Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm trying to track down some specifics of when exactly this happened and any other information you can find about the incident an any subsequent doctrinal changes.All I have so far is that it happened somewhere in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. If anyone has any references for this that would be great.

Thanks.

Specifics aint easy with the Spanish Civil War...

I know they were used almost exclusively in a ground role during the last major offensive in Catalonia as the Condor Legion reported that of their 88mm ammo stocks, "7% was used on air targets, 93% on ground targets".

From the beginning of 1937, their use in a ground role was heavily discussed with articles in Der Adler and Der Wehrmacht and the book Deutches Kampfen in Spanien that explained how they could be used in an anti-tank role.

It seems likely that their use against ground targets and tanks had probably occured even earlier, in 1936 to stimulate such discussion.

This book may answer in more detail;

http://www.amazon.com/Flak-Artillery-Legion-Condor-Abteilung/dp/0764332317

I nearly picked that book up at a convention but couldn't justify the cost on the day. The 'eighty eight' book by Osprey says similar things. I've not been able to come across a specific date for the introduction of AT ammunition which would indicate a change of role.

It is possible that the 'not supposed to fire on tanks' was a doctrine specific to the units involved since the Condor Legion guns were an anti aircraft unit. It does beg the question of what they were firing at the tanks if they weren't supposed to do so. I understand that it was always supposed to be a dual role weapon, firing at both ground and air targets but I assume that hi-ex anti aircraft shells work perfectly well against infantry and fixed positions where as tanks (even the flimsy SCW ones) probably required a dedicated AT shell.

Also if anyone has anything, specifically dates, relating to Flak 18s being sold to the Spanish that would be handy too.

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/88-mm-FlaK-18363741-and-PaK-43-1936%E2%80%9345_9781841763415

Well you don't need a dedicated AP round to kill a tank... Especially an Early War one!

A 75mm HE will reduce a Panzer I to its component parts in short order!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
8.8cm Panzergranate with AP cap and ballistic cap with 160 grams of HE was introduced in 1938 I think from memory.

Before that the sheer velocity of the Sprenggranate would do the job.

Big P wrote:
8.8cm Panzergranate with AP cap and ballistic cap with 160 grams of HE was introduced in 1938 I think from memory.

The Osprey book gives penetration values for another round before that one but doesn't specify the introduction date. It's not that you need an AT round to penetrate tanks as much as if you have AT rounds you intend to shoot at them.

The story from the SCW as I heard it is that eighty eights were first used against tanks as an on the spot decision. That clearly isn't the case if they had dedicated AT rounds even if the crews at the event didn't have access to them.

They didnt have AT rounds is the point we are making. The original use of the 88 against ground targets was done largely in a moment of desperation by an antiaircraft crew firing at a contemporary tank (which had paper armor) using a round designed for antiaircraft use. The accidental discovery that the 88 was an effective tank killer and thus a dual purpose weapon system lead to the development of AT rounds at a later date (1938) designed for use against the heavier armor that French armored vehicles were sporting. The 88 AT round evolved a couple more times during the course of the war to keep pace with advancements in armor until it was, IIRC largely outclassed in the later stages, particularly by Russian armor.

chaos0xomega wrote:
They didnt have AT rounds is the point we are making. The original use of the 88 against ground targets was done largely in a moment of desperation by an antiaircraft crew firing at a contemporary tank (which had paper armor) using a round designed for antiaircraft use

I'm familiar with the story, perhaps I should have posted it in my first post for clarity.

However I can find no source for this story or any additional details for it. In addition I cannot find the PzGr 38 (P suggests that he may have misquoted the date), there's an undated PzGr round and a PzGr 39 (both with penetration data). The undated round could have been available well before 1938, It may be missing information or maybe the date is deliberately obfuscated much like the Flak 18 itself (which should be the Flak 33 give or take) making its availability date sometime previous to 1934.

BTW: the Osprey book is also available online here:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zAnFlaDTfdEC&pg=PA44-IA3&lpg=PA44-IA3&dq=flak+18+ammunition&source=bl&ots=2L7n1SzLOU&sig=MiXOUQ5uUwx9KRzuc0t2XHhKG04&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1cS8UZLEDqnW0QWN54HoCg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false