88mm flack gun

[Butcher]

I didnt think it was designed to be anything but an AA gun from the start?  Obviously, it turned in to something far greater than "just an AA gun".

I think having it stationary at a field would lend more towards it being AA than dual purpose, but that is just me.  Did all the units who deployed this weapon receive AP as well?

Early as 1940 it turned into an Anti Tank gun - being so early in the war, shouldn't it of been duel purpose or do we exclude it because it was "originally" designed as an AA gun? If so then we do we have modified aircraft that served throughout the war? Look at the P47 line, clearly a fighter from the start, but turned into a ground attack plane.

I would argue if the 88cm was turned Anti-tank late in the war, but being so early in the war, its almost a given it will be duel purpose, perhaps like a 5 inch gun, able to fire one way or the other.

Here's a posting of the earliest use of the 88cm as an Anti-tank weapon:

"or the 1940 Battle of France, the army was supported by eighty-eights deployed in twenty-four mixed flak battalions.[4] The eighty-eight was used against heavily armored tanks such as the Char B1 bis and Matilda II, whose frontal armour could not be penetrated by the light 3.7 cm anti-tank guns then available. The 88 was powerful enough to penetrate over 84 mm of armour at a range of 2 km,[7] making it an unparalleled anti-tank weapon during the early war, and still formidable against all but the heaviest tanks at the end of the war. Notably, Erwin Rommel's timely use of the gun to blunt the British counterattack at Arras ended any hope of a breakout from the blitzkrieg encirclement of May 1940. In the entire Battle of France, flak destroyed 152 tanks and 151 bunkers.[4]"

I can account one of rommel's books he used it exclusively as a bait weapon, sending tanks in then having them disengage and retreat - while the 8.8's were used in ambush.

[Tank-Ace]

looks like it from the mounting. hopefully that will be only thing it can kill

Based on the angle of the gun barrel, I'd say thats a big negatory  !



As to the 'concerns' about MrJellyfish inhabiting the guns, bear in mind that these are (or should be) manually fuzed. You will (or again, should) have to manually set the fuze for the desired range.

It will be a lot more difficult than many would expect I'm guessing. You'll have to simultaneously lead your target and adjust the range for where the target WILL be, rather than for where he IS. The actuall explosive charge will be smaller than our 5" guns as well, so you'll need to have it burst closer to still get a kill.



I hope that with the manned 17lbers and now FlaK 36's, we'll be able to get spawnable guns one day soon.

[FLOTSOM]

Tankers are not "scamming hits" on enemy fighters.
If the fighter flies low on a direct attack approach right into your tank sites, that's not much of a scam, thats a silly attacker.

there was a thread a while ago (no im not gunna waste my time hunting for it, if you wanna read it do the research) in which more than one person was discussing hitting fighters who were furballing near them with leading shots and in the back of climbing out fighters not just head on shots. they were essentially laughing at the fighter guys who were complaining about it and calling it gamey.

show me one reported and comfirmed instance in which a WWII tank crew claimed a kill on a fighter in the air with their main gun and i will never call it gamey again, but until this act can be supported with historical fact then it is just that gamey and scaming kills.

[MK-84]

If you look at the picture, the gun shield has a nice little slot in it which would allow the gun to be able to aim at ground targets.  Who knows if it will, and who knows what kind of ammo, but the model certain supports being trainable to ground level.

[Tank-Ace]

Burden of proof rests with the accuser FLOTSOM, not with the accused. And more to the point, we do all kinds of stuff with our aircraft that not only never happened, but would be anywhere between ineffective and suicidaly stupid in real life.

1) Find me some evidence of a single Il-2 taking out upwards of 6 panzers with guns alone (I've even seen upwards of 10) without being rearmed.

2) Find me evidence of pilots crashing their planes, and then taking off in another one mere seconds later.

3) Find me evidence of spitfire Mk I's flying combat missions against Ta-152's

4) Find me evidence of a glaring red icon floating above enemy aircraft in WWII.


Untill then, #1 is scamming kills off the GV's, #2 is scamming everybody, #3 is scamming perks off the Late-war flyers, and #4 is scamming an advantage off everybody.

Also, what would you propose to do, make planes invincible to shell fire? Show me 1 example of an aircraft surviving a direct hit from a 75mm HE round.

[thndregg]

You don't think that 1 (maybe more) 88's spread around an airfield would give a bomber jock reason to pause and think about his route?

Sounds like fun! Bring it!

[MK-84]

Burden of proof rests with the accuser FLOTSOM, not with the accused. And more to the point, we do all kinds of stuff with our aircraft that not only never happened, but would be anywhere between ineffective and suicidaly stupid in real life.

1) Find me some evidence of a single Il-2 taking out upwards of 6 panzers with guns alone (I've even seen upwards of 10) without being rearmed.

2) Find me evidence of pilots crashing their planes, and then taking off in another one mere seconds later.

3) Find me evidence of spitfire Mk I's flying combat missions against

4) Find me evidence of a glaring red icon floating above enemy aircraft in WWII.


