knowing nothing about Axis artillery,only that on the DML kit there are 3 options for your 88mm,which option would be appropriate for an 88mm in the desert?the idea is for a Sherman III passing an abandoned anti tank position late 1942,I have the kits but not the right reference!(yet)
thanks in advance
steve

I know not much either about 88s but here are a few Flak 36s (or 37 ) in the desert during 1942...



El Alamein July 1942 (could this one be in fact a Flak 18 ):








No date for this one...


Frenchy

The problem for identifying which 88 is in any one photo is that it's confusing to figure them out PERIOD, LOL.

The designation FlaK 36 or 37 refers to differences in the aiming system: the earlier model used blinker lights, while the 37 used dials, and incorporated other sophisticated technology for firing in batteries from a gun director. But these details are hard to pick up in most period photos, even if taken from the gun's right side.

Neither of Frenchy's photos is clear enough for me to tell. But I think you'll be safer using the 36 model in a DAK environment, as I have not seen any stats on whether the model 37 was shipped to North Africa.

That doesn't mean a lot, since the gun parts (other than the instrumentation) were interchangeable, including the barrels. I have seen photos of 36s with both the older 1-piece and later 2-piece version, and even the older FlaK 18 with a 2-piece barrel. In one of Frenchy's photos below, it looks like they're pulling out a 1-piece barrel for replacement, but again, it's hard to tell. The two-piece had a removable sleeve, making replacement of the lining faster and cheaper.

So I'm not alone

Frenchy

Hey, guys
The easiest way to recognize Flak 16 from 36/37 is by outrigger jack pad. 18 - has round pads, 36/37 - have squared. And by limbers. Flak 18 has different front and back limbers. 36/37 - had same front and back (actually in 36/37 was no front or back. You could tow them either way).





And Bill had already mention about dials (to distinguish 36 from 37).



According to German reports of 1942 they had only 86 units of 88s in North Africa. Since they had even Flak 41 that entered service in 42, it is very possible some Flak 37 were there too.

Thanks for the pics Alex. So the one in the second picture in my first post is a Flak 18 indeed !

Frenchy

I don't know for sure whether the Afrika Korps did use the Flak 37, but the Flak 37 could only be used as Flak, not as anti-tank gun as it missed the necessary optics.

Peter

That's not true. The Flak 36 and Flak 37 where exactly the same. The only difference was the type of target indicator showing the data comming from the Kommandogerät.

What Alex said, except he meant the FlaK 18, not 16. The cruciform platform had round "pads" and the stakes for steadying it were interior to those pads, whereas they were at the tip of the cruciform legs on the 36/37.

There is nothing I've ever seen that would indicate the FlaK 37 could not be used as an anti-tank gun. The dual nature of the gun (AA and AT) was the reason it was so successful.

BTW, the FlaK 18 has a different trailer, so if you can count the number of wheels, you can also tell if it's an 18 or 36/37 (the key? the front part has only single wheels; the 36/37 mount has four sets of two wheels). The 18 also was towed facing forwards.

Flak 37 used the same Flakzielfernrohr 20E gun sight for direct fire as the Flak 18 or 36,


and could engage ground target just as well.




But yes, for some reason in some books (like Osprey and others) it is saying that it could not be used against tanks and such.

Ops... Thanks, Bill! I didn't even notice that.


I have read somewhere that Flak 36 and 37 had "stakes system" redesigned in the order to stabilize the gun more easily if they want to fire from limbers. But
1. I have only seen it in one source
2. The stakes themselves actually look shorter to me
3. Yes, if you check photos, "holes" for stakes on Flak 36/37 located outside of jack pads, while on 18 they are on the inside. I don't know if that would give them more advantage, but I never used those things, so I wouldn't know

Having a vast trove of Flak 88 books, I set about trying to definitively identify as much as possible. I wrote an article with an extensive errata list in an old Boresight magazine. If anyone wants the article, email or PM me.

I can say definitively about the 6 pictures that Frenchy posted:

1) Either Flak 36 or 37 (using SdAnh 202 trailer)
2) Flak 18 (note round foot pad)
3) Flak 36 or 37 (note spikes at end of outriggers)
4) Flak 36 (spikes at end of outrigger, older targeting system)
5) Flak 36 or 37 (spikes at end of outriggers)
6) Flak 36 (SdAnh 202 and lack of raised housing on fuse setter = Flak 36)

Finally, Peter Van Bezu wrote: "I don't know for sure whether the Afrika Korps did use the Flak 37, but the Flak 37 could only be used as Flak, not as anti-tank gun as it missed the necessary optics."

