Small Scale Military Headquarters

Has anyone got the new Normandy repaint of the FOV 88mm?

They have a Normandy repaint? I have not gotten it, but have been very pleased with my S1 gray version.

tmanthegreat wrote:They have a Normandy repaint? I have not gotten it, but have been very pleased with my S1 gray version.

Yep, the Mule is showing the new tan scheme in stock!

I like tha description with the item. Says its "affordable". Yea, right. For some, but not for me. FOV's $60 prices for their new 1/32 items has unfortunately just about priced me out of their products, especially repaints.

Why the hell did they make a Normandy version ? a DAK version would be a lot more interesting . Unimax have produced tons of allied desert tanks but not a single DAK unit so it would be really nice if they made one sometime

hotrodrock wrote:I like tha description with the item. Says its "affordable". Yea, right. For some, but not for me. FOV's $60 prices for their new 1/32 items has unfortunately just about priced me out of their products, especially repaints.

The FOV 88 have always been expensive (around 49-55$) so that's not such a big price bump

Looks nice might have to get one.

[quote="demonclaw"]Why the hell did they make a Normandy version ? a DAK version would a lot more interesting . Unimax have produced tons of allied desert tanks but not a single DAK unit so it would be really nice if they made one sometime


Well I'm happy it a Normandy one

I wish it came with a new luftwaffe-field crew.

uksubs wrote:
Well I'm happy it a Normandy one

The thing is that the 88 had a very little impact in the Normandy campaign since it was too cumbersome to move around and hard to conceal so it was a easy target for air support and artillery , the german also had much better anti-tank weapons in 1944 (and most important smaller) so the 88 saw very limited use in Normandy . In the Africa campaign it was however the most important weapon to Rommel since it provided the famous anti-tank screen for the advancing tanks . So from a historical perspective a desert version of the 88 would be a much better choice

demonclaw wrote:

uksubs wrote:
Well I'm happy it a Normandy one

The thing is that the 88 had a very little impact in the Normandy campaign since it was too cumbersome to move around and hard to conceal so it was a easy target for air support and artillery , the german also had much better anti-tank weapons in 1944 (and most important smaller) so the 88 saw very limited use in Normandy . In the Africa campaign it was however the most important weapon to Rommel since it provided the famous anti-tank screen for the advancing tanks . So from a historical perspective a desert version of the 88 would be a much better choice

TRUE AND FALSE, the 88 saw extensive use on all fronts. its true the deadly 88 found its greatest use as a tank destroyer in the desert. but in Russia is were it really came into its own and proved itself invaluable in defensive positions. especially late in the war when the soviets had a numerical advantage in tanks. as for normandy it was used in large numbers and was still the most feared gun in the German arsenal. There are far to many accounts by allied commanders who hated coming up against these guns.

demonclaw wrote:

uksubs wrote:
Well I'm happy it a Normandy one

The thing is that the 88 had a very little impact in the Normandy campaign since it was too cumbersome to move around and hard to conceal so it was a easy target for air support and artillery , the german also had much better anti-tank weapons in 1944 (and most important smaller) so the 88 saw very limited use in Normandy . In the Africa campaign it was however the most important weapon to Rommel since it provided the famous anti-tank screen for the advancing tanks . So from a historical perspective a desert version of the 88 would be a much better choice

The 88mm had a big impact in the Normandy
The 88mm guns stopped the British armour on operation Goodwood for a start

uksubs wrote:

The 88mm had a big impact in the Normandy
The 88mm guns stopped the British armour on operation Goodwood for a start

I managed to digg up the estimated number of tanks and guns the germans had during Goodwood from the Axis History Forum

325 tanks, assault guns, and SP AT,
291 artillery pieces
160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)
56 8.8cm Flak
230 Nebelwerfer


So you can see that the 8.8 flak cannon had a very small role in that operation and further research shows that the Flakkorps. 16. Luftwaffe-felddivision was almost obliterated so those 88s was probably easy to spot .

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=30

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=15

demonclaw wrote:

uksubs wrote:

The 88mm had a big impact in the Normandy
The 88mm guns stopped the British armour on operation Goodwood for a start

I managed to digg up the estimated number of tanks and guns the germans had during Goodwood from the Axis History Forum

325 tanks, assault guns, and SP AT, 291 artillery pieces
160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)
56 8.8cm Flak
230 Nebelwerfer


So you can see that the 8.8 flak cannon had a very small role in that operation and further research shows that the Flakkorps. 16. Luftwaffe-felddivision was almost obliterated so those 88s was probably easy to spot .

