8.8 "88" Flak 37 in action.

I've seen these weapons fired in old newsreels but never a modern film of one. I'm surprised that there are working models still left.

Watch to the end as the video gives one close up views of the impact area at the end.

a reply to: IanFleming

Looks like a gundam shoulder attachment...
Rail gun on the other-
Interesting

Nice, always wanted to see a modern video of one firing could never find any. Kind of looks odd though when you see a fat American with a baseball cap on shouting 'fire in the hole!' using it. (No offense to baseball cap wearing fat Americans).

Very cool! The venerable 88; terror of allied armor and bombers. This was the gun mounted on tiger tanks which gave them the firepower to destroy any Allied tank. They also operated independently as artillery units and anti-tank guns. Back in Germany these guns were the ones that made sure the Allied bombers stayed high above until near their target. Amazingly versatile and effective piece of weaponry.

Responsible for more destroyed tanks and bombers than any other weapon the Germans had.

Eta: My wife's father (now deceased) was a ball turret gunner in a B17. This was the weapon that worried him more than Me-109's or Me-262's.

originally posted by: PickledOnion
Nice, Always wanted to see a modern video of one firing could never find any. Kind of looks odd though when you see a fat American with a baseball cap on shouting 'fire in the hole!'. (No offense to baseball cap wearing fat Americans).

LOL. I wonder how much that baby set the collector back. It had to be very, very expensive to buy.

a reply to: IanFleming

Cool.

That was the most dreaded anti-tank weapon of the Second world war. Bar none.

When it was mounted on the Tiger, and King Tiger tanks? It would have been a world beater had the Germans had more of them... Thank goodness they didn't.

Great all around weapon system.

a reply to: IanFleming

...and to refurbish. He may have bought it from a junk pile or the like.

Having parts made is expensive.

a reply to: IanFleming

Thanks. Countless times since an early teen I've come across accounts of those deadly guns. I still was surprised that it was bigger than I had assumed. I think I go watch it again!

High velocity, armor piercing, high caliber--what is there not to like?

If explosive tipped, every round requires an NFA letter and tax stamp. However, it looks like they were firing inert cast rounds (no explosion).

I knew a gentleman with an old WWI cannon and he used to melt wheel weights to make projectiles and just kept reloading the brass. He would shoot up old appliances on his property. (Obviously he had a lot of property to shoot on.)

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: IanFleming

...and to refurbish. He may have bought it from a junk pile or the like.

Having parts made is expensive.

I hadn't thought about that. You are right--having specially made parts individually made from old plans must have been expensive.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: IanFleming

Cool.

That was the most dreaded anti-tank weapon of the Second world war. Bar none.

When it was mounted on the Tiger, and King Tiger tanks? It would have been a world beater had the Germans had more of them... Thank goodness they didn't.

Great all around weapon system.

They didn't necessarily need more of them, they needed to not over-engineer them and not lose the air-war. All the tanks in the world won't save you if you don't have the skies; as feared as the line of 88s was, its was one weapon that, for all its perks has gained a bit of a reputation that overplays the rest of the chassis' drawbacks.

a reply to: IanFleming

Nice Gun.

However not as powerful as The British Vickers QF 3.7 inch AA Gun. Used for both anti-aircraft and anti-tank roles.

The Vickers was the main AA gun during The Battle Of Britain, and anti-tank in North Africa against Rommell's Pamzers.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: IanFleming

Nice Gun.

However not as powerful as The British Vickers QF 3.7 inch AA Gun. Used for both anti-aircraft and anti-tank roles.

The Vickers was the main AA gun during The Battle Of Britain, and anti-tank in North Africa against Rommell's Pamzers.

Certainly the QF was more powerful and had a larger round (at 94 mm vs 88 mm) but it was also two tonnes heavier which did limit practicability as an anti-tank or tank mounted weapon. Weapons always are a compromise of something.

Well put, I'm impressed, BTW.

Certainly a lovely gun and no doubt a fine example of the Germans ability to make awesome killing machines. No sarcasm meant, V1 V2 the jet fighters, armour....all from one power.

Nice to see in action.

Couple of questions, where did they get the ammo, that stuff is lifed?

2nd, we should have armoured the Sherman with wood, it didn't seem to smash through it ;-)

a reply to: Forensick

Couple of questions, where did they get the ammo, that stuff is lifed? 

That was my first thought.
It is hard enough to find .22 long rifle ammo right now.
Imagine what 88 mm German ammo costs.
I would suspect that someone had to load that recently. I would think 60+ year old ammo would be unreliable if not dangerous.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Forensick

Couple of questions, where did they get the ammo, that stuff is lifed? 

That was my first thought.
It is hard enough to find .22 long rifle ammo right now.
Imagine what 88 mm German ammo costs.
I would suspect that someone had to load that recently. I would think 60+ year old ammo would be unreliable if not dangerous.

They buy the brass--which is very expensive and collectible in its own right, cast their own projectiles, reload, fire the inert projectiles, and repeat.

The Germans offered to sell the Americans the plans for the 88 before WW2 . The Americans refused. The one weapon that could have stopped the German armor . Instead the Americans put a 75 on the Sherman almost a guarantee that the shells would bounce off that armor every time.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Instead the Americans put a 75 on the Sherman almost a guarantee that the shells would bounce off that armor every time.

That's because the Sherman was primarily an infantry support vehicle not meant for tank on tank combat; American tanks weren't typically meant for tank combat at the beginning of WW2. Forces were supposed to call in threats like the Tiger, Royal/King Tiger and JagdTigers and the highly mobile Tank Destroyers like the Wolverine and Hellcat would be deployed. Shermans and their armament could easily handle Panzer 3s and Panzer 4s, which were the more numerous tanks in the German arsenal of WW2 anyway; but nobody knows that thanks in no small part to the History Channel and the reputation I mentioned previously.

a reply to: eNumbra The Sherman Firefly, which mounted a British 17 pound anti-tank gun, was a much greater threat to the German tanks and still maintained the speed and maneuverability of the Sherman. en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: IanFleming

Rommel used the 88 in the anti-tank role to great effect in North Africa as a force multiplyer.

Hitler being emamored of the Russian front gave but a trickle of equipment and supplies to that campaign.

Had the Germans taken a lesson from the Russians and settled upon a simplified chassis to carry the 88 then results might have been different.