unavailable.

@michaelkenny8540 3 күн бұрын

@@geoffhunter7704 Don't you know the book you reference is a NOVEL?

@geoffhunter7704 3 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 Is there no limit to your ignorance Peter Elstob's biography was one of the first to be published after the war as most participants kept quiet including my father who served 1937-19 and was in the second wave on D Day and for you to denigrate Op Overlord Heroes from your mothers back bedroom is beneath contempt.

@michaelkenny8540 3 күн бұрын

@@geoffhunter7704 You quoted a book which is a novel. No amount of butt-hurt excuses can change that fact. You could have quoted a number of his books but you chose a work of fiction. The only denigration is of your research skills and inability to tell a book of fiction from a memoir.

@454FatJack 2 ай бұрын

RBM was until 2000 🇫🇮coast artillery use😊

@showdown66 2 ай бұрын

1:05 the kill rings

@flip849 2 ай бұрын

They got busy

@lakepanzer5749 2 ай бұрын

4:00 You mean Meters per Second? What would milliseconds even mean in this context?

@gatisskipars9474 2 ай бұрын

Klausoa tevī, raudāt gribās.

@ebutuoyYT 2 ай бұрын

The best west to mitigate against Flak 8.8cm is with air superiority, a little ironic really.

@thomaslinton5765 2 ай бұрын

The first combat experience of the .88 against armor was in Spain in 1937.

@michaelpielorz9283 Ай бұрын

In 1940 the germans found out the british and french heavy tanks could be outwalked by the average infantryman(:-)

@thomaslinton5765 Ай бұрын

@@michaelpielorz9283 They "knew" many false things. Ever try walking 13 mph? U.S doctrine for its professional infantry is that the average rate of march for trained infantry under favorable weather conditions is 2-1/2 mph over roads and 1 mph cross country - 1/13th of the rated off-road speed for the Char B. A normal foot march is planned to cover 20 miles per day.

@georgecristiancripcia4819 2 ай бұрын

12:20 Here the story ends abruptly and it jumps to the soviet union attack.

@randomreal3228 2 ай бұрын

Why nobody tought of installing coastal gun to a tank?

@soundofeighthooves 2 ай бұрын

the anti everything gun

@sebastianthomsen2225 2 ай бұрын

😎👍

@lukebaker1167 2 ай бұрын

Top job - bar - it shoots its projectile at 840 metres per second, not 840 milliseconds!!!!

@cvr527 2 ай бұрын

Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that the Allied bombing campaigns forced Germany to spend 1/3 of their funds on anti-aircraft guns to defend German airspace. He didnt state it in the lecture I watched, but one of the secondary effects was that Germany could not employ as many flak guns on the Eastern Front as a result of this.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

The majority of 8.8cm guns in Germany were on fixed mounts. They were not mobile and could never be used 'in the east'.

@cvr527 6 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 Nonsense! Your comment is completely absurd.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

@@cvr527 If you didn't know about the fixed mounts then you are even more ignorant than I had imagined.

@cvr527 6 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 You dont have a clue what you are talking about. So just stop!

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

@@cvr527 I am amazed you did not know about the majority AA guns in German being fixed in position and thus without any means of moving them. How could you be so ignorant?

@TheWolvesCurse 2 ай бұрын

meters per second, not milliseconds.

@Legitpenguins99 2 ай бұрын

GI's saying they were being shelled by 88's is one of my pet peev. I believe that was because they captured a hell of a lot more 88's than the actual artillery miles behind the Frontline

@Evan_Bell 2 ай бұрын

4:00 m/s is not the same as ms.

@KuwaharaBMXRider 2 ай бұрын

8.8 cm? They called it an 88mm or 88 not 8.8 cm

@jonyvole 2 ай бұрын

During the war, in germany, calibres were most commonly measured in centimetres

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

No sorry it is you who are wrong. It is always listed as 8.8cm in German documents.

@Comm0ut 2 ай бұрын

One little mentioned benefit of the ETO bombing campaigns is they diverted thousands of flak pieces to homeland defense which otherwise would have been devastating against Allied tanks.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

No. Nearly all the AA guns in Germany were on fixed mounts. They could not be used on the battlefield.

@acersalman8258 2 ай бұрын

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

@jon9021 2 ай бұрын

10:35 the African “corpse”??…well I suppose that’s reasonably accurate actually…

@thomaslinton5765 2 ай бұрын

Kruup not "croop"

@kratzikatz1 2 ай бұрын

Krupp!