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=30

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=15

If you know any think about Goodwood your know that the Luftwaffe 88mm guns played a very big part in the battle Fact!

demonclaw wrote:

uksubs wrote:

The 88mm had a big impact in the Normandy
The 88mm guns stopped the British armour on operation Goodwood for a start

I managed to digg up the estimated number of tanks and guns the germans had during Goodwood from the Axis History Forum

325 tanks, assault guns, and SP AT,
291 artillery pieces
160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)
56 8.8cm Flak
230 Nebelwerfer


So you can see that the 8.8 flak cannon had a very small role in that operation and further research shows that the Flakkorps. 16. Luftwaffe-felddivision was almost obliterated so those 88s was probably easy to spot .

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=30

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=15

What would be more interesting is how many allied tanks were lost in Normandy to the 88mm guns
http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-art-ger-ep.htm

demonclaw wrote:

uksubs wrote:

The 88mm had a big impact in the Normandy
The 88mm guns stopped the British armour on operation Goodwood for a start

I managed to digg up the estimated number of tanks and guns the germans had during Goodwood from the Axis History Forum

325 tanks, assault guns, and SP AT,
291 artillery pieces
160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)
56 8.8cm Flak
230 Nebelwerfer


So you can see that the 8.8 flak cannon had a very small role in that operation and further research shows that the Flakkorps. 16. Luftwaffe-felddivision was almost obliterated so those 88s was probably easy to spot .

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=30

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... a&start=15

So going by Your information there was over one hundred 88 mm guns used in operation Goddwood alone
That a lot of 88's on a small front

uksubs wrote:
So going by Your information there was over one hundred 88 mm guns used in operation Goddwood alone
That a lot of 88's on a small front

No there was 56 8.8 flak guns , don't confuse them with the PAK 8.8 . And the luftwaffe division that operated them was almost destroyed too .

uksubs wrote: If you know any think about Goodwood your know that the Luftwaffe 88mm guns played a very big part in the battle Fact!

No if you read about the battle you can see that the germans army mostly used regular anti-tank guns , the only reason why they had 88mm flak guns during operation goodwood was because there was a luftwaffe division nearby



You should also try the edit button instead of posting three times

Yeah...160 heavy Pak is pretty substantial. There's more heavy Paks than there were Tigers in that Front.

And of course, it wouldn't be Normandy without Tigers. So it wouldn't be Normandy without 88mm Pak.

Any why not? How many FOV pieces are Normandy-themed? Of COURSE they're gonna make an 88mm gun in that scheme also.

No if you read about the battle you can see that the germans army mostly used regular anti-tank guns , the only reason why they had 88mm flak guns during operation goodwood was because there was a luftwaffe division nearby

I have read about the battle thanks





This was taken from the Imperial War Museum, Duxford
When the British staged Operation Goodwood to flank Caen some 78 88mm guns were sited around Cheux or Bourgoubus Ridge in the anti-tank role. As the country there is not bocage, but wide open and rolling, the 88s [plus tanks and other weapons] played havoc with the Goodwood advance and virtually halted it. The 3rd RTR, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry and 23rd Hussars of 11th Armoured Division alone suffered in excess of 50% tanks lost, some squadrons lost much more.

what interesting is 4th army only had 118 88mm guns on the Eastern Front in 1944
good example was in Normandy during Operation GOODWOOD, when Maj. Hans von Luck "persuaded" a Luftwaffe AA battery to switch roles from shooting at bombers to shooting at tanks. They did this easily and were instrumental in slowing the British advance. Most Flak 88s had a direct fire sight as well as their "point on the pointer" laying system from the fire direction center.

uksubs wrote:
I have read about the battle thanks





This was taken from the Imperial War Museum, Duxford
When the British staged Operation Goodwood to flank Caen some 78 88mm guns were sited around Cheux or Bourgoubus Ridge in the anti-tank role. As the country there is not bocage, but wide open and rolling, the 88s [plus tanks and other weapons] played havoc with the Goodwood advance and virtually halted it. The 3rd RTR, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry and 23rd Hussars of 11th Armoured Division alone suffered in excess of 50% tanks lost, some squadrons lost much more.

what interesting is 4th army only had 118 88mm guns on the Eastern Front in 1944
good example was in Normandy during Operation GOODWOOD, when Maj. Hans von Luck "persuaded" a Luftwaffe AA battery to switch roles from shooting at bombers to shooting at tanks. They did this easily and were instrumental in slowing the British advance. Most Flak 88s had a direct fire sight as well as their "point on the pointer" laying system from the fire direction center.

