Flak 88: One-Shot Kill? How Effective was it really?

The Flak 88mm is often portrayed as a Wunderwaffe that could one shot kill most or even any tank in World War 2. The question is, does the claim of the one-shot kill hold up to data we have available or not? For this we look at data from Flak units, but for context also US Tank Destroyer Units, German Sturmgeschütz Units and Tiger Battalions as well.
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» Paypal Donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» Patreon Perks » patreon - / mhv
» Subscribe Star Community - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» KZbin Membership - / @militaryhistoryvisual...
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Jentz, Thomas L.: The Dreaded Threat. The 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 in the Anti-Tank Role. Panzer Tracts: Boyds, MD, USA, 2001
Müller, Peter; Zimmermann, Wolfgang: Sturmgeschütz III. Development - Production - Deployment. History Facts: Andelfingen, Schweiz, 2009
Moran, Nicholas: TDs land at Anzio. The Chieftain’s Hatch, World of Tanks: 2019. worldoftanks.com/en/news/chie... Accessed: 3rd November 2019.
Moran, Nicholas: The 645th TDB Defends Anzio. The Chieftain’s Hatch, World of Tanks: 2019. worldoftanks.com/en/news/chie... Accessed: 3rd November 2019.
Zaloga, Steven: Armored Champion. The top Tanks of World War II. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, US, 2015.
McNab, Chris: Flak 88. 8.8cm Flugabwehrkanone (Models 18/36/37/41). Owners' Workshop Manual. Haynes Publishing: Somerset, UK, 2018.
Freeman Jr., William K: A Study of Ammunition Consumption. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: 2005, p. 13
Wilbeck, Christopher W.: Sledgehammers. Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II. The Aberjona Press: Bedford, PA, USA, 2004.
Hahn, Fritz: Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945. Dörfler Verlag: Eggolsheim, o.J.
Fletcher, David: British Battle Tanks. British-made Tanks of World War II. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017
Fennell, Jonathan: Fighting the People’s War. The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019
#Flak #Effectiveness #WW2

[@BA-gn3qb]

Soldier: Sir, it took us 25 shells to kill that tank. Officer: Next time, use shell #25 first.

[@BA-gn3qb]

@Desmond Griffith - A mobile tank? OMG! No wonder it took so many shots to kill one. Mr. Obvious has Spoken.

[@malowski111]

lol

[@MrMrHiggins]

galaxy brain leadership hahahha

[@jam8539]

@Desmond Griffith german tank training actually stated that when firing the tank was to stop as to be more accurate

[@ThePhoenix198]

@Desmond Griffith Nah, if it's stationary, then it's probably a Panther with a broken final drive 😉

[@williamspeck1198]

I think a lot of people really underestimate the amount of ammunition you need to expend to kill anything.

[@BigSmartArmed]

Unless you are a good hunter. The only true "one shot one kill" scenario comes from good hunters, and at that, the follow up shot is always loaded.

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@BigSmartArmed That's why you use 40 mm airburst rounds, because even a near miss is a hit ;)

[@BigSmartArmed]

@@lavrentivs9891 The original statement was to "kill anything", not to force it into any given position. When it comes to tactics anything goes, even punji sticks smeared in feces.

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@BigSmartArmed And my comment refered to your comment about hunting, combined with a hunting joke told within the AA platoon in my old army company.

[@Chezzers.]

Videogames, son

[@bradsimpers7708]

Best multi-purpose cannon ever built. Enemy planes? Flak 88 Enemy ships? Flak 88 Enemy tanks? Flak 88 Enemy? Flak 88

[@jarlathquinn2628]

88 be like: when you say AA you mean anti air when I say AA I mean anti everything

[@yamatolexo]

@@jarlathquinn2628 AA=Anti All

[@jaylowry]

True, but it wasn't exactly ideal to be facing that many tanks in the east, when most of your best anti-tank guns were shooting at airplanes in the west.

[@histhoryk2648]

@@jarlathquinn2628 Anti Anything better matches with Acronym

[@pedrofelipefreitas2666]

Ships? Yeah maybe a destroyer lol

[@Ljevid01]

As a German I can appreciate the flawless bureaucracy and list keeping by the German crews while fighting for their lifes.

[@wytfish4855]

"sieben... acht... that's... another casing down by that ditch...." "QUIT MESSING AROUND HANS, LOAD THE GUN!" thanks for the humorous mental image

[@leftcoaster67]

Wolf, was that 5 or 6 shots?

[@zeroangelmk1]

You think this is kinderparty? Get a god damn move on.

[@kaiserkiefer1760]

Pope Ocelot COH 1 has some of the best dialogue in any game. You can really tell the German army is professional but weary. And the US is big and strong but over confident. “I swear I’ve been over this ground ten fucking times” -Wehrmacht grenadier Implying he’s a veteran soldier probably fought here around her Before. “Enemy down, yeah. They fought well” -Wehrmacht soldier on killing Us troops Implying also a veteran sees some honour in combat and respects enemy. “Jesus Conrad tie your fucking laces” -Us sergeant Us squad implied to be fresh recruits and in experienced. Also, if listening well. Most German units do not scream when under Fire implying they have been in many battles. Where as Us troops tend to freak out a lot more. And usually boast until they actually fight. Most German units also sound much more tired and grizzled. And frequently joke about Russian steel being in their ribs. And enemy tank shells scratching paint jobs. I think there is two perfect units in the game. The US rifleman squad And The Wehrmacht Knights cross squad. One is numerous cheap and confident. You can lose hundreds. But they’ll get the job done The other Is expensive, cool calm collected and professional. But loses are too expensive.

[@heshiram1188]

@@kaiserkiefer1760 I have not played CoH in almost a year and I still qoute the german lines from time to time

[@Sir_Godz]

there are 4 stats that are not referenced and are likely the most important. 1- how many shot were required to achieve a first hit? 2- how many shot were required to knock out that vehicle after that first hit including missed shots? 3- how many actual hits were required to knock the vehicle out? 4- how many people hear bernard's accent in their head when they read the word Vee Hicle?

[@francopvf]

1) 2/3 3)1/2 good hits normally with AP

[@fidjeenjanrjsnsfh]

Also not addressed in this video is that even after the tank in knocked out, it was still being fired upon to prevent it from being recovered and repaired.

[@katherinefrancis79]

Tanks don't have HP, so it's not like a 8.8cm guns does 300 damage and it takes 600 damage to knock out a M4. A shot might kill a tank in a single hit with a fire or catastrophic explosion if it hits something like the engine or detonates munitions, or can punch holes all day if they just go through like some of those pictures of KV-1's. In addition, it's hard to tell when a tank is dead, so many vehicles that aren't crewed or functional continue to be fired upon until the gunners see an obvious sign that it's dead like it's on fire or something. There's no real way to know how many hits it takes to kill something. It really just comes down to "can you penetrate" and "can you hit".

[@danwest3825]

I agree with Sir_Godz, how many shots were clean misses on a moving target before achieving a kill

[@tlw4237]

@@katherinefrancis79 It also comes down to “can you persuade the crew that they are no longer enjoying sitting inside a target”. Morale has a huge impact on warfare at every level. Panic or shock the crew and even if they don’t bail out they aren’t going to be very effective.

[@CaCidinho]

I ain't bad at war thunder, I just play historically correctly.

[@Kukus-xy3gi]

I was playing germany in warthunder and when we were losing(still won the game tho), someone remarked "we arent shit, we're just being historically accurate"

[@greenkoopa]

I always pick Finland 👀

[@bigchungus2667]

@@greenkoopa fuk u and ur b18 😠

[@halolime117]

Ah yes Russian bias very historical

[@seaweed9294]

@@bigchungus2667 Bruh the B18 is not finish

[@Larry82ch]

I'd say it really depends on the size of the enemy's health bar

[@TheQuallsing]

Having spent many years in a European army. Been in combat on many occasions in Afghanistan. Suppresive fire, meaning you shoot to keep your enemy in place whilst you flank, attack, retreat etc. Thats why we use so much ammo when in combat.