My response would be learn how the game works, and work with what you have.  I totally agree with...*cough* tank-ace on this one.  except for #3 pretty sure you didn't finish that one

Untill then, #1 is scamming kills off the GV's, #2 is scamming everybody, #3 is scamming perks off the Late-war flyers, and #4 is scamming an advantage off everybody.

Also, what would you propose to do, make planes invincible to shell fire? Show me 1 example of an aircraft surviving a direct hit from a 75mm HE round.

[M0nkey_Man]

The question is "Can I shoot tanks with it?"

but will it blend?

[M0nkey_Man]

Tankers are not "scamming hits" on enemy fighters.
If the fighter flies low on a direct attack approach right into your tank sites, that's not much of a scam, thats a silly attacker.

hit an IL-2 with 1 shot from 1.5k out with a T-34 while he was climbing...would never be able to do that again

[FLOTSOM]

tank, i wrote a nice argument to your response but because i dont feel like another endless agrument with an entire host of intardnetlings over a million million issues regarding the dynamics of a game and its requirements vs real life and what was and/or was not possible, i opted to erase it.

i will end my part of this by saying, you have fun downing planes with your main gun and i will continue to laugh ever time a gv'er whines on 200 about being lank-stuka'ed or spawn camped by bombers and jabo's or when i score a kill against a tank with any 20 or 30mm bird i might be flying.

gamey is gamey, i accept and understand that killing a tiger with 20 or 30mm guns is just that, gamey. if i can accept and acknowledge the truth of the situation why cant you? tracking and killing furballing fighters with the main gun of a tank is just like killing armored gv's with gamey.

respond if you want, i got nothing more to say to you on this matter.

[MK-84]

tank, i wrote a nice argument to your response but because i dont feel like another endless agrument with an entire host of intardnetlings over a million million issues regarding the dynamics of a game and its requirements vs real life and what was and/or was not possible, i opted to erase it.

i will end my part of this by saying, you have fun downing planes with your main gun and i will continue to laugh ever time a gv'er whines on 200 about being lank-stuka'ed or spawn camped by bombers and jabo's or when i score a kill against a tank with any 20 or 30mm bird i might be flying.

gamey is gamey, i accept and understand that killing a tiger with 20 or 30mm guns is just that, gamey. if i can accept and acknowledge the truth of the situation why cant you? tracking and killing furballing fighters with the main gun of a tank is just like killing armored gv's with gamey.

respond if you want, i got nothing more to say to you on this matter.

     If you're flying an aircraft and you get hit by a tank shell, you are doing it wrong.

     Ignoring the proverbially 1 in a million chance, you as the pilot have complete and full control of where to fly, including into the sights of a tank.  I will venture to add that it's fairly common to understand what a tank can, and can not aim at.  So why put yourself in harms way?  It is entirely avoidable.
 
The proof would be providing evidence that somehow it was essentially impossible to avoid cannon from a tank, and then making that repeatable.

[Ack-Ack]

gamey is gamey, i accept and understand that killing a tiger with 20 or 30mm guns is just that, gamey.

Not entirely gamey.  During the Battle of the Bulge, a M8 Greyhound managed to sneak behind a Tiger and killed it with its 37mm cannon from less than 25 yards away.

ack-ack

[FLOTSOM]

Not entirely gamey.  During the Battle of the Bulge, a M8 Greyhound managed to sneak behind a Tiger and killed it with its 37mm cannon from less than 25 yards away.

ack-ack

well thats a neat bit of history i never heard before. thanx ack!

[AWwrgwy]

Not entirely gamey.  During the Battle of the Bulge, a M8 Greyhound managed to sneak behind a Tiger and killed it with its 37mm cannon from less than 25 yards away.

ack-ack

The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17–23 December 1944: An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense
pp. 31-32



wrongway

[Hoffman]

gamey is gamey, i accept and understand that killing a tiger with 20 or 30mm guns is just that, gamey. if i can accept and acknowledge the truth of the situation why cant you? tracking and killing furballing fighters with the main gun of a tank is just like killing armored gv's with gamey.
respond if you want, i got nothing more to say to you on this matter.

No. No it is not gamey.  My Father, in the mid 90's was sationed at NTC as the OPFOR.  He managed to climb a small hill during one of the simulated engagements and ended up with his BMP-2's (Modified M551 Sheridans)  Pretty much Co-Alt with some attack helicopters on their way to the engagement, where his guys promptly opened up on them and knocked them out of the fight.  There's alot more to that story but that's the short version.

A gun being able to track an aircraft is not gamey, if the aircraft is low enough, slow enough, or moving in the right direction a good gunner can and should be able to hit it.
Hell today I was knocked out two or three times because I was coming in too low on my attack runs by main gun rounds.  It helped that the tanks were on a mountain that was about 1,000 feet above the base and the base itself was 4.5K off of sea level, making the climb rate of most attack aircraft abominable.
I try not to fly IL 2's because of that, but the damned Rooks kept knocking out A21's ordnance so my usual A20 wasn't available.

Hell, isn't it argued that a man on the ground with a rifle shot down the Red Baron?  How inconceivable is it that a good tank gunner can shoot down a plane under the right conditions?