If you read the the links I provided you can see that the British overestimated the number of 88 guns
and probably mistook many PAK 8.8 guns as Flak 8.8 so the best estimated number of flak 8.8 guns the luftwaffe divison fielded was 56 . And you didn't use any arguments to counter my facts and only posted some text from a very dubious source thats probably used some old estimates . Just the fact that the luftwaffe divison was almost destroyed proves that the 88 FLAK guns was not very effective (since it was taken out much faster than a regular anti-tank gun)

But this is also just one battle , no german units besides the luftwaffe divions used the Flak 88 since they had more effective PAK anti-tank guns that was easier to transport , conceal and use . So to say that the Flak 88 had a big impact on the Normandy campaign is just wishful thinking



The grey eastern front version of the Flak 88 was an excellent choice by Unimax but making a version for a campaign were it saw limited use (as a frontline weapon ) was not such a smart choice especially since its being sold to military enthusiasts

uksubs wrote:No if you read about the battle you can see that the germans army mostly used regular anti-tank guns , the only reason why they had 88mm flak guns during operation goodwood was because there was a luftwaffe division nearby

I have read about the battle thanks





This was taken from the Imperial War Museum, Duxford
When the British staged Operation Goodwood to flank Caen some 78 88mm guns were sited around Cheux or Bourgoubus Ridge in the anti-tank role. As the country there is not bocage, but wide open and rolling, the 88s [plus tanks and other weapons] played havoc with the Goodwood advance and virtually halted it. The 3rd RTR, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry and 23rd Hussars of 11th Armoured Division alone suffered in excess of 50% tanks lost, some squadrons lost much more.

what interesting is 4th army only had 118 88mm guns on the Eastern Front in 1944
good example was in Normandy during Operation GOODWOOD, when Maj. Hans von Luck "persuaded" a Luftwaffe AA battery to switch roles from shooting at bombers to shooting at tanks. They did this easily and were instrumental in slowing the British advance. Most Flak 88s had a direct fire sight as well as their "point on the pointer" laying system from the fire direction center.

Yeah, me too. In fact, I bet most of us have read about this battle from numerous sources one way or another. Operation Goodwood isn't exactly top secret, so you don't have the monopoly on any information about it.

Besides, for the sake of argument, we're just going by the stats you posted.

You posted:

160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)

Not including the 56 8.8cm Flak of the Luftwaffe that you keep mentioning.

So that's 160 Heavy Pak. Minus the 51 Pak 43/41, then that's 109 Heavy Paks.

You know any other heavy Paks other than the 88 during that time?

And besides, we're not just talking about Operation Goodwood. We're talking about why FOV deemed it necessary to make a NORMANDY 88mm scheme.

ANd as I previously mentioned, there were more 88mm guns in Normandy than Tigers or King Tigers, so i dunno why it's so shocking that FOV would make an 88mm in a Normandy scheme....

If you read the the links I provided you can see that the British overestimated the number of 88 guns
and probably mistook many PAK 8.8 guns as Flak 8.8 so the best estimated number of flak 8.8 guns the luftwaffe divison fielded was 56 . And you didn't use any arguments to counter my facts and only posted some text from a very dubious source thats probably used some old estimates . Just the fact that the luftwaffe divison was almost destroyed proves that the 88 FLAK guns was not very effective (since it was taken out much faster than a regular anti-tank gun)

But this is also just one battle , no german units besides the luftwaffe divions used the Flak 88 since they had more effective PAK anti-tank guns that was easier to transport , conceal and use . So to say that the Flak 88 had a big impact on the Normandy campaign is just wishful thinking


The dubious source I used is Imperial War Museum witch is run by the British government , not some web forum that your using

Believe what you want , the end of the day I deal in facts not fiction

Can you tell us how many 88 were used in DAK ?
A figure would be nice to

GooglyDoogly wrote:
Yeah, me too. In fact, I bet most of us have read about this battle from numerous sources one way or another. Operation Goodwood isn't exactly top secret, so you don't have the monopoly on any information about it.