[@c5back9]

Calle: Bingo. Armchair analysts rarely understand.

[@thomasbummer4361]

@@c5back9 u dont lay down suppressive fire with tank guns lol esp when limited on ammo compared to the mass of opposing tanks like the germans were

[@guyr.gormley9344]

Thomas Bommer that’s not necessarily true, tanks were used as infantry support, HE is great for infantry support as well as the machine guns on board, smoke rounds are also great to cover advances

[@thomasbummer4361]

@@guyr.gormley9344 u still dont use the tanks main gun for suppressive fire. Not in any case with any round. Period.

[@EggyJeff2725]

@@thomasbummer4361 are you the military guy or is Peepie

[@MrSimonw58]

Only Germans could have recorded all this data ... German standing in the background with a clipboard recording every shot.

[@michaelthayer5351]

Well, each gun is issued with a certain amount of ammunition, when it is spent it has to be reordered and the request sent up the supply chain. EVERY army keeps track, or at least tries to keep track of ammunition and supply expenditure for logistic and production purposes, you need to know your ammo expenditure in order to make sure you've allocated the correct production and transportation, otherwise you end up in a situation where you have way more 37mm than you need but have an acute shortage of 7.62mm rifle rounds. It's like if you've ever worked in retail, especially management retail, you have to know what gets sold in a given time period and compare that to how long it takes to restock that given item or you risk empty shelves and lost sales.

[@lavrentivs9891]

@@michaelthayer5351 Logistics, perhaps the most important but also boring part of war ;)

[@KB4QAA]

SW: Noting your obvious exaggeration, it is still untrue. The USN calculated similar statics for round of ammunition needed to kill a single Japanese plane. Numbers of upwards of 6k-11k rounds were the result. That is a total of 5", 3", 40mm, 20mm and .50cal guns.

[@augustvonmackensen2102]

I'd say Americans are the most methodical. They wage wars by numbers and formulas.

[@VT-mw2zb]

You'll be surprise how all armies keep very long paper trails. Large caliber munitions (artillery, mortars, RPG, rockets, missiles) have serial numbers or at least, batch number on the individual rounds. There are paper trails tracking where it was made and to whom it was transfered to, which country, which unit etc ... There is good reasons for this. Say you transfer some artillery rounds to a unit and somehow they expended it all without significant contact in the area. Did they shoot it or sell to insurgents to make IEDs? So you need paper trails. What they received, when, which batch with which number was sent to which unit who expended during which period according to which after action report.

[@Ceser1999]

I think you are missing the point being made by the original claim. E.g that when a shot actually hit (or if you are being generous penetrates), it would be enough to guarantee a Kill/disabling of a vehicle. I'm not sure how well this claim actually holds up, or how it would compare to other weapons, but the data presented in this video does not seem to address this in any way.

[@bliblablubb9590]

Ceser: Yeah, there is a difference between munition used and lethality of a direct hit. Who knows how many missed shots were fired, because I doubt a tank has to be hit 15+ times to be disabled.

[@Vladimir-hq1ne]

Well, I suppose they've counted 14 direct hits? Let's say, hitting some KV-2 Heavy Tanksand some T-34s could be quite different in resulting disabling/destroying quantities?

[@braxxian]

Correct. Just because your tank for example fires 24 rounds hardly implies that you scored 24 direct hits. Quite a large percentage of those rounds fired would be misses or deflecting shots, unless you have an exceptional crew that rarely miss.

[@lavrentivs9891]

I understand what you mean, but I doubt it would be possible to get such exact data. Militaries counts like in the video, "how much ammunition is required to knock out a target" and observations of which shells hit the target and what it's effects are on the target can be difficult even on target ranges, never mind in a combat situation where people are trying to kill each other. It would probably be hard to get a good average 'score' too, since depending on the target, where you hit, the distance etc. the results will obviously vary. Especially depending on how you define a 'kill' or disabled vehicle. Would a broken track be enough? A jammed turret or a certain amount of crew killed?

[@davieturner339]

Ceser : accurate combat data to show 1 hit/penetration would kill enemy tanks would not exist. It could be tried in a test environment but that would have issues. I think this sort of data is the best you could hope for really, even then, in combat, not sure there are many observers with binoculars and an excel abacus looking only for accurate data.

[@MKahn84]

Not only were there a lot of misses, but you have the "ghost tank" problem. Even at close range, when you fire an anti-tank gun, there's smoke, fire, and dust obscuring your view. How do you know if you hit your target? I had read in the past that most anti-armor ammunition was solid shot. So even after you hit the tank, unless it explodes or bursts into flames, you may not realize it and will shoot it again. Further, how do you know that you're the only one shooting at a given tank. There could be two or three guns engaging the same tank. Even into the 1980s, the US Army taught engagement methods to try to prevent this problem, but it's probably still an issue. Say you put a round right through the frontal armor of the tank and don't see it hit. The round kills the driver and most of the rest of the crew, but does not destroy the engine or drive train, so the tank keeps moving. That is a "ghost tank" and even though it is actually no longer a threat, it is likely to be shot multiple times before it stops moving because those shooting at it don't know it's not a threat and it's still moving!

[@Lurgansahib]

No matter what the stats say, there is no way I would want to be on the receiving end of a 88 round!

[@SK-tr1wo]

Just play warthunder to find out

[@fuckmemonica]

If only you had that choice!

[@royhsieh4307]

t34 engine says: well it freed me from the tank i had problem getting out of.

[@leomduffy794]

Yes being 10 or more feet from an 88 biting the ground will def ruin your day.

[@patrickpelletier9298]

guy who built the transportation museum here was on an m3 half track that got hit by an 88. the fuse didnt get tripped

[@triestelondon]

You're confusing one-hit one-kill with one-shot one-kill.

[@Warriorcat49]

People keep saying this, but even if it's a useful distinction (which I would contest), the data on it's just not there. You'd have to be able to see each hit, which is hard enough on a safe gun range, but to also be able to know when the tank you're shooting at becomes "killed" which is a subjective measure at best. If it doesn't explode in a giant fireball, what metric do you use? Crews sometimes bailed because they got scared by non-penetrating hits, crews would bail if they became immobilized, the crew would be forced to bail/retreat if the gun was inoperable. Which of these is still a "dead" tank? Not to mention, they would have had to actually record all of this, and accurately. All of these are reasons why the best approximation we can make after the fact is to find how many shots it takes overall.

[@mayamanign]

Warriorcat49 99% of the time it explodes in a huge fireball. Simple.

[@Warriorcat49]

Gorilla Jones No. That’s not how real-life works. Nothing is *simple*, and when you get into the realm of terminal ballistics (which is my most researched subject matter, mainly because it is so convoluted and *not simple*) things get particularly wacky. Don’t be ridiculous. Unless, of course, you have an actual, reliable source you can provide which shows this 99%, in which case I’m all ears.

[@calimdonmorgul7206]

@@Warriorcat49 The base of the claim is that a 88mm shell fired by a Flak 88 will destroy the average armored vehicle it could have encounterd with one shot. As long as the round hit and penetrated central mass and didn't malfunction. You can easily compare it to a rifle. A good hit will kill or at the very least disable the poor sod who was fired upon.

[@matsv201]

You probobly will get a lot of glansing shots even with a 88 on say something like a sherman. If you hit it close to the side, it will probobly glans

[@vanscoyoc]

I am thinking a lot of missed shots.

[@fanyechao2761]

or if a friendly tank is lost or destroyed, its ammunition may be labelled as spent

[@lavrentivs9891]

It's going to take several shots just to get the range right, especially against a moving target and if you haven't had the advantage of measuring certain distances before the action.

