Artillery

[gyrene81]

Goon is the plane.  Drunks are the passengers.

Sorry, pet peave.  Just because they jump out of a perfectly good plane, that doesn't make them goons.  That's just disrespectful.

wrongway

When was the last time you hung out with a bunch of guys who jump out of perfectly good airplanes? Goons all the way... 

[Rino]

It would only be good for leveling towns and bases...vs tanks it will lose...good luck dropping a 155 HE on my moving Panzer a mile away while I hit you with 75mm AP. 

Don't forget...we don't have infantry to decimate with artillery.

     Might want to ask the Germans at Salerno how effective artillery was against armor.

[gyrene81]

Might want to ask the Germans at Salerno how effective artillery was against armor.

Don't have to...common knowledge that a moving object is very difficult to hit with indirect fire even with fire control...also common knowledge that moving toward the artillery is highly effective in avoiding a direct hit from artillery fire. Tanks have both mobility and direct fire capabilities.

Next?

[Ghosth]

Funny, soviets sure made it work at Kursk.

[Lusche]

I expect the German 128 Flak would be a sweet tank-killer, too.

I don't

The 12,8 cm Flak 40 was a stationary anti air craft gun, mounted mainly on flak towers and railroad cars.

[Lusche]

.

[PJ_Godzilla]

I don't

The 12,8 cm Flak 40 was a stationary anti air craft gun, mounted mainly on flak towers and railroad cars.

I see. So it's immobility makes you doubt its ballistics?

At 26.5 tonnes, it was virtually immobile or, best case, mounted on a rail car. But still, it used a powder charge 4x that of the 88 and threw its shell ata muzzle velocity of about 2900 fps. There can be no doubt of the penetrating capability of such a gun.

You go and raise these practical concerns - bah.

[Lusche]

I see. So it's immobility makes you doubt its ballistics?

No. What makes you think I did?

[321BAR]

the 88mm stationary piece was the Flak38 correct? just a question. and this piece tripled not only as an AA emplacement, but as an AT weapon and an artillery piece all in one.

[whipster22]

just a question. and this piece tripled not only as an AA emplacement, but as an AT weapon and an artillery piece all in one.

[Lusche]

the 88mm stationary piece was the Flak38 correct?

No, there was no 88mm Flak 38, but a 105 mm Flak 38.

German heavy AA guns:

8,8-cm Flak 18, Flak 36, Flak 37, Flak 41 Total built: more than 18,000
10,5-cm Flak 38, Flak 39  Total built: 2068
12,8-cm Flak 40 Total built 1129

[321BAR]

No, there was no 88mm Flak 38, but a 105 mm Flak 38.

German heavy AA guns:

8,8-cm Flak 18, Flak 36, Flak 37, Flak 41 Total built: more than 18,000
10,5-cm Flak 38, Flak 39  Total built: 2068
12,8-cm Flak 40 Total built 1129

ahh ok, i got the 18 and 38 mixed up. ty

[Rino]

Don't have to...common knowledge that a moving object is very difficult to hit with indirect fire even with fire control...also common knowledge that moving toward the artillery is highly effective in avoiding a direct hit from artillery fire. Tanks have both mobility and direct fire capabilities.

Next?

     Apparently both naval and field artillery have pieces that are both direct and indirect capability.  Naval gunfire
in particular is very good at hitting moving targets.  Indirect fire can be very effective against armor, consider the
size of the weapon used.

      If you know the area the object is moving through, it's not that hard to target it.  How close do you have to get
with a large gun to turn the crew of a tank combat ineffective?

[PJ_Godzilla]

No. What makes you think I did?

I don't. You were making a point about the weapon's general unwieldiness, my guess. That such a gun would spread a tank like peanut butter is also certain. Making the hit would also likely not be that difficult, assuming it was in the monster's field of fire. Perhaps it's make a good base gun - but probably no better than the 5-inchers we already have (not sure what those are modelled after).

By the way, while I give you credit for making a valid point, the Wehrmacht did not share your view - since they shoehorned the very similar Pak44 128mm byotch into a JadgTiger (The Pak44/L55 - I believe the L designation being the barrel length in multiples of caliber) using a couple of shoehorns and some KY. While the Pak 44 was NOT the same gun as the Flak 40, they were both made by RheinMetall Borsig and both suffered from enormous curb weight - to the extent that a towed version of the PaK 44 was cancelled - and topped out, like it's AA counterpart, at over 10kip.

so, yes, mostly flak towers for 128s - except when they were in the hull of the heaviest AFV to see service in the entire conflict.

[Lusche]

By the way, while I give you credit for making a valid point, the Wehrmacht did not share your view - since they shoehorned the byotch into a JadgTiger (The Pak44/L55 - I believe the L designation being the barrel length in multiples of caliber) using a couple of shoehorns and some KY.

They did not. The 12,8-cm KwK / Pak44 was a entirely different weapon. It was not a adapted Flak gun.