Besides, for the sake of argument, we're just going by the stats you posted.

You posted:

160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)

Not including the 56 8.8cm Flak of the Luftwaffe that you keep mentioning.

So that's 160 Heavy Pak. Minus the 51 Pak 43/41, then that's 109 Heavy Paks.

You know any other heavy Paks other than the 88 during that time?

The PAK 40 is also considered a heavy PAK and that was total of Flak 88 guns the german had during Goodwood not just the luftwaffe divion's . And why the hell would a normal Infantry division field so many Flak 88s in 1944 when they had very limited mobility and manpower . The only reason why the german used the Flak 88 during the early years of ww2 as a anti-tank weapon was because they didn't have any good regular anti-tank guns at the time (and tanks for that matter) , but once they developed better ones they replaced most of the Flak 88s on the frontline . So There was no reason for a regular infantry division to field any 88 Flak guns when the PAK guns where both more cheaper and effective in terms of mobility and use

uksubs wrote:
The dubious source I used is Imperial War Museum witch is run by the British government , not some web forum that your using

Believe what you want , the end of the day I deal in facts not fiction

Can you tell us how many 88 were used in DAK ?
A figure would be nice to

Its not famous for its continuous research (I actually heard them use incorrect informantion in many documentaries ) so I would rather trust people who read several book about this subject but if we look at the source again we can see that they only wrote "Caen had some 78 88mm guns" (something I didn't think about until now) , that could mean both PAK 8.8 and Flak 88 guns so that didn't really add anything to the discussion . And you just seem to discard any critical thinking about the 88s role in Normandy . It was a weapon that was both large and cumbersome and had in 1944 been replaced as a frontline weapon by much more effective and cheaper guns , if they german didn't have a manpower and material shortage they would probably never used it at all during 1944 (as a frontline weapon) . You even state in a earlier post that the 4th army only had 118 guns on the eastern front

uksubs wrote:
Can you tell us how many 88 were used in DAK ?
A figure would be nice to

That Rommel is famous for his use of the 88s make anti-tank screens is pretty common knowledge so posting numbers is pretty unnecessary in this case

demonclaw wrote:

GooglyDoogly wrote:
Yeah, me too. In fact, I bet most of us have read about this battle from numerous sources one way or another. Operation Goodwood isn't exactly top secret, so you don't have the monopoly on any information about it.

Besides, for the sake of argument, we're just going by the stats you posted.

You posted:

160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)

Not including the 56 8.8cm Flak of the Luftwaffe that you keep mentioning.

So that's 160 Heavy Pak. Minus the 51 Pak 43/41, then that's 109 Heavy Paks.

You know any other heavy Paks other than the 88 during that time?

The PAK 40 is also a heavy PAK and why hell would a normal Infantry division field so many Flak 88s in 1944 when they had very limited mobility and manpower . The only reason why the german used the Flak 88 during the early years of ww2 as a anti-tank weapon was because they didn't have any good regular anti-tank gun at the time (and tanks for that matter) , but once they developed better ones they replaced most of the Flak 88s on the frontline . Theres was no reason why a regular infantry division would field any 88 Flak when the PAK guns where both more cheaper and effective in terms of mobility and use

Um, you could ask the same thing why the Germans fielded Tigers and King Tigers when they have limited mobility and other tanks and assault guns guns like the Stugs were also potent tank killers?

And the PaK 40 is considered a "heavy" anti-tank gun? Reallllly? So it's in the same league as the Pak 88s, and 128mm? Wow....

And the 88mm wasn't simply pressed into service as an anti-tank gun because the Germans didn't have anything better early in the war.

It's primarily an anti-aircraft gun, but has a dual purpose of anti-tank and anti-personnel.

That's why they had armor-piercing rounds even early in the war. Or do you think the Germans thought the Allies had heavily-armored bombers? Heck, even the Condor Legion in Spain used these as anti-tank guns.

But to go back to the point which you keep avoiding. Why is it such a bad thing for FOV make a Normandy 88mm? How many FOV pieces are in that scheme?

And how many FOV pieces are in DaK colors?

demonclaw wrote:

GooglyDoogly wrote:
Yeah, me too. In fact, I bet most of us have read about this battle from numerous sources one way or another. Operation Goodwood isn't exactly top secret, so you don't have the monopoly on any information about it.