[@oceanhome2023]

Also you might have a situation where 3 88s are shooting at the first tank that appears, it would be hard to determine which shots were yours and perhaps the initial engagement is 2K . HE shells we’re used to button up the tank and reduce their visibility also to clear any riders . Conversely any 88s spotted shooting would surely draw small arms fire making meaning the gun a very dangerous task consequently ruining a steady aim . The German Tank Aces had many many first shot kills they in no way could afford to miss that much also many of them were taken out with one shot . Perhaps it is just me but it seems like it took way more ammo to kill a tank than it should have ! FOG of War ? During the Vietnam War they calculated that it took an ungodly number of rounds to kill 1 VC , does anyone remember what that number was ?

[@PobortzaPl]

@@oceanhome2023 That number was going into tens of thousands for firearm rounds, plus several hundreds of artillery rounds and few hundreds of kilos (roughly twice as much in pounds) of air bombs.

[@gso619]

Unfortunately, much like soldiers, tanks have the nasty habit of hiding or moving when they realize they're being shot at. I imagine some engagements were ended with a single lucky shot and some were 10 minutes of confused screaming and shooting from both crews.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

The everpress campaign is over, yet, you can check my regular merchandise here: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized

[@Bagheera2]

Unfortunately I'm a 3x

[@leemichael2154]

I loved your video even though you German's are so unkind too your vowels! Thank you

[@tuanvandersluis4433]

yes you have a point. the 8.8 mm gun was a anti plane then tank. but look at this weapon be for ww2. it was a short barole model.

[@JeanLucCaptain]

I think it's worth remembering that a flak 88 battery would ALWAYS be a huge priority target. It's more the likely that Flak 88 batteries were often under heavy suppressive fire, artillery air strikes etc... This would at least help explain the high number of rounds per kill.

[@salavat294]

Was that data for static targets or those maneuvering ?

[@HuNgerforrock]

I am just sad, that people were so selfish in the ww2 that they didn't take more time in those massive fights to accurately record every data for us, 2000+ youtuber watchers and enthusiasts.

[@madhurawat155]

I guess it's a joke but anyways, they had a lot going on at the time like stockpiling food and ammunition, seeing to the wounded, occupying and preparing a defensive position for inevitable enemy attacks, or attacking them yourself all the while communicating with dozens at a time to maintain coordination. War is messy, there is only so much you can do to record them.

[@fanyechao2761]

if a friendly tank is lost or destroyed, could it's ammunition be labelled as spent?

[@timonsolus]

Yes - whether it was fired or not.

[@NilsMueller]

Very good point. I suppose it depends on when you "count" the shells

[@jimtaylor294]

@@timonsolus Or whether the ammunition stocks are salvagable ot not ;) .

[@Wasparcher1]

Pretty sure it would probably be listed under "Combat Losses" and not "Combat Expenditures" mainly because it's important to know how much ammunition your soldiers are firing and counting unfired, destroyed shells would get in the way of keeping accurate track of that. I also doubt much was salvageable on a truly wrecked tank considering most doctrines at the time included completely disabling enemy vehicles (A.k.a. shoot it until it's a roaring inferno). Remember folks there is a difference between "destroyed" and "disabled" just like "lost" and "expended".

[@jimtaylor294]

@@Wasparcher1 Good points, though whilst it was policy to ensure enemy Tanks - that weren't capturable - were to be rendered unreusable (via use of available means, from shooting them up to using explosive charges), there's plenty of precedent for Tanks being knocked out and then captured, with the ammo' stores intact. Heck: The invention of Explosive Reactive Armour was in part due to Tanks captured as such during the Six Day War.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

I have to agree with the other commenters. I think the spirit of the question has been missed here. The question might better be phrased "How many 88mm HITS on a tank were required to knock that target out?" I agree also that Panzer crews were trained to keep firing on a target until it started to smoke or burn. Thus increasing the amount of shots used. Sorry, but it looks like you'll have to make another video. But that's alright. We love seeing that exacting German thoroughness in action. ;-)

[@BigWillyG1000]

Agreed. I'm sure a lot of that shell usage he cites were outright misses. Especially the North Africa stuff where we're talking long ranges but lots of variables like dust that would mess up aim.

[@calebr908]

Ya it's like how many bullets ecpendited per kill. Probably 20000. That doesnt mean it takes 20000 bullets to kill someone.

[@F4Wildcat]

So were american and british tank crews. I mean it was even difficult to tell if a tank had actually been penetrated or the shell shattered (Problem with Explosive filler shells like PZG39 or M62 apc) You kept firing untill the tank was in flames

[@VonSpud]

Yes, how many "knocked out" tanks were repeatedly fired at because insufficient evidence of a kill was present. Also appreciate German thoroughness.

[@muskokamike127]

In World of Tanks: it only takes one shot from a Russian T-18 ultra light to knock out an American M1A2 abrams.

[@Luke-lk5fd]

Your ability and precision in data gathering is amazing, I wish I had that patience, it would make my thesis referencing much better and more accurate

[@Hardwarebeer]

"Significant emotional event" Is becoming one of my favorite lines.

[@saratov99]

Chieftain!!!

[@matsv201]

Always exagurating

[@jasonnicholas8648]

Your research work and making these videos is highly appreciated. ..

[@captaingreybeard7994]

The 88mm ap shell hitting any allied tank at under 1000m it's good nite nurse.

[@AndyThomas_mrblitz]

Is it that the original 88mm flak, and the Tiger 1 guns were L/56, while the later antitank gun, and the gun on the Elephant, Jagdpanther, and Tiger 2 were all L/71? The L/56 could deal with most any target tank, particularly before say, 1944. The L/71 could reliably knock out anything, except maybe the IS-2 tank?

[@selfdo]

@@AndyThomas_mrblitz The KwK 43 could defeat the armor of the IS-2 at typical engagement ranges. This is one reason they developed the IS-3, the "Pike" glacis armor and the inverted "soup bowl" turret design did well to shed rounds from an 88 at ranges exceeding 500m. Published Soviet data should be taken with a grain of salt insofar as armor penetration is concerned; they went to great lengths to assert the superiority of the "Worker's" weaponry, truth be damned. It should be pointed out, though, that though the IS tanks and their SP gun derivatives could take care of themselves on the battlefield, they were NOT intended to engage enemy armor at all; these were intended for the infantry support role and to engage fortifications. That's why their poor maneuverability was not considered a problem. The 85mm D5T gun on the T-34/85 did well against all but the heavy German cats, and even could punch through their side armor at engagement ranges. And the SU-100, which wasn't seen in significant numbers until March 1945, had the D-10T which fought on equal terms with the KwK 43 and could maul ANY German AFV.

[@paulgwilliam6323]

@@AndyThomas_mrblitz Yes they knocked out IS-2s

[@dieseltaylor]

@@paulgwilliam6323 I think that reliably is the caveat on IS2

[@F4Wildcat]

Yet several occasions the Churchill MKIII was able to bounce off shells of an 88L56 and take em out. your comment is just popular opinion, reality is diffrent

[@alessiodecarolis]

You've also to take in account a lot of other factors, such as the wind, target's moviment, normally they were firing against very mobile targets with primitive opticals, often the tank had to move from a position to another, and the stress of the gunners, their targets weren't defensless!

[@ErikLavesson]

I really like this guy making these videos, cant complain about anything. Keep up the good work.

[@JohnDoe-jq4re]

I’m very glad you made this video. My neighbor has been launching tank assaults into my backyard for months now, and I haven’t figured out a good way to stop him.