This is a myth from the Tamiya Flak 36/37 instruction sheet that has no basis in reality. All 8.8cm Flaks were anti-armor capable. Period.

Alex Z: Osprey's book on the 8.8 Flak by John Norris (2002) is almost complete and utter rubbish. I will say flatly it's one of the worst supposed-expert written books I've ever seen. Literally, almost no word of text is correct. Almost EVERY caption is incorrect and the parts diagram they have in the centerfold makes me question if the author EVER, EVER even saw a Flak 88. Of the 35 or so parts he points out, here are the mistakes.

18: Auto rammer; not telescopic sight
19: Gunner’s seat
20: Gun ZF20E sight used for ground engagement
21: Fuse setter’s seat; not gunner’s seat
28: Loading tray; not ramming mechanism
29: NOT firing lever
30: Light signal receivers; not “follow the pointer” dials
31: Rundblickfernrohr- indirect artillery sight; not ZF20E
32: End of auto ramming rod: NOT eyepiece for telescopic sight
33: ZF20E from another angle; not fire control equipment


To the original question: I've seen photos of Flaks 18, 36, 37 and 41 in the Desert.

Thanks for the pics ID Roy.

Frenchy

Here are some visual identifiers between the 8.8cm Flak L/56 variants:

Flak 18

Lafette 18 carriage: Round “foot” pads, pad leveling jacks with handled cap, ground spikes inserted inside of leveling jacks, wide central spars, octagonal gun base with prominent rivets, front trailer attached from chain and small stubs at side of central arm, rear trailer attached to hole atop central arm and two D rings attached near central base of gun carriage. Rear trailer would attach much closer to gun base than front trailer.

Central Director device: Caged light signal receiver, sometimes fitted with cylindrical shroud.

Fuse-Setter:
Originally one fuse setting opening, later upgraded to two openings. Caged light signal receiver horizontally mounted atop fuse-setter.

SdAnh 201 Trailers: Front trailer with tow bar had 2 tires and no cable spools. Rear trailer had four tires and mounted two cable spools. No equipment boxes on either trailer. Hand operated winch system. Front trailer attached to carriage through hook in hole inside central spar. Front trailer had flat fenders. Flak 18 always traveled with barrel forward.

Flak 36

Lafette 36 carriage: Square “foot” pads, pad leveling jacks with single nut, ground spikes inserted at extreme of cruciform arms, narrower central spars , square gun base with no rivets, front and rear trailers hooked to carriage by D rings attached to arms extending from central carriage. Both trailers were interchangeable front to back and attached at same distance from gun base.

Central Director device: Caged light signal receiver, sometimes fitted with cylindrical shroud.

Fuse-Setter: two openings. Light cage indicator horizontally mounted atop fuse-setter.

SdAnh 202 Trailers: Both trailers had 4 tires and rounded fenders. Tow bar could be attached to either trailer. Both trailers could mount two cable spools and two rectangular equipment boxes. Power operated winch.



Flak 37

Lafette 36 carriage: Square “foot” pads, pad leveling jacks with single nut, ground spikes inserted at extreme of cruciform arms, narrower central spars , square gun base with no rivets, front and rear trailers hooked to carriage by D rings attached to arms extending from central carriage. Both trailers were interchangeable front to back and attached at same distance from gun base.

Central Director device: Directional indicator dials

Fuse-Setter: two fuse setting openings. Usually had a large, angled housing set atop fuse-setter with directional indicator dials.

SdAnh 202 Trailers: Both trailers had 4 tires and rounded fenders. Tow bar could be attached to either trailer. Both trailers could mount two cable spools and two rectangular equipment boxes. Power operated winch.


You can not use the barrels (which were interchangeable) or the splinter shields as identifiers. As noted above, the best way is to see the foot pads or ground spikes or the Sdanh 201 or 202 or the wide base spar of the Flak 18.

And did I mention that the Osprey book by Norris is rubbish? I did? OK. It's just worth mentioning again. LOL

Hi Roy,




Now, that's the exact source I used for stating that it could not be used against armour.

Peter

I've posted the article I wrote a few years ago on this site:

http://www.track-link.net/articles/1203

Thanks a lot for an article, Roy! I saved it for future references. Very good info, it will come handy.

