8.8cm Flak 37?

wodin · Post by **wodin** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:02 pm

Just wondering should this unit have a bombard radius? I never knew it could bombard.

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:06 pm

Of course it could and did bombard. It was the German's principal artillery gun during the Arnhem battle.

wodin · Post by **wodin** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:11 pm

Call me stupid, as soon as I hear 88 I think of it shooting tanks or maybe at planes..sorry for being dumb.

Dave, don't forget about the idea that when the player clicks on a weapon in the ES the radius changes to match that particular weapon. Also would be cool if the radius for anti inf and anti armour actual outlined the current LOS aswell (obviously doesn't need to be dead on keep it neat as poss)

Oh and how about some background sound like in Combat Mission..birds and the wind etc etc..just abit a noise. Haven't played for ages and for some reason I thought it did have a background sound to the game.

Also can we have a radio report from a unit who spots the enemy if it appears to be coming it's way or on the attack?

Phoenix100 · Post by **Phoenix100** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:04 pm

Not bothered, myself, about any of those cosmetic things, Jason. Would rather Dave spent his time coding supply issues that we've raised...

wodin · Post by **wodin** » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:06 pm

Well Dave liked the weapon idea..I think that and the radio report would be help full in playing the game..anyway sorry i spoke.

wodin · Post by **wodin** » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:45 am

I know other features would be more important but I'm sure some small bits of UI chrome will be in the next game in the series just like we got from COTA to BFTB..so these are suggestions for the added chrome we get each major release.

Calmed down now. It seemed like have a go at J day..as I went from here to another post elsewhere on the forum who moaned at us for no reason.

Phoenix100 · Post by **Phoenix100** » Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:36 am

Great you're playing this game again, Jason. Hope you get on with the HTTR scenarios, though I think, myself that it's a bit hard to play these para drop ones with supply as it is. Looking forward to that being eased in the new patch.

I've not had too many supply issues in the big 101st scenario, that said. That's a great scenario to play.

decaro · Post by **decaro** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:34 pm

ORIGINAL: wodin

Call me stupid, as soon as I hear 88 I think of it shooting tanks or maybe at planes..

I was told by a WW II vet that the deadly 88 could do everything except shoot over hills as it had a flat trajectory.

I wonder if BftB takes that into account?

Phoenix100 · Post by **Phoenix100** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:11 pm

Well, what goes up must come down. So the trajectory wouldn't be always flat. I read that it had an extremely flat trajectory out to about 1000 yards. But after that I guess it came down.[;)]

Different question whether it was used like that and had ammo of that type. I also have never read of it in any kind of bombard role. You sure about this, Dave?

navwarcol · Post by **navwarcol** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:17 pm

The fact that it was actually an Anti-Air weapon should mean that it A) Could shoot at a high trajectory and B ) Already had/used proximity fused shells which would work fine against ground soft targets.

Phoenix100 · Post by **Phoenix100** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:30 pm

The Wikipedia article on German guns/88flak doesn't list it as being used to bombard. And we all know that Wikipedia is THE authority these days.....

navwarcol · Post by **navwarcol** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:36 pm

[:D]

ORIGINAL: phoenix

The Wikipedia article on German guns/88flak doesn't list it as being used to bombard. And we all know that Wikipedia is THE authority these days.....

jimcarravall · Post by **jimcarravall** » Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:57 pm

ORIGINAL: phoenix

The Wikipedia article on German guns/88flak doesn't list it as being used to bombard. And we all know that Wikipedia is THE authority these days.....

Well, since I've signed on as one of Wikipedia's authors / reviewers, I don't quite know how to take that

.

Reality is anyone can author, but the articles are subject to review and rebuttal by authors.

Much depends on the honesty of those reviewing and rebutting -- which is why I tend to review and question (with citations to reasonably valid sources) public relations articles on topics designed to rally public opinion.

They can take the journalist out of the newsroom, but they can't take journalism out of the journalist.

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 12:08 am

ORIGINAL: phoenix
You sure about this, Dave?

YEP, sure am. Again read Kershaw's "It never snows in September."

Phoenix100 · Post by **Phoenix100** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 5:17 am

I'm just reading it, Dave. Again, in fact.

Maybe you should go to Wikipedia's page on the 88, Jim, in that case, and edit it to show it was used to bombard.

Remmes · Post by **Remmes** » Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:03 am

Bombarding was in fact an expected role for the 88' as it could fitted with a dial for indirect fire. (i.e. bombarding) It must have been some kind of 'direct indirect fire' considering the flat trajectory of the shells.

Anyway if an 88' starts pumping HE shells in your postion I have no doubt that it would feel like being bombarded.

The complete manual can be found here.

Lieste · Post by **Lieste** » Tue Nov 12, 2013 6:04 pm

In addition to the 88mm Flak18/Flak37 as artillery, there were dedicated artillery versions of the Pak40 (The FK40, using the leFH carriage). These were also fixed charge guns, which makes them less suitable for indirect searching fires - they need to fire from further away to permit fires into dead ground, and the flat trajectory at short range makes their effectiveness worse against infantry in the open.

There are reasons for opting for lower velocity weapons such as the leIG18, leFH18, sFH18 etc, and providing multiple charge cartridges - and these are for increased short range effectiveness, and better consistency, with improved 'searching' fires at shorter ranges. *Lower velocity is in this case relative ~ the FK40 is firing at only 550m/s with the SprGr34 round, and the leFH18 is capable of 472m/s... but the FK40 will fire a heavier PzGr39 round at 792m/s in anti-armour fires.

One of the 128mm Anti-tank guns was even capable of indirect fire - using a high angle carriage, while the other was a dedicated low-angle carriage.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:37 am

I have always wondered why the British never modified the carriage for the 25 lb gun to be able to have an AA role.

Arjuna · Post by **Arjuna** » Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:06 am

A 25 pdr is a howitzer not a gun. It has a high trajectory, suitable for providing indirect fire, not a low one which you need for direct AT fire.

jimcarravall · Post by **jimcarravall** » Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:13 pm

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

A 25 pdr is a howitzer not a gun. It has a high trajectory, suitable for providing indirect fire, not a low one which you need for direct AT fire.

Some other differences in design:

Flak 37 Muzzle Velocity: 820 m/s / ROF: 15–20 rpm / 88 × 571 mm. R shell

25-Pounder Muzzle Velocity: 198 - 532 m/s / ROF: Gunfire, 6-8 rpm; Intense, 5 rpm; Rapid, 4 rpm; Normal, 3 rpm; Slow, 2 rpm; Very slow, 1 rpm / variable-charge ammunition

8.8cm Flak 37?

8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?

RE: 8.8cm Flak 37?