The Commander Series Forum

Hi everyone, i've been searching for a couple of days for this, with no success...so I ask, sorry if it has been already asked.

I've noticed that in the rules, it is mentioned than only deployed AA can provide anti-aircraft fire. I'm assuming that these AA guns are mentioned in the lists under the Air Defense Units.

If this is true, then it means the German 88mm Flak-36 can't provide AA fire, as it is defined as a Anti-Tank Unit?

For what I know, the 88s had a double role, as an AA & AT guns. So can I use an 88 as a double role or only as an AT Gun?

Thanks for the help.

Hmm, never noticed this before. The answer would be "yes" IMO, the Flak 36 could be used in the dual role. You would just have to use the AP stats as written under the ATG entry. Also, a command roll would needed to change from AA to ATG.

That is how I would play it anyway.

We've always played 88 as AT only; yes it was dual-purpose, but we assumed that was for a mass battery at medium altitude so single/small groups of guns ineffective against low flying close support aircraft.

Again, just our interpretation to fit with the rules!

Is it just a case of switching from horizontal to vertical or does the set up of the gun need to cganged, optics etc?
What are the ammunition requirements for AA fire as opposed to AT? These could all be factors.

"Is it just a case of switching from horizontal to vertical or does the set up of the gun need to cganged, optics etc?"

There probably is a little more to set up then horizontal-vertical, but since the turn in BKCII is 20-30 minutes I don't think it would be a problem modelling that change.

"What are the ammunition requirements for AA fire as opposed to AT?"

Again not 100% sure, but to my knowledge the crews that first used as an ATG fired the standard ammunition for the system.

"but we assumed that was for a mass battery at medium altitude so single/small groups of guns ineffective against low flying close support aircraft."

The American Essex-class carrier (as example) had 4 twin turrets of 5in (127mm) AA guns that were used regularly to scatter low flying attack aircraft. I don't see why a battery of 8.8s (3.5in) can't do the same to elements of ground attack ACs. Not to mention the additon of medium level bombers in BKCII.

Ammo: IIRC in the AA role it would use ammo fuzed to detonate after a given time (hence, at a known altitude). In the AT rile it would fire APCR or similar solid shot. Hence, ammo could be a massive issue. PL71 - the carriers fired fuzed ammo - basically cannister!

Optics: These would be different dependent on role. In the AA mode a rangefinder operator would shout out the range. This is then input on a dial along with the aircraft speed - hence the sight produces a slight offset to allow the gun to lead the (relatively fast) target. This would not be issued to AT role units.

Doctrine: The crew would be trianed in one or the other mode. the gun might be dual purpose - but not the men! Didn't Von Luck have to draw his pistol in order to get a luftwaffe AA unit to turn their 88s in British armour during Goodwood? They eventually agreed but their fire was at close range over open sights.

Air targets: The 88 would probably be very poor against fast moving low targets - hence the need for 20/37mm. But it might come into it's own against bombers!

For my own North Africa games I might let them fire at bombers, probably not straffing Hurricanes!

Thanks Dave you seem to have confirmed my suspicions although the von Luck incident has been questioned apparently i.e. there were no 88's in aerial recce pictures etc.

In regards to Dave's "Ammo and Doctrine" above, again as I say I'm no expert on the Flack 88, but it seems to me that the AT ability of the 88 was discovered when some commander decided to (early war) use all the resources he had and leveled his guns to fire at enemy armour, hence I don't really see how AT ammo would have been available, at that time, to the crews or how they would have been trained for either AT or AA fire.

I suppose as the war went on ammo was probably adapted, and perhaps the crews split into AA and AT trained specialists.

Actually Zetterling wrote an article on the effectiveness of the 88 as an ATG in Normandy. His website is no longer available does anyone have the details of it? Is the article contained in his book?

Hello All

An 88 would be next to useless against the low-flying aircraft that are usually encountered in BKC as a plane would have come and gone before a firing solution could be calculated (fire against aircraft was conducted with HE rounds fitted with a time fuze - a percussion fuse being used in the ground role).

I V Hogg, German Artillery of World War 2: "The anti-tank capabilities of the gun [8.8cm Flak 18, 36 and 37] had been observed during the Spanish Civil War when a small number of guns had accompanied the Condor Legion. To accomodate the gun to this role a telescopic direct sight (the Zielfernrohr 20) was fitted; and shortly after the beginning of the war, shields began to be fitted to a number of guns. But as an anti-tank weapon the 8.8cm saw little use in the early battles of World War 2, and its full potential as an anti-tank gun was not exploited until the Libyan campaign of 1941-2."

Anti-tank ammunition was available in the form of the 8.8cm Pzgr Patr, an APCBC round, but I don't know when it was first issued.

Hope that helps

Puzzled

Well, thanks to everyone for the comments, never expected such debate, but it was very enlighting.

I'm clear now that it had a double role, but not at the same time. For now I've been using it only as an AT Gun, so I'll keep using it this way.

Thanks again.

Well, possibly I stand corrected.