[@Krejza82]

You'll need thousands of shells to make it work :-D

[@foamer443]

P-47 Thunderbolt

[@jedinight235]

@@foamer443 b17 bomber

[@julius7643]

when mhv uploads a video right when youre home again : a surprise to be sure but a welcome one

[@cgross82]

Great, detailed, careful research! Thanks for crunching the numbers for us!

[@tonygarcia-fd4sg]

HUGE HUGE FAN OF YOUR CHANNEL. The the way u explain everything everything and break it down. GREAT JOB BRO,KEEP IT UP

[@DC9622]

Interesting analysis. Have you reviewed the 21st Army No2 ORS reports for the battle of Normandy. Report 12 considers 75 Sherman Tank casualties, where 82% of hits were from the 75mm not the 88mm. A lot of the flak 88mm had been pulled back to Germany because of the bombing. The average number of hits to knockout a Sherman was 1.62. Report 17 goes into detail of their analysis of German tank casualties from June 6th to August 31st. The Panzer VI 4.2 average number of hits to knock out, 2.6 average number to penetrate to knockout. Panzer V 2.2 hits to knockout and 1.9 to penetrate. Panzers IV 1.2 hits to knockout and 1.2 to penetrate. The report considers the performance of the various anti tank weapons, needless to say, the 17 pounder and 6 pounder APCBC rounds were devastating. Another point to consider, fighting in Normandy bocage, they had a number of strategies, one was to fire a lot of HE, brassing up the Bocage hedge to destroy defensive positions or spook any armour which would be dealt with by the Firefly or Achilles in overwatch. Also, to probe forward, wait for the inevitable German counterattack which met the anti tank net.

[@MothaLuva]

According to your comment the Pz IV fared better than the Tiger (Pz VI)?

[@DC9622]

Man of Mayhem, no the report was done in 1944 by the operational scientists to understand the performance of allied equipment against Axis, the Tiger had 4.2 hits of which 2.6 penetrated whilst the Mark IV 1.2 hits which 1.2 penetrated. So it took twice has many hits on average to take out the Tiger than the Mark IV. The 17 pounder and 6 pounder had a success rate to penetrate armour of over 80%, the 75mm was 68%. However SRY destroyed or captured 5 tigers with 75mm Shermans they were rather good. Example, August 8 1944, 1 firefly against, 3 Tigers fired 5 rounds. Tiger 1 hit twice, penetrated 2 one through the turret, brew up, Tiger 2 hit once penetrated 1, blown up and Tiger 3 hit once 1 penetrated and there was a 1 miss brew up. Then a Mark IV hit once 1 penetrated blown up. 2 more Tigers were disabled by 75mm and the crews abandoned them. The performance matrix is against Mark V Panther Mark IV and Stug which were the majority of the armour. The Tigers were small in number and apart from the 503 the others performed badly. Using Eastern front tactics in Normandy was not sensible. The idea of the No2 ORS was to feedback German Tank weaknesses to the 21st Army Tank Crews to improve there success and survival rates.

[@MothaLuva]

DC I misunderstood. I thought delivering end, not receiving.

[@mdstmouse7]

where did you find this report?

[@DC9622]

mdstmouse7 hi this the original apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a951850.pdf the US Army have produced a pdf. However Terry Copp the Canadian historian produced an edited version in 2000 if you can find a copy.

[@guiseppe46]

My dad fought across Germany all the way to Austria. he told me about the incredible fear the GI's had of the 88. He was with the 813th Tank destroyer battalion!

[@truthseeking6611]

How many allied tanks did your dad destroy?😊

[@nicudanciu5758]

Nice, intersting and very well done, both script and video. A huge work for 14 minutes full of information.

[@apollohateshisdayjob9606]

I had always interpreted the "one shot kill" to mean that When it hit, it would almost always disable the target with the single impact, rather than require multiple hits to different areas. Because that is then only counting hits vs disables instead of shots per disables, I still think this holds some truth. A similar war comparison is how in ww2 the m1 carbine was viewed by many soldiers as underpowered vs the garand, because there were times they needed to hit an enemy multiple times to stop them while the garand was more likely to drop an enemy soldier in 1-2 hits. As another type of comparison, many might consider the .50 bmg as a one hit kill weapon compared to the 5.56 which may require multiple hits to disable. However a designated marksman with a 5.56 will likely expend fewer rounds to make those hits than a .50 machine gunner might. Tldr; it may simply be poor nomenclature, and the intent is to refer to it as a "one-hit kill weapon" instead of a "one-shot kill weapon" simply because the round has to actually hit the target to do its damage

[@davesmith3289]

If it could hit its target with one shot then it would be a 'one shot kill' weapon. But it couldn't.

[@apollohateshisdayjob9606]

@@davesmith3289 I think that's really where the debate comes from, is the distinction between OHK vs OSK (One Hit/Shot Kill) Some people take OST literally, which I guess is applicable with nukes, but I do think most people use the more casual interpretation where Obviously with any projectile weapon you have has to hit the target first.. I guess a more fair way to nitpick this is to say "Hit" with large projectiles, and "Shot" with accurate delivery systems?

[@swift7493]

13:00 You know what also is an significant emotional event? The tank being on fire.

[@GaudialisCorvus]

"Oh booger, the tank is on fire." *struggles to escape quickly*

[@leester9487]

Maybe it's really hard to hit a moving target with gun.

[@leester9487]

@Yar Nunya No, let me clarify. its really, really hard to hit a moving target with a gun designed for barrage fire.

[@GTAandApplechannel]

@@leester9487 first that things is supposed to be an anti Aircraft artillery nor an anti Tank artillery

[@kensei1972]

My grandfather was a Sherman commander and was launched out of the top of the turret by a point blank 88 hit after turning a corner in the city of Holle. The rest of the crew died, he was on fire and put out by attached infantry. The 88 apparently works pretty damn well at 30 meters...

[@chaplainhyena1523]

Brilliant, thank you for the info. Context is everything!

[@donmckeoun7990]

The fact of the matter is the thought of facing an 88 was demoralizing to any tank crew no matter how many shots were fired

[@DouglasMoran]

The one-shot vs one-hit difference from many commenters is an interesting issue. From the point of view of a logician or of the designer of a tank or tank destroyer, one-hit-per-kill is largely irrelevant. For the former, you are concerned about how many rounds of various types you need to get to front-line units to defeat the expected enemy armor. For the later, shots-per-kill influences how many rounds the tank/TD/AT needs to carry to be effective in a particular engagement. It also affects design issues such as reload speed, speed of re-aiming, traverse speed, ... Shots vs hits per kill presumably has a large effect on tactics. For example, multiple hits per kill diminishes the effectiveness of various categories of ambushes. In contrast, one hit per kill strongly advantages getting the first shot and making it have a high probability of it being a hit.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

especially because people tend to forget just how hard it is to actually hit something in the correct spot to not have the shot bounce or do nothing. exept in an ambush, you have little time to train your gun, and even then unexpected movement or rotation and severely fuck up the shot, not even counting when tanks engage one another at long distances where it is just a matter of throwing tons of seel until something hits a thing that just so happens to be important. i guess the problem is that people picture battles like we would see in a film or in a game, but even with today's computer assisted aiming, it is still possible to fuck up a shot and that is considering we have APFSDS that can reach stupid speeds and litteraly launching missiles from a gun barrel. it also means nothing to be able to "one shot kill" if you cannot reload fast enough or resist the onslaught of the 20 angry T-34 bombrushing your position at slavic speeds

[@timsboots742]

Understanding that a head on shot at frontal plate will more than likely kill or destroy the crew/tank is incredibly useful for crews to understand. It will not only save ammunition but influence tactics against enemy tanks, this video if was given as a report to a commander (not that it was the intent) would be utterly useless.