Besides, for the sake of argument, we're just going by the stats you posted.

You posted:

160 heavy Pak (including at least 51 8.8cm Pak 43/41)

Not including the 56 8.8cm Flak of the Luftwaffe that you keep mentioning.

So that's 160 Heavy Pak. Minus the 51 Pak 43/41, then that's 109 Heavy Paks.

You know any other heavy Paks other than the 88 during that time?

The PAK 40 is also considered a heavy PAK and why the hell would a normal Infantry division field so many Flak 88s in 1944 when they had very limited mobility and manpower . The only reason why the german used the Flak 88 during the early years of ww2 as a anti-tank weapon was because they didn't have any good regular anti-tank guns at the time (and tanks for that matter) , but once they developed better ones they replaced most of the Flak 88s on the frontline . So There was no reason for a regular infantry division to field any 88 Flak guns when the PAK guns where both more cheaper and effective in terms of mobility and use

uksubs wrote:
The dubious source I used is Imperial War Museum witch is run by the British government , not some web forum that your using

Believe what you want , the end of the day I deal in facts not fiction

Can you tell us how many 88 were used in DAK ?
A figure would be nice to

Its not famous for its continuous research (I actually heard them use incorrect informantion in many documentaries ) so I would rather trust people who read several book about this subject but if we look at the source again we can see that they only wrote "Caen had some 78 88mm guns" (something I didn't think about until now) , that could mean both PAK 8.8 and Flak 88 guns so that didn't really add anything to the discussion . And you just seem to discard any critical thinking about the 88s role in Normandy . It was a weapon that was both large and cumbersome and had in 1944 been replaced as a frontline weapon by much more effective and cheaper guns , if they german didn't have a manpower and material shortage they would probably never used it at all during 1944 (as a frontline weapon) . You even state in a earlier post that the 4th army only had 118 guns on the eastern front

uksubs wrote:
Can you tell us how many 88 were used in DAK ?
A figure would be nice to

That Rommel is famous for his use of the 88s make anti-tank screens is pretty common knowledge so posting numbers is pretty unnecessary in this case

Where do you think people get there facts from to write these books in the first place ?
Imperial War Museum holds all the records of the British army forces, so it should now what it talking about
The fact is the 88 flak gun was used in Normandy
What intell can you give about the 88 in North Africa ?

GooglyDoogly wrote:
And the PaK 40 is considered a "heavy" anti-tank gun? Reallllly? So it's in the same league as the Pak 88s, and 128mm? Wow....

Yes if you look at my previous post again (that I edited) you can see that I wrote that the those numbers covered the total of Flak 88s the Germans had during Goodwood not just the the ones the luftwaffe divison had

GooglyDoogly wrote: Um, you could ask the same thing why the Germans fielded Tigers and King Tigers when they have limited mobility and other tanks and assault guns guns like the Stugs were also potent tank killers?

Those tanks were made to combat other tanks so that was a pretty pointless argument

GooglyDoogly wrote: And the 88mm wasn't simply pressed into service as an anti-tank gun because the Germans didn't have anything better early in the war.

It's primarily an anti-aircraft gun, but has a dual purpose of anti-tank and anti-personnel.

That's why they had armor-piercing rounds even early in the war. Or do you think the Germans thought the Allies had heavily-armored bombers? Heck, even the Condor Legion in Spain used these as anti-tank guns.

It was never made or considered to be a major anti-tank weapon during 39-40 , yes the germans made some 88s with a shields and ammo to provide some anti-tank if needed but they were rarely moved during this period and weren't used until Rommel ran into some heavy armour in France . That convinced the germans to make it a widely used anti-tank cannon , but thats only because the Germans couldn't effectively fight medium and heavy armour with the tanks they had in 40-41 . Once they produced some better anti-tank guns and tanks most of em disappered from the fontline (gradually) . The Stug was also pressed into that role for the same reason even if it was made to be a support tank

GooglyDoogly wrote: But to go back to the point which you keep avoiding. Why is it such a bad thing for FOV make a Normandy 88mm? How many FOV pieces are in that scheme?

And how many FOV pieces are in DaK colors?

I didn't try to avoid it I just missed it , a Normandy 88 is not bad at all I just whish they would make a version for a theater where it had a much more important role , and sadly Unimax have not made any DAK unit which is strange since it they've made several allied desert tanks