"88s vs. Jabos (as well as other larger-caliber guns)" Topic

I'm wondering about the use of 88s and equivalent guns (say, 75mm+) against fighter-bombers. With a fighter-type aircraft pretty close in, a larger gun is going to have a lot of trouble with tracking. High speed and power to avoid speed loss in turns makes jinking effective.

What was the doctrine for using these larger guns against fighter-bombers? Only during medium-altitude approaches? (Including aircraft not heading into the immediate vicinity of the guns.)

How fast was the fire control update loop? Was a 300mph fighter-bomber just too fast to use a predictor effectively?

On a related topic, does anyone have a reference for the causes of aircraft losses over Normandy/in NWE? The numbers I have seen included "anti-aircraft" and "small arms," but don't specify the meaning of "small arms." If 20mm and 37mm guns are classed as "small arms," it changes the picture.

Thanks, all!

If you can find "Hell Hawks" by Robert Dorr & Thomas Jone. This book talks about the high losses suffered by the P47 Jabos vs 20mm and 37mm anti aircraft gun. A lot time it became a dual between the P47 and flak gun. I was surprised at how many plane crashed into the trees at low level. Great read.

The 88 was not what today would be considered a SHORAD (SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE) weapon. That's why you have 20 and 37mm weapons.

Small arms are men carried rifles, and such up to heavy machine guns. When you get to about 20mm and up they are explosive and count as AA. An 88 can fire at aircraft at low level that are not close by it, but 20mm and 37mm are better for repelling close in attacks, the guns are small enough to track better and fire faster.

Even today aircraft doing ground attack don't generally swoop in at mach 3 and drop a bomb or machine gun the targets. They have to slow down to insure accuracy with guns and cannons and dumb bombs. That gives AAA a chance to hit that's reasonable.

That's why first world air forces like stand off weapons like rockets and missiles and really large bombs dropped from high up.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Medium and heavy AA was fairly ineffective against low level fighter bomber attacks, which was why 88mm batteries included 20mm light AA.

If the FBs obligingly, flew in at 10000 feet, then no problem.

Bunkermeister, I understand the common definition of small arms, but the reports might well have defined anything that exploded to rely on fragments as "anti-aircraft" and anything that simply hit the target (huge bullets, in effect) as "small arms." That's what needs to be clarified. After all, in the heat of battle, distinguishing 15mm fire from 20mm fire is probably beyond the ability of most pilots, not to mention well below the threshold where they care …

NdL, MR, I'm aware of generally-held beliefs, but I'm looking for doctrinal specifics, weapon manuals that effectively specify that use against low-level fighter-bombers is impractical, or good statistics on losses of aircraft categories to weapon types to back this up. The overall loss statistics are interesting, but they don't break down losses suffered by medium bombers (primarily to 88s, I assume) vs. losses to fighter-bombers.

Any help appreciated. Thanks!

flack traps and "air defense pockets". You may not hit the ALL the enemy aircraft, but properly sited "kill-boxes" and a good "zone air defense" plan means you make the other guy WORK for it.

As Martin says; 88mm batteries included integral 20mm (usually Quad) flak to defend the heavier guns against low-level attack. That would very much tend to indicate the difficulties that these weapons had against low and fast targets.