[@piotrd.4850]

@@mobiuscoreindustries You can't hit "the spot". You aim for center of mass.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

@@piotrd.4850 "Aiming" in WW2 terms was a very generous term for most tanker son all sides. A bit closer to "roughly pointing the gun where you see muzzle-flash"

[@thestephensfamily1792]

My father was a paratrooper at Anzio. He said the thing they dreaded most were the 88 shells airbursting over them. They were devastating. In his memory, it was a vicious anti-personnel weapon. That may account for some of the high explosive rounds.

[@oldegrunt5735]

Can't say I'd heard from many sources the 88m Flak was so good as to be a one shot one kill weapon but the handful of WW2 vets I met over the years had a lot of respect for it especially the former tankers. I imagine the hit ratio as averaged doesn't allow for the veteran crews who would be better than the "average" crew. Like so many 'facts' in war, it does seem that some guns/men/vehicles/ do in fact kill far more than most of their contemporaries. I do think that the shots to kill ratio is incredibly hard to parse, given what is admittedly partial data and reach definitive results. I think it's good to see such vibrant research into this matter and given the recent crushing of WW2 anti armor claims by all nations' air forces, it may result in some redoing of tank kill claims. I've yet to view any of your videos and NOT learn something. Thanks for what you do.

[@alexbowman7582]

Apparently you can see the shell coming towards you, especially if it’s a HE round which moves slower and if your not in a tank the most dangerous, the AP is just a big bullet which if it misses you then your safe.

[@greenmachine1987]

The more salient question is whether it was a one “hit” kill weapon. Lots of shots may be expended for fire suppression, area effect, anti personnel or anti material, general bombardment and plain missing at range.

[@zerstorer335]

I think the salience depends on what weapon system we're talking about and who's looking at the situation. Since we're (originally, at least) talking about the Flak 88, we're talking about an anti-tank gun, they will probably put some serious weight onto one *shot* kills. Since they don't have armor surrounding them like on a tank, they don't want to trade shots any more than absolutely necessary. Having great terminal effects when a round hits doesn't help if it goes whistling into the air or plows into the dirt. Meanwhile, as long as you hit the target, you're at least getting something done and, if you're an 88 crew, you're able to expect you're poking a hole in that tank. So the 88 crews are likely more worried about achieving something with one shot. If the situation is viewed from the receiving end, then what it can do in one *hit* is more of a concern because whatever doesn't hit you isn't your problem. Any missed shots are for the sparrows and the rabbits to worry about. The targeted crew just wants to know what will happen if they're hit, whether that was the enemy's first or fifteenth shot. But I do agree with you that we can't really tell how rounds were being used. I think most of the data is essentially a synthesis of combat reports on kills and supply reports on how many replenishment rounds are needed. We cannot tell that every round expended was fired with a tank firmly in the crosshairs.

[@greenmachine1987]

@@zerstorer335 well the was essentially my whole point, when a round manages to hit a tank, what happens? Many shots may miss (bad crew, bad training, adverse conditions, long shots) and many may be fired at other targets, (infantry, airplanes, trucks, etc). So rounds fired to tanks killed isn’t a great measure of its effectiveness against tanks, so much as tanks hit to tanks killed. Then general consensus seems to be that if you managed to hit an allied tank with an 88mm it would be incapacitated or destroyed. Conversely, many axis tanks could get hit several times by allied 75mm rounds and keep on rolling

[@VonSpud]

Appreciate your attention to detail, along with your assistants contributions. Looking at the bottom line, I surmise that 1 or 2 shells were required to actually kill armored vehicles, the remaining shells either ricochet off or missed entirely. I had no idea so many shells were expanded against targets. Too many movies and games for me I think.

[@jeremy28135]

Love this channel so much. Rocking my Pzkw VI Ausf. E shirt today 👍

[@rare_kumiko]

On a related topic, I've always wondered if a penetrating shot would usually disable a tank, or if there was any chance they crew would try to keep fighting if the shell didn't do a lot of damage. I would think that once they have been penetrated, even if there's little damage, the crew wouldn't wait to be hit again, but this is just speculation. Do you know any sources where I can read up on that?

[@hughmungus4744]

tWo days ago

[@rare_kumiko]

@@hughmungus4744 Some videos are released early for Patrons

[@iczeky]

A penetrating shot usually sprays hot metal inside the tank, it's also incredibly loud and a physical shock. Provided it penetrates anywhere close to the crew the affected crew members are propably wounded or at least stunned unless you are very lucky. Apart from that equipment suffers the same, except for the hearing loss of course and could be directly hit. Generally there's not a lot of unused room in a tank so something or someone is almost always damaged. Meaning even a penetrating shot at least limits the tanks usability but if you're lucky it can stay in the fight. TL;DR Yes, unless you're very lucky.

[@meanmanturbo]

I heard stories about the Arab-Israeli wars that the Arabs used Soviet AT- missiles that were heaviy optimized for penetration. The shaped charge jet would make a hole straight through, but if the jet did not hit anything important on the way it would do basically no damage. Though I have problems seeing that a kinetic penetrator would make such a tidy hole.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

Penetrating shot means it will always damage one / more crew members and tank components that are needed to keep the tank capable of fighting.That allmost always means the crew bails out the tank.Even non penetrating rounds can make the crew bail simply because they were under pressure, trying to find out who and what is shooting at them and they will likely be forced to bail in case the next hit will mean their deaths.For example a Tiger II, Tiger 223 got knocked out in the Battle of the Bulge by Shermans with the 75mm.The Shermans simply focused fire on it, managed to blow up the cannon barrel and damage the tank enough to make the crew bail.A second Tiger II that acompanied Tiger 223 was made to pull back in a similar way.Also have a look at this document.You will see a Sherman tank firing several shots at a Tiger I front armor and the Tiger crew bailing out without firing back : imgur.com/EVKUetf

[@501Mobius]

The AP shell (Pzgr. Patr.) used by 88mm in the early war had a softer AP cap and large charge cavity. It often failed to penetrate T-34s and KV-1s from the front over 300 meters (Except T-34 turret out to 1000m). So hits don't always kill. About time of the introduction of the Tiger I an improved AP shell (Pzgr. 39) was also introduced which had a smaller cavity and hard AP cap. This did a better job of penetration. Penetration data of early shell page 94. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/PDFs/TME9-369A_Germ88.pdf

[@piotrd.4850]

You don't have to penetrate tank armour, especially on WW II tanks, to achieve mission/mobility kill.

[@gortnewton4765]

An excellent and intelligently given talk. Loved it. Thank you.

[@lancejobs]

I wish the media had your level of integrity as you treat history with. and props to doing German and English text goes an extra step, big props!

[@ronvk100]

this shows that " Range , Distance ", have a major say in how many shots it takes in actual combat to Kill tanks etc... etc...

[@comunistubula4424]

The gist of this whole video.

[@quadg5296]

with the ranges in the desert and the Russian steppe being above average.

[@douglascampbell9809]

I remember seeing an old allied movie reel on the assault where a column of Sherman tanks was sent up the road to support the infantry. An 88 fired on them from a concealed position. In minutes they were in flames. One looked like a giant had kicked it into the ditch. It's a hard to find clip that is only a few seconds long.

[@carlbowles1808]

Sherman tanks to My knowledge were thin skinned with a weak gun. Gasoline predisposed them to explode on the first hit. Simple to manufacture, maintain and versatile was their advantage. For every Sherman the superior German tanks destroyed there were 10 Sherman's on the way from the factory. Disagree? Please take your best shot.

[@hastalavictoriasiempre2730]

@@carlbowles1808 and they say soviets used numbers 😂🤣🤔😆

[@zackrichardson6341]

The book "history of the Royal Tank Regiment" (approximate title from memory) gave an example of RTR charge in North Africa when at full strength against a single battery of four 88s being destroyed to the last tank at 2000 meters and had a picture of an 88 shot cleanly penetrating British armor.

