88's indirect fire?

maniacalmonkey · Post by **maniacalmonkey** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 7:27 pm

The German 88mm Flak gun, also used very effectively in an AT role, arguably the best AT gun in the war. But I keep picking up stuff about 88's used as indirect-fire artillery? I haven't found anything concrete on this... Did the Germans employ an 88mm Howitzer, or could the 88 Flak actually be fired indirect?

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 9:42 pm

Originally posted by maniacalmonkey
The German 88mm Flak gun, also used very effectively in an AT role, arguably the best AT gun in the war. But I keep picking up stuff about 88's used as indirect-fire artillery? I haven't found anything concrete on this... Did the Germans employ an 88mm Howitzer, or could the 88 Flak actually be fired indirect?

Many direct fire guns were used adhoc as indirect support, even tanks by the US, captured 75mm Pak by Russians and the 88 also...but it was usually because of lack of real arty or the simple need to lumb some rounds at an area (to prevent enemy movement, e.g.)...it cannot be seen any close to the controled arty fire real arty batteries could bring up and really was a sort of improvisation...but if you got nothing else, well, what's your alternative - it's better then no arty, but not much

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 11:21 pm

After taking cre of all the enemy armor there was, lacking anything else to shoot at, US tanks were used as indirect artillery fire weapons in the Korean War.

Somewhere I have a picture of Patton tanks lined up on a bulldozed embankment - insufficient elevation on level surfaces - firing away as artillery support. Per postings here, the accuracy was not the best due to lack of true field artillery mechanisms. But it gave them something to do.

Bing

James P · Post by **James P** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 1:36 am

Yeah - I have seen lots of photo's of US armour being used for indirect fire in late 44 / early '45 - especially M10's for some reason (guess lack of German armour around and obsolete gun)

I have also read accounts of 88mm airbursts, although this could be down to misidentification by Allied troops i.e. every gun an 88mm and every tank a Tiger…..

BARKHORN · Post by **BARKHORN** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:10 am

All 88cm.Flak gun's came equipped with indirect fire equipment and actually were used quite often in this mode after all it was produced in greater number's than any other large artillery piece in the german inventory.As for the use of tank's in the indirect role I've got quite a few photo's of M-10's and Sherman's being used in this role in Italy,the static almost WWI type of fighting required every tube so these vehicle were driven up a dirt ramp to increase elevation and conducted fire mission's.

maniacalmonkey · Post by **maniacalmonkey** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:22 am

Originally posted by BARKHORN
All 88cm.Flak gun's came equipped with indirect fire equipment and actually were used quite often in this mode after all it was produced in greater number's than any other large artillery piece in the german inventory.As for the use of tank's in the indirect role I've got quite a few photo's of M-10's and Sherman's being used in this role in Italy,the static almost WWI type of fighting required every tube so these vehicle were driven up a dirt ramp to increase elevation and conducted fire mission's.

Whoa...

I bet an 88cm gun makes one HELL of a bang! :p

Thanks for the info! Man, imagine that, excellent flak, excellent AT, and (excellent?) indirect arty all rolled into a single field piece! Modern-day weapons industry would NEVER stand for it.

BARKHORN · Post by **BARKHORN** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:36 am

Oop's:)

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 2:59 am

"I bet an 88cm gun makes one HELL of a bang! "

Not any bigger than a 155 and considerably less so than an 8" field piece and a peashooter compared to naval 15" to 17" rifles.

Bing

maniacalmonkey · Post by **maniacalmonkey** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 4:41 am

Let's see... 17" x 2.4 = 40.8 cm

So imagine firing a shell twice the diameter of a naval 17".

Compare:

BOOOOOOM!

To:

* utter silence*

Because no eardrum within hearing range would survive a bang like that

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 6:36 am

An 88mm is around 3.5 inches, give or take a little.

Goblin

Possum · Post by **Possum** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 9:07 am

The Nashorn 88mm Tank Destroyer came standard with Artillery Dial Sights, and Communications gear, to allow it to take indirect fire missions direct from a fire control director.
It was also capable of elevating it's main gun up to around 45 deg too.

maniacalmonkey · Post by **maniacalmonkey** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:09 pm

I hate explaining jokes...

Were Barkhorn and I the only ones who noticed the 88cm typo? Too bad, I thought it was kinda funny

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:20 pm

Originally posted by maniacalmonkey
I hate explaining jokes...

Were Barkhorn and I the only ones who noticed the 88cm typo? Too bad, I thought it was kinda funny

Nah, I noticed it too, but since you guys already had pointed it out, I found it meaningless to post replies like "Wow, and Gustav & Dora was only 80 cm... "

:p

Kraut · Post by **Kraut** » Wed Jan 08, 2003 5:26 pm

Originally posted by Bing
After taking cre of all the enemy armor there was, lacking anything else to shoot at, US tanks were used as indirect artillery fire weapons in the Korean War.

Somewhere I have a picture of Patton tanks lined up on a bulldozed embankment - insufficient elevation on level surfaces - firing away as artillery support. Per postings here, the accuracy was not the best due to lack of true field artillery mechanisms. But it gave them something to do.

Bing

Steel Panthers 2 has some footage of that.

88's indirect fire?

88's indirect fire?

Re: 88's indirect fire?