Flak 88's to the Eastern Front

[danwild6]

Reading the Wiki Article it states that

By August 1944, there were 10,704 FlaK 18, 36 and 37 guns in service. Owing to the increase in U.S. and British bombing raids during 1943 and 1944, the majority of these guns were used in their original anti-aircraft role, now complemented with the formidable 12.8 cm FlaK 40 and 10.5 cm FlaK 39. There were complaints that, due to the apparent ineffectiveness of anti-aircraft defenses as a whole, the guns should be transferred from air defense units to anti-tank duties, but this politically unpopular move was never made.

So WI by Operation Bagration the Germans have an additional 10,000 88's on the eastern front?

 

[FlyingDutchman]

It might be a good idea actually, although not popular with the civilian population, as IIRC the Germans only shot down one Allied bomber per 10.000 rounds of AAA fired.
This would however give the Allies carte blanche to intensify their bombing campaigns.

I think your numbers are a bit off AFAIK according to the wiki of the 8.8 cm; by August '44 there were a bit over 10.000 8.8 cm in service, of which most (but certainly not all) were in Germany itself. I'd guess that at least 2-3000 were already in use as mobile heavy anti-aircraft batteries on both Fronts.

However, there are a few disadvantages; even though the 8.8 cm gun was designed for both AA and anti-tank and was even used as artillery late-war, it also has a very high profile, it's quite heavy IIRC, and in most versions is it's crew not protected and it's not terribly mobile.

Considering the size of the Soviet advances, I doubt the Germans can spare 10.000 heavy prime movers to move these guns around when the frontline moves back.

A better idea might be to move 5.000 of them to Normandy. The high profile is, if anything, actually an advantage in the bocage terrain. Considering it took the W-Allies quite a bit of time to break out, you wouldn't need as many prime movers as on the Eastern Front.

 

[Readman]

I would add that also, unless there was some sort of major pull back/defensive re-alignment those 88's won't be much good on the Eastern Front, too much ground to cover and easily outflanked.

 

[Riain]

I think the 88 argument is less about moving guns from Berlin to Russia and more about manufacturing FLaK 88 as PaK 88s instead. With a few thousand more PaK 88s, and maybe PaK 105s and PaK 128s as well, on the Eastern front after Kursk the Soviets would have lost many more tanks and been considerably less successful.

 

[von Adler]

You do forget one crucial part - guns in Germany did not need prime movers, since they were stationary. Any gun moved to the front will need a prime mover, in the case of the 8,8 Flak, it was usually the Sdkfz 7 - a vehicle that is expensive to build and demands a lot of fuel. Where is Germany going to get the resources to build 8 000 Sdkfz:s 1944?

Even if AA did not shoot down that many aircraft, it usually forced the aircraft to fly higher, take evasive action and disrupted their aim. Without AA guns, the British and American planes can attack anything at will from 3000m undisturbed - that is going to szuck very hard for German industry and infrastructure.

 

[JjeeporCreepor]

I suppose the extra guns would therefore be best used as part of some (shorter) static defence line to the rear, that Army Group Centre could fall back on (sort of like the abortive Panther-Wotan position in 1943). But whether Hitler would permit such a measure is another question - iirc he was going through one of his "not one step back" phases at the time in OTL...

 

[Tellus]

Theyd do more 'good' for the Germans on the eastern front, yes.

But fundamentally they are fucked anyway by this date. I don't forsee this shift as sufficient to force the Soviets to fundamentally change their strategy, much less sue for peace.

Now if the reason for the transfer eastwards was that there are no western-allied air raids (Either because the Germans managed to make peace in the west or because both sides never engaged in strategic bombing in a fashion similar to the non-use of chemical weapons), then its an entirely different thing. That might just be a war-changer in the east, but the conditions are quite unlikely.

 

[Rubicon]

Reading the Wiki Article it states that



So WI by Operation Bagration the Germans have an additional 10,000 88's on the eastern front?

Wiki article is craptastic to begin with

During 1944, in excess of 3,500 enemy aircraft were shot down by flak, while during the same period, less then 1,000 were downed by Luftwaffe fighters

Ineffectivness of flak..... yeah right...

 

[TRX]

In one of his books, Albert Speer wrote that the AA guns were of relatively little use in Germans and would have been much more effectively employed in the east.

 

[usertron2020]

Wiki article is craptastic to begin with


Ineffectivness of flak..... yeah right...

Did the figures only count 88mm-AA's shooting down strategic bombers, or also tactical aircraft downed by lighter AA?

 

[BlairWitch749]

umm those 10k 88mm guns where not just sitting in Germany defending against B-17's and Lancasters

There where two full flak corps in Normandy with over 100 thousand men serving in them in nearly 2000 guns serving 15th army's defense zone

There where nearly 4000 on the eastern front spread out in half a dozen flak divisions

A gun, the size of a tank, with no armored protection is a very poor substitute for actual AFV's... as others have said it only makes sense to transfer them if they are going to be used in some kind of east wall or to thicken the west wall/oder line, otherwise they where the most servicable where they where