[@malcolmlane-ley2044]

Phenomenal data analysis, I had no idea such information would have been recorded. My perception has been that the kill rate over open sights with AP rounds was much higher. Without doubt though it would seem the very mention of an 88 would strike fear into an enemy and the versatility of this weapon is legendary.

[@user-yj8vj3sq6j]

"High muscle velocity" - like that )))

[@Mungobohne1]

Arnie is from austria also

[@drbedlam9786]

King Force’s Churchill tanks (with up to 90mm of armour) were said to have been hit up to 70 times. Surely some of those rounds were 88s. Perhaps they didn’t have composite rigid shells?

[@lowesmanager8193]

@Dwarov 1 That's totally unture, due to the incredibly low quality steel and very poor welding of the T-34 spalling was a major issue which resulted in T-34s being knocked out even by 20mm cannons from the front under sustained fire. In addition the Soviets took massive losses in 1941 and very few T-34s ever returned, damaged or undamaged.

[@peasant8246]

The german 88mm guns certainly didn't need to have the rare composite rigid shells to destroy a tank with mostly flat 90mm of armour. The data I have indicates that the 8.8cm AP shell fired by the flak guns would require to have only around 620m/s to defeat such target which, according to the original firing tables, the shell would have up to 2200m. Even though this is an ideal scenario for the Flak crew/worst case for the Churchill tank and in actual combat it's harder to score a perpendicular hit as the tank is maneuvering around the battlefield, there is little doubt that if it came to that the early Churchill variants would be disabled by 1 or 2 direct hits in most situations. The King Force’s tanks probably just got lucky that there were no 88 or high velocity 75mm guns in their area at the time.

[@lowesmanager8193]

@Dwarov 1 The garbage that you just spewed is so bad that a lot of it isn't even propaganda, it's pure fantasy. Even the Soviets never would have said anything as retarded as "T-34s could literally bounce 88mm shells even at point blank range." The Soviets knew how powerful the 88 was which is one of the reasons why the KV series was discontinued and why the IS series was made. It's also one of the reasons why the T-43 was not made, because it's upgraded hull armor would have been irrelevant in almost all cases. Once again the armor and welding quality on T-34s especially in 1941 and 1942 was awful to the point where over two times as many T-34s were knocked out by 20mm guns then by 88mm guns, mostly because 88mm guns were rather rare.

[@francopvf]

@Dwarov 1 thats impossible, those hit probably are from 37mm or 50mm, and It wasnt something normal, It would probably have been really rare

[@comunistubula4424]

@Dwarov 1 "Soviet T34s could literally bounce 88mm shells even at point blank range as the germans found out. The T34 was unpenetrable even from the rear by the 50mm pak until late 1942." ............................... Insert the "Oh no....it's retarded" meme. Because you can't give anything else as a answer.

[@dr.g.eckert2409]

Extrem gut recherchiert ! Very well done! Klasse!

[@richoros1]

Great video! Many thanks for your time! :)

[@chrisduhamel6858]

My friend was with the 12th SS Panzer Division crewing a high velocity 75 mm anti tank gun. He fought at Normandy, the Bulge and Lake Balaton in Hungary. One of the worst parts of the Eastern Front were the roads. From the time they got off the railroad cars and reached their start point, their sights were totally off. They couldn't sight in and reveal their position and intent to the Russians. When they shot at their first Russian tank, the shot landed a long distance from the tank. They finally resorted to aiming down the gun barrel. The T34 eventually ran over their gun. All the other guns around him had the same problem. You can imagine how many shots were wasted in this engagement.

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

*MHV:* _How effective was the Flak 88?_ *Warthunder Players:* _Flak 88!? Where!?!?! FULL REVERSE RIGHT NOW!! Wait, we're driving a _*_British_*_ tank? Oh bugger.._

[@matthewd.d238]

Squire?

[@tonyh8166]

As others have suggested, you're misstating the premise- they werent reputed as one-shot killers, they were reputed as one-HIT killers. But they had to get that hit first, which wasnt so easy. But even so, the 88's and 88-armed vehicles seem to have a slightly higher hit rate than others, presumably from superior accuracy and muzzle-velocity.

[@raymondvia3786]

My uncle flew a B-17 Golf and most bomber crews were terrified of the 88mm flak gun. Its different for tanks than it was for bombers. When a B-17 took a close round, more than likely it resulted if and where it hit close to, a confirmed kill.

[@AndrewSkerritt]

A lot of these “academic” discussions really show a lack of understanding about military tactics and the way you fight on the battlefield. The assumption presented is that every shot fired is directed at an enemy tank, with the intention of killing that tank. It doesn’t take into account shots fired for suppressive fire, clearing fire (is there a tank behind that bush? Let’s fire a shot and find out...) or shots fired into a disabled vehicle to set it on fire. On the plus side, these articles and videos are a testament to almost 100 years of peace in Europe.

[@AndrewSkerritt]

Werner Voss your point is semantic. The majority of people and academics in Europe have no experience of warfare, as opposed to say the 1950’s and 1960’s when the majority of men in Europe had military training and/or experience.

[@arthurlewis9193]

@@wernervoss6357 He means war involving his country I suspect.

[@ls200076]

@@arthurlewis9193 yeah

[@GilmerJohn]

@@arthurlewis9193 -- Yep. And he forgot that WWI started with problems in Serbia. WWII started with Poland. Troubles in the East end up with wars and extend West.

[@dercraven3161]

wait this isn't a war thunder ammo saving tutorial

[@maxdelaserna9540]

Just wanted to add that I appreciate the 'all the errors are on me' at the end of the vid. Respect.

[@richardjohnson4373]

I knew a man who was on the business end of what he called the 88. He was in Italy in Anzio during the Big War. He told me they figured the 88 could shoot around corners. He said we could run and duck behind a wall and the 88 could still come on in and find them hiding. He said he would rather fight a Tiger tank than a 88 crew. The crazy detail about the German 88 was its original design was made by a American. The American military did not want it. It had the greatest versatility, anti tank, flack, artillery support, anything you needed to do was capable of by the 88. Thank you for the video and all the facts used, artillery field pieces do not get any press just not alot of glamor like a plane, tank, or a battleship. Again I say Thank You.

[@lucajohnen6719]

You said 5. cm rounds at 6:33 when you meant 7.5cm and you called the 601st and 645th as 301st and 345th

[@Flyguy779]

little brain glitch there i believe ^^

[@ThePhoenix198]

Not sure how well I'd perform doing this video in German ...

[@billrich9722]

Consider that nit picked.

[@billrich9722]

Consider that nit picked.

[@HD.Beamer]

Thank you!

[@thomasaquinas5262]

The Krupp 88 was the best such gun of the war. Even if it wasn't one shot/one kill, it was effective enough to equate to an entire front. In other words, in the desert at least, Rommel and his handful of 88's could blunt any flanking moves by Monty and his predecessors. It was no wonder, then, that a mobile, protected version dominated the battlefield (i.e. the Tiger I and II panzers.)

[@ronaldthompson4989]

One of those all important circumstances: training, both of the gun crew and the targets. In the episode of Greatest Tank Battles (not a documentary I knoe) on El Allemein, one of the british survivors interviewed spoke of trying to deal with a dug in 88. His unit stayed hull down, just poking enough to get shots off, while a commonwealth unit that had never been in combat before rolled up and sat right on top of the hill "an 88 fired 6 shells and killed 5 tanks"

[@nothingtoseehere1221]

Significant emotional event. Nice little reference there.

[@normandypilot8873]

12:59 I guess you have spend a lot of time with our favorite Irish tank enthusiast.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

I actually wonder, if he ever used that phrase in my presence at all.

[@dioniciotorres4290]

My grandfather told my dad stories about what he called "the big 88 guns" and how devastating they were, and feared.