@thomaslinton5765 2 ай бұрын

@@kratzikatz1 Isn't it wonderful when the narrator does not pronounce the words correctly - or get the facts right?"

@fizoblong9506 2 ай бұрын

12:20 "When the Germans attacked the SU..." they destroyed 60% of the SU airforce in 24h. Look at a map and tell me how this is possible, if they were not preparing to attack Germany. It was a preemptive and defensive strike.

@mathewkelly9968 2 ай бұрын

Funny how the ability to hoist a shell real high into the air real fast has such cross over with putting shells through metal ........ The Germans where hardly the only ones to figure it out

@23GreyFox 2 ай бұрын

Many nations had their own AA gun with similar fire power, but most of them could not attack targets in direct fire. After their encounter with the 8.8, they made changes to make negative gun elevation possible. I think the American 90mm M1 is such example.

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

@@23GreyFox AA guns are a very expensive waste when used in the ground role. They are made to perform at the maximum and you pay in barrel wear. Ordinary guns can do all the 8.8cm could do, and do it for longer at a much cheaper cost. Using any AA gun for ground bombardment is like using a Rolls Royce to deliver coal.

@23GreyFox 6 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 That is not true about the 8.8

@michaelkenny8540 6 күн бұрын

@@23GreyFox It is true for any AA gun. AA guns are designed to do a very specific job and whilst it can shoot further than most artillery pieces of comparable calibre that comes at a cost. Its very expensive to make those barrels and they wear out fast. Also an AA gun is a SYSTEM and not just a gun. Predictors and ammo handling devices along with sophisticated aiming devices are the norm . When you use an AA gun in the ground role its like delivering coal in a Rolls Royce.

@23GreyFox 6 күн бұрын

@@michaelkenny8540 Bla bla bla, any official account in the Bundeswehr archives says something different. Your opinion is not a reflection of historic reality.

@williampage622 2 ай бұрын

There is no such thing as a 3.7cm caliber weapon.

@kratzikatz1 2 ай бұрын

Oh doch! Jede Menge Varianten. Pak, Flak , etc.

@TigerBaron Ай бұрын

They couldn't have chosen a finer gun for the Tiger.

@whiskey_tango_foxtrot__ 2 ай бұрын

The apex of German engineering.

@shatbad2960 2 ай бұрын

Mercedes 123 'Am I a joke to you'?

@romaboo6218 2 ай бұрын

search up Pak44. 128mm AT gun

@WynnofThule 2 ай бұрын

@@romaboo6218That one was bigger but in terms of actually proving itself on the battlefield the 88 was the workhorse.

@billballbuster7186 2 ай бұрын

Yes the Germans had to use the 88, as their normal anti-tank guns were crap. Luckily the size of the 88 lent itself for ground use. It was never ideal as the gun was large and hard to hide. They were effective against British tanks because their tank guns were not supplied with HE shells. The US M3 Grant and M4 Sherman changed the situation, their large and accurate HE shells were capable of destroying the 88 at long range or at least killing their crews. At Arras there were only 20 A12 Matilda tanks and they mostly ran out of fuel. German tank claims were often greatly overexaggerated.

@TheLoyalOfficer 2 ай бұрын

Africa corpse?

@nikola12nis 2 ай бұрын

Looks like we've got AI bots doing the talk now, eh? 850 Miliseconds [m/s]

@TanksEncyclopediaYT 2 ай бұрын

TE uses only human narrators. The one responsible for this voiceover is credited in the description. If anything, the AI narrator would probably have gotten the units of measurement right.

@jpmtlhead39 8 күн бұрын

"they firing 109 Armor piercing rounds for one Tank.." What you are trying to say...??!! Because if it's what i think you are being absolutely Ridiculous. Why you dont mention that during those battles the Tanks were always on the move,and the Batteries were on a fixed spot...??!!! And the fact that those battles in North Africa were absolute chaos because of the Overwhelming dust,that in most of the times "you" were lucky to see your target on the open with a decent view but while on moving. Yes, you are trying to portrait the 88mm accuracy and destructive power in a very Dishonest, Ridiculous and Ignorant way. What a Lousy atempt trying to Underrate one of the most Successfull Weapons in History. Not good at all,mate.