Couple of questions to you, though (Steve, sorry for hijacking your topic):
1. what do you think about this photo? Modified Flak 18?


2. any advice on where to find an info (photos or schematics) on AT version of Flak18? I have been collecting information on it for awhile now, but still don't have enough to build a model of one.



Thanks,
Alex

Alex, are you aware of the AFV Club FlaK 18 kit?

I'll bet he is. If I understand him correctly he is interested in the differences between the normal Flak 18 and this so called "Bunkerflak"

Alex, do you know this:

http://www.panzer-bau.de/artillerie-1-35/bunkerflak-flak-18/

The shield seems to be incorrect though.

P.S. your first picture shows the 7,5 cm Flak L/60

I would be careful about the term Bunkerflak, since this photo and this photo and this photo are all grouped under the rubric. They are mounted on Sd.Kfz. 8s (the 12-ton halftrack). And as is often the case with German military terms, was the Bunkerflak descriptor used during the war or post-war?

I question whether there's any difference at all in the guns. Do you have something other than this modeling site? The splinter shield looks a bit odd, but it may be the angle of the photo.

What I think does NOT seem to be clear is that Roy has basically shown there is NO DIFFERENCE between the guns, just the control panel for the 36/37 and the cruciform mounting platform & trailer between the 18 and 36/37. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the AT and AA versions. The splinter shield turns up in field deployments (though often as part of Luftwaffe units), while the dedicated AA guns didn't need a shield.

But there is nothing to prevent lowering the barrel of a dedicated AA version of the 88 and pounding a tank with an AT round.

As Mike Del Vecchio would say, "rounds complete."

http://forum.valka.cz/files/2007-07-12-031_156.jpg

1938 Sudetenland

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Hauptseite_deutsch/Kraftfahrzeuge/Deutschland/Krauss-Maffei/m__Zgkw__8t/m__Zgkw__8t_gepanzert/m__zgkw__8t_gepanzert.html


Frankreich

and three pictures in Werner Müllers book "Die Geschütze, Ortungsgeräte und Feuerleitgeräte der schweren Flak". The gun itself seems to be the same as the one in your links. Another name for that one is "Bunkerflak auf Sd.Kfz. 8". It seems to me that "Bunkerflak" only means the gun itself.

The odd shield is wider than the normal one and closed at the top, so this gun could not be used in the AA role, despite its name. Because of that the directors on the left side where replaced by a box holding 6 shots of ammunition.

The outriggers on the cruciform mounting are shorter and used to stabilize the gun when fired from the Sd.Anh.

I'm not sure what you're driving at, Ralf. That there is at least one 88 mounted on an Sd.Kfz.8 and called (for the purposes of the photo) a "Bunkerflak" set-up doesn't prove:

1.) how widespread the variant was
2.) how many there were
3.) whether the term was used during WW2 or is a post-war classification
4.) what model 88 was used
5.) if there were any differences at all over off-the-shelf guns

Etc., etc., etc.

I apologize for being picky about this, but imprecise terminology has a way of spreading throughout the hobby with unfortunate results (like the claim that AA 88s couldn't shoot at tanks).

look here (second picture at the bottom)

http://www.tankograd.com/cms/website.php?id=/en/militaerfahrzeug-4-2011.htm

"Das Sonder-Kfz 8 mit aufgesetzter Bunker-Flak...", so "Bunkerflak" really seems to mean the gun itself.

Thanks, Ralf, for the citations and photos. This does seem to be a variant on the 8,8cm FlaK that I was not familiar with previously, so I thank you for expanding my horizons. Perhaps Roy, our resident 88 man, will have some further information and commentary?

The specialized splinter shield is quite interesting. If Alex is looking to do a FlaK 18 as Bunkerflak, he is going to need to scratch one, unless one of our smaller resin suppliers decides to offer this. Alliance Model Works has an 88 on an Sd.Kfz.9 (the so-called FAMO).

Trumpeter's armored Sd.Kfz.8 is half the equation here; we just need the dedicated gun.

Ralf is speaking about a very early war mod to the existing Flak 18. It had a shield (which coincidentally, prevented the barrel from elevating), shorter outriggers, a raised platform for the loader and a revised seat arrangement for the gunner. His elevation and traverse wheels had extension fittings too. I recall JP hobbies did a rudimentary one which accompanied their armored SdKfz 7 conversion.