[@thetankcommander3838]

Bernard, mein kamarade! That’s the gun from Conneaut! Nicely done, Bernard! -The Tank Commander

[@glenroberts7764]

Around the time the movie "Full Metal Jacket" came out, I remember an interview or a book I read that the kill to ammo ration for infantry vs infantry in Vietnam for the American side was 20,000 rounds per confirmed kill. It has been a long time, so I am sorry I can not remember the source, and searching my library does not find it either.

[@glenroberts7764]

@Charles Yuditsky, I just remembered where I saw it, it was in a Fiction Novel about Forcing the Army away from automatic rifles due to ammo expenditure. Though the Number was confirmed, I talked also the several University Professors in the 70's that said the numbers may be low also. and the statement about confirmed kills being inaccurate, Isay is also true. I put down confirmed kills and agreed with the author on his reasoning for counts, was for bodies counted by the AARs and if possible, later confirmed by disposal crews, if we controlled the battle site afterward. Thinking again, I think it was in the 80's after I was out of the Navy.

[@JRyan-lu5im]

For the theorized total kill counts against enemies in the middle east, the $/kill ratio is something absurd. Along the lines of multiple millions of dollars per estimate kill. Given the now trillions of dollars spent on overseas wars, and having been there myself, I guestimated a rough concept denoting my pay/hardware/training costs alone, so its not hard to believe that it's true. I'd actually feel pretty good if I was such a problem to a foreign power that they spent the equivalent of at least ten peoples lifetimes worth of productivity to kill me. I'd call that a personal victory getting past the death part.

[@glenroberts7764]

@@JRyan-lu5im I agree, The cost of war is becoming huge. It will be so Funny and Tragic if the Cost in money and Labors of killing the enemy, including all fighting types from open full-scale war down to guerilla actions, will force either: the high percentage use of machines (cause you will always need a human somewhere in the line. or The formation of Professional Mercenary Proxy fighting in open battles, Both have been written about so many times in both Mil and SF books. Or Better yet: Will be the design and fullscale use of Full Battlearmor suits.

[@robinderoos1166]

Knowing the USA, thats because they shoot full auto at everything... Shot to the head? Not dead enough, time for a magdump!

[@piotrd.4850]

@@robinderoos1166 yeah, try headshots in firefight, you Counter Strike hobbyst xD Most of shooting is SUPRESSING FIRE i .e . one aimed to interfere with enemy shooting.

[@Lykyk]

7:00 You forget that they didn't just shoot at tanks.

[@billrich9722]

He didn’t forget, dumbass. He is working with incomplete data.

[@Lykyk]

@@billrich9722 That doesn't excuse him from ignoring the problem you brainlet. Sources are nearly never complete, you have to be able to work with the missing parts instead of just ignoring them.

[@billrich9722]

@@Lykyk Oh my gosh. Are you going to be okay?

[@gerritverbeek5720]

This might have been pointed out already, but at t=7:12 the audio mentions the 301st and 345th Battalions while the visual text shows 601st and 645th.

[@rogersheddy6414]

I was thinking of one thing that was stated about the American Civil War. They fired enough bullets in that war that it took a man's weight in lead to kill him. So if we look at 40 shots to destroy one armored car even... I would guess that's a win. Before you say "oh that was a cheap armored car and all those shelves cost that much money" consider the damage even a single armored car can do on the battlefield-- especially if it's carrying a dispatch from one part of the battlefield to another.

[@Vogelkinder]

My father was a gunner on an 88 crew in Italy during WW2. His memoirs of the gun and its lethality are a little different than these stats.

[@A_p_T53040]

Explain more plz

[@herculean616]

*hits blunt* _"Yo Hans what if we point the Flak at tanks??"_

[@rvndmnmt1]

Actually reality is pretty close to this. It was desperation and Rommel using his head in North Africa that the 88 was made legend.

[@tomservo5347]

The towed Flak88 had simple visual aiming guides with a crew member using a range finder along with manually cranked adjustments with a crew trained for 'area' fire producing high expenditure per kill. A Tiger's 88 as we all know had state of the art aiming adjustments-with a rate of 60 seconds for a 360 degrees at maximum down to a full hour for 1 rotation at minimum speed, showing just how precise the aiming could be made-for a very high probability of 'one shot, one kill'. One crew is also out in the open knowing full well they'll probably die if they don't fire off as many rounds as possible to ensure survival while the other is mobile and well-protected. (Also much less 'expendable'.)

[@kentr2424]

My grandfather drove a Sherman Firefly during '44-'45 in France. He told me many years ago that if the Flak 88 hit a Sherman, the Sherman was knocked out - often killing the crew. The tactics used to mitigate this problem were zig-zag at speed, take cover when and where you could, and call down artillery or fighter-bomber air strikes on the Flak 88 positions. Still, the Allies would lose Shermans before the Flak 88 was taken out. That said, the German Flak 88 anti-tank crews were very good at hitting tanks and AFV's - their problem was their lack of mobility. To solve this (as someone pointed out) Germany developed the Tiger tank which is basically a Flak 88 on a heavily armoured chassis. I'd also think that all those shots fired by Stug's, American TD's, etc etc, that are quoted in the video include training behind the lines as well.

[@Horizon344]

Good presentation. Important circumstantial evidence supporting the effectiveness of the weapon is given by its deadly reputation among the English forces who faced it in battle in France & North Africa, & the fact that the Wehrmacht made use of it as a tank killer for most of the war. If it wasn't effective it wouldn't have this reputation among the English, & its use would have been swiftly abandoned by the Deutschers.

[@Horizon344]

@@julianshepherd2038 Same difference.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@Horizon344 Tell that to the Scots, Irish and Welsh. It won't go down well, and that's before we ask the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, South Africans.....

[@Horizon344]

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 It's the power & glory of England that lies at the heart of it.

[@andrewthomas5540]

@@Horizon344 Thats the strangest sentence i have read in a long time.

[@Horizon344]

@@andrewthomas5540 Compliment in a way, when you think about it, Andrew.

[@RonJohn63]

1:32 Did the other nine rounds *miss?*

[@juniorjaxon9843]

I like your channel and the fact that you use stackpole books as a source. Only complaint is Mechanicsburg is misspelled.

[@andrewsimmons3441]

As a Tanker, on M60A1 and M1 Abrams tanks. Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice. Ammunition can be replaced, people cannot.

[@blusquirrel]

What beats my mind is: why didn’t the allies ever think of building an equally lethal gun? According to Gen Von Mellenthin they had similar antiaircraft guns that could have been adapted for anti-tank use?

[@Sandwich13455]

There's the British 6 pounder sah! That's good for a baddle!

[@scipioafricanus6417]

17 pounder is good enough,as is the 76mm for most cases.

[@Jairion]

The 90mm was very similar in all aspects, and they did use it on the M36.

[@Vlad_-_-_]

They did not need one.Tiger I where very rare.Panthers were more numerous, but most engagements were not fought 1 vs 1 frontally at long range.69 % of knock out panthers were lost to side shots.And you are forgeting about the 76mm, HVAP rounds, 17 pounder, 90mm M3, soviet 85mm D5T and ZIS S 53, 152 mm ML20S on the ISU 152, 100mm D10T, 122mm D25 T... What do you mean they did not have equally lethal guns ?

[@Jairion]

@@Vlad_-_-_ On paper the 76mm is capable of taking out Tigers and even Panthers from the front, but I've yet to actually read of a single instance of that happening. Do you know of any instance?

