Non-firing 88's and other flak

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 3:11 am

If visibility is low why would planes be out at all?

Bernie · Post by **Bernie** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 3:51 am

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
If visibility is low why would planes be out at all?

It depends on what you define as low visibility. I suppose I should have said restricted visibility. It's entirely possible to have planes out with a visibility of 25. If you're on a large map your AA units might be placed as much as 20 hexes from the front lines. Given that aircraft can fire from 5-6 hexes away, they could actually be shooting at your front lines before the AA even has a chance to spot them.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:25 am

The Americans wouldnt send out their planes in anything less than perfect visibility. The Germans cherished every bad weather day and did rain dances to the tune to Bavarian folk songs to get such days.

Bernie · Post by **Bernie** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 4:28 am

Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
The Americans wouldnt send out their planes in anything less than perfect visibility. The Germans cherished every bad weather day and did rain dances to the tune to Bavarian folk songs to get such days.

Unfortunately, the AI doesn't always do it that way, and a live opponent may not either.

john g · Post by **john g** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 5:53 am

Originally posted by Bernie

As far as I know the 88 was designed from the start as an AA weapon and it wasn't until the Western front that gun crews, in desperation, started using them against ground targets. Once they saw the results that led to AP rounds being made, and later telescopic sights being added. Much later in the war two versions of the gun were produced, the AT version having a much lower carriage and only the telescopic sight while the AA version had a higher carriage with a different set of train and elevation gears (allowing for faster tracking of aircraft) and supplied with standard VT frag ammo. The AA version also used (what we used to call in the Navy a "flyswatter" sight) a rudimentary leading type open sight.

The Condor legion during the Spanish Civil War were the first to use the 88 against tanks. It was issued from the start with AP rounds, the assumption was that any gun firing that high a velocity round would be a good AT weapon. The pak43 was a purpose designed at gun, the flak mount did not use an iron sight for AT work, it had a gunners optical sight for shooting out well past 2000 yards.
thanks, John.

Tomanbeg · Post by **Tomanbeg** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 6:07 am

Originally posted by Larry Holt [/i]

In real life, the 88 could shoot without being unlimbered & while still attached to its prime mover. What you are seeing in the game is a simulation of this. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then why do ATG's get a zero in the fist slot after moving? Might it be that there is more to shooting any weeled gun then shoving a shell in the breach and pulling the lanyard? If Flak guns get to move and shoot, ATG's should also. Are you trying to tell me that it takes longer to put a 9 pond shell in a breach then a 40 pound shell? A quick pull laynard? I'm curious as to the logic here?
T.

john g · Post by **john g** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 8:42 am

Originally posted by Tomanbeg
Originally posted by Larry Holt [/i]

In real life, the 88 could shoot without being unlimbered & while still attached to its prime mover. What you are seeing in the game is a simulation of this.

Then why do ATG's get a zero in the fist slot after moving? Might it be that there is more to shooting any weeled gun then shoving a shell in the breach and pulling the lanyard? If Flak guns get to move and shoot, ATG's should also. Are you trying to tell me that it takes longer to put a 9 pond shell in a breach then a 40 pound shell? A quick pull laynard? I'm curious as to the logic here?
T. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually the game doesn't reflect the intense effort in setting up a split trail towed gun. It takes time to dig in the spades at the end of the trail arms, in fact the gun should lose shots each time it changes facing and has to have the legs moved to a new direction and dug in again.

Guns like the German 88 the UK 2lbr at gun and 25 lb howitzer were mounted on 360 degree mounts, they could swing around and fire in any direction without relaying the gun. They were exceptions to the way things worked, and the 88 was even more versitile in that it could fire even before it's legs were let down while still on the wheels as long as it fired in the direction of the fixed legs.
thanks, John.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 9:00 am

It would be safe to say the 88 was the perfect weapon.

Theirs not much it couldnt do and being able to fire a 88m shell faster than the speed of sound is amazing.

Bernie · Post by **Bernie** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 9:28 am

Originally posted by john g

The Condor legion during the Spanish Civil War were the first to use the 88 against tanks. It was issued from the start with AP rounds, the assumption was that any gun firing that high a velocity round would be a good AT weapon. The pak43 was a purpose designed at gun, the flak mount did not use an iron sight for AT work, it had a gunners optical sight for shooting out well past 2000 yards.
thanks, John.

Was it used for AT work that early? I'd always heard the first AT use of the 88 was at (I think) Stalingrad. Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks for educating me.

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Wed Mar 20, 2002 11:57 pm

Originally posted by Bernie
[B
Was it used for AT work that early? I'd always heard the first AT use of the 88 was at (I think) Stalingrad. Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks for educating me. [/B]

It was Spain that showed the 88´s potential as an AT gun.
It was with Rommel in Africa it became famous

In all cases, well before Stalingrad. Stalingrad saw the first major use of the Tiger tank, though. (while we're speaking of firsts...)

About the "flyswatter" style sight - isn't that pretty useless for anything but autocannons?

Bernie · Post by **Bernie** » Thu Mar 21, 2002 6:45 am

Originally posted by Belisarius

About the "flyswatter" style sight - isn't that pretty useless for anything but autocannons?

Actually, it wasn't half bad, although as you surmised it was used mostly on auto cannons (in my case I used them on the Navy 3"-50cal twin mount at a theoretical rate of fire of 60 rpm, though the best human loaders I ever trained barely touched 25 rpm). For most work the 3"-50cal was linked to a radar fire control director though we did train in "local surface" and "local air" now and then. In "local air" the rings on the sight allowed pretty easy leading of an aircraft drone but, as you say, would be utterly useless for anything fast taking evasive action. In theory (this used to be classified) we could track and hit a beercan sized target out to just over 6 miles. In practice I did witness one surface shoot where (under radar control) my mount took the antenna (I have pictures of this somewhere I think...) right off the bow of a radar controlled speedboat used as a target drone with an AP shell (we were supposed to be shooting VT-Frag but wanted a tracer round to see how close we were getting) at a range of about 4 miles, causing it to go wild. Our next 6 rounds of VT-Frag obliterated it. Just for an idea of how accurate that first shot was, the speedboat was a 20' job doing about 50kts and weaving a bit. The antenna was shaped sort of like an hourglass and was about the size of a 5 gallon bucket. A lucky shot? Probably. But it did earn us a gunnery "E" for that mount, and impressed the heck out of the rest of the crew.