[@CZ350tuner]

Everyone is assuming that everyone of these shots hit their mark and didn't miss!! The most likely scenario is that a large number of these shots missed their targets. Anybody who's been taught applied mathematics knows that there's an annoying major factor called "The effects of Chaos" (Chaos Theory) which throws a degree randomness into any action, such as shooting at an enemy AFV. These "Effects of Chaos" are all those variables that cannot be controlled, identified or quantified that spoil otherwise perfect mathematical models of any process being calculated. It's also why artillery shells don't all land in the exact same spot. These chaotic factors that mess up an otherwise perfect shot at an enemy AFV are: Inaccurate calibration of the sights. Inaccurate judgement of the range to the target AFV. Gunner's skill level. Evasive actions being taken by the target to throw off the gunner's aim. Variations of muzzle velocity (yes it's never a constant!!) due to variations in propellant burn velocities, amount of soot residue in the barrel between shots (a following shot can clean the barrel or add to the soot residue), drive band tightness in the bore, barrel bore life remaining, etc. Figures quoted for guns are the best recorded result achieved during range testing, not what can be expected during a battle. Variations of wind currents along the projectile's flight path (can cause a miss). Integrity of the shot on impacting the vehicle's armour. Variations in the hardness of the armour at the point of impact. The angle between 0 and 72 degrees (the "Skate" or "Skip" angle determined by Barnes Wallis in his experiments) at the point of impact with reference to the shot's trajectory. And if after penetrating the target's armour it has to cause enough significant damage to cause the AFV to be KOed.

[@wouterkellerman4458]

Our neighbour was an ex Sherman tank commander. When i asked him about the 88 he visibly paled and in his Yorkshire accent " whoa laddie that was a bad gun!" He had 2 tanks shot out under him, sole survivor both times, blown out of the turret. No wonder he went pale!

[@prof2yousmithe444]

Very well done!

[@kaanodabasi5858]

Sehr interesant.

[@BlackStar-uy9fh]

Everytime I see main sources coming from US archives, I have my doubts how reliable they are.

[@revolrz22]

Why so?

[@Ori--pw5vw]

@@revolrz22 cuz they are manipulated I think

[@revolrz22]

@@Ori--pw5vw I mean... prove it?

[@Ori--pw5vw]

@@revolrz22 well If you wanna be Sherlock Holmes then you can first show why American source can be used for history ?

[@revolrz22]

@@Ori--pw5vw The burden of proof is on you guys, dude. You can't just say that American documentation of test results is wrong because you have chips on your shoulders.

[@jonericus]

in N. Afrika 8.8cm gun crews would fire AAA as a "ranging shot" watching where the flak burst was in relation to the targeted tank before using an AP shot for effect. Quite a few commanders were killed or wounded before they learned to button up at the first flak burst over the top of a friendly tank.

[@MrKotBonifacy]

6:26 - "In the combat period [from] 5th [of] July [to] 31st [of] August 1943, StuG Abteilung (= division) [number] one hundred sieben und siebzich ..." - Ja, genau - Ich really liebe das! Einfach wonderfull! : )

[@Inquisitor_Vex]

6:30 Thoroughly enjoying the German pronunciation!

[@Maennlichkeitsbeauftragter]

One hundred siebenundsiebzig 😂

[@Inquisitor_Vex]

@@Maennlichkeitsbeauftragter it’s like music to my ears!

[@firenzarfrenzy4985]

Suddenly my accuracy rate of 70% on WOTBlitz doesn’t look so bad

[@lordemarsh6804]

Could be because of richochets and many reason.... Tank gunners often shoot enemy tanks until it burst into flames to make sure they destroyed it. Could be what happened with the 88 as well

[@Dermisc]

Context! The concept of "1-shot kill" usually refers to 1 effective hit and 1 actual kill. WW2 tanks are not like modern tanks. They didn't have stabilizers and on-board computers and lasers to help them correct for trajectory and motion. Working with optics and guesswork alone, it's hella hard to hit anything, even if they are stationary targets. Even if you do score a hit, it might be tracks, external components or non-critical compartments. For example, you can rupture an external fuel tank, set fire on or around the enemy vehicle, but that's not an effective hit. So, let's assume that you did score an effective hit. The shot further penetrated enemy armor and scored an actual kill. How does the shooter know they scored a kill? Short of an ammunition cookoff, how can you tell? Would you risk having a damaged tank shoot back at you? This is especially true for flak88 operators with ammo lying all around them and paper-thin gun shield for protection. The logical course of action is to double and triple tap to make sure. Instinct would be to keep shooting until you are relatively confident that you are safe from return fire. So between missed shots and triple taps, yes, I can imagine the crews reporting 10 shots per kill when operating a gun that 1-shot kills enemy vehicles.

[@ComradeOgilvy1984]

Good point. Even in the ideal scenario that my ranging and wind correction are perfect and I get that 1 shot kill, I often do not *know* the vehicle is dead, only that it does not appear to be moving. So I want to hit it a couple more times. And since I might actually miss or get an unlucky armor deflection on the follow ups, one could easily imagine expending 4-5 rounds, even when everything goes perfectly from the first shot. Furthermore, if I see enemy infantry and no enemy AFVs, what do I do? I shoot at them even if it is an AP round in the gun. Unless I believe I am well hidden, I expect those infantry to be calling up friends to haul a mortar up and rain bombs on my head.

[@Ork20111]

In modern warfare you normally spend several thousand small arm rounds per kill. The reason for that is not inaccurracy. It is covering fire. Most of the time you shoot to supress the enemy not to kill him. I have no personal experience in tank warfare, but I asume the same thing is done to a much lesser extend. You can't use a 88mm gun like a machine gun. But they basically have the same issue: In order to kill the enemy you need to get into a good firing position. In order to get there without getting killed you need to supress the enemy.

[@GunnersRange]

Thanks for your awesome video! I can see from the replies it touched off quite a bit of 'collateral' discussion. ;) I have to say I agree with your analysis, part of which is based on my own experience in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. I DO agree the FlAk 88mm was an awesome weapon for its time but to call it a 'one shot, one kill' weapon is overstating its ability. I would be more inclined to accept it being called a 'one hit, one kill' weapon. Optics in WW II, even for Germany, cannot be compared to what is used today. As you pointed out, there are other factors to consider. e.g. heat shimmer in North Africa would undoubtedly have an effect on hitting the target the first time. Plus, all the other things experienced in combat: fear, stress, adrenaline surge, fatigue, maintenance failure, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum! In Desert Storm I had this unrelenting vision of a five or six inch fragment from a 152mm Iraqi shell going through my back and blowing my heart straight out of my chest, so don't ever believe George Patton like visions are not real. ;) Once again...THANK YOU! Semper Fidelis! CWO4 USMCR (ret) 1969-2004

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thank you very much! Yeah, I had the impression that some people might have missed my point or that I was not clear enough. Of course, the main point "see how much shots are fired in real-life vs. games/movies/etc." was "sneaked in" or had little to do with the title, but yeah, my goal is to educate not to confirm common misconceptions. All the best!!!

[@hoodoo2001]

Trying to hit moving targets at long range was tough and they also were at odd angles. There was also the problem of choosing between knocked out tanks and healthy tanks....also terrain issues. Even in the old days before tanks, before machine guns, the amount of rounds expended to hitting a soldier were absurdly high. Artillery often made the difference. Although the 88's were vulnerable to HE ammo in tanks like the Sherman as well as the artillery accompanying armor units.

[@richardrichards5982]

Good presentation and research as usual Bernard. There are so many variables in the available data that need exploring, ie were rounds expended counted at the muzzle or the Quartermaster level? When a support vehicle with ammo supply was destroyed, where these rounds counted? How many rounds were defective? The unit histories of the British 8th Army in North Africa are instructive on the 88. The British definitely had problems dealing with the 88 when used correctly in a prepared position with supporting arms. The British also had little sayings about the 88, such as in a game of bingo, played while on leave in Alexandria, when the number 88 was called out, many troops would murmur 'all vehicles in reverse'. So if the gun scored a hit on the first shell, or the 20 shell, it had a profound effect on its enemies physically and phychologically.