Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Non-firing 88's and other flak

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Non-firing 88's and other flak Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Non-firing 88's and other flak - 3/19/2002 3:55:01 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		I've noticed since I upgraded to v7.0 from v5.01 that it has become very rare for flak batteries to actually fire on aircraft. I just watched a turn cycle where my mobile artillery was decimated by aircraft, despite being surrounded by four 88 flak, and the only things that fired on the aircraft were two halftracks that were parked nearby! I checked the range setting on the 88's and it was set to 80, visibility was 24 and clear, and they all had clear fields of fire. I've run the cycle a few times now and one or two of the 88's will actually get off a shot only about 10% of the time. Anyone else notice this? Anyone know where I can get a coffee truck to park next to these guys? Obviously they're falling asleep!
Post #: 1
88's - 3/19/2002 4:42:29 AM   
Big Bill

 

Posts: 177
Joined: 3/24/2001
From: LI. NY. , USA
Status: offline 		Possibly they are better suited for high flying bombers, try using 37mm, 40mm, quad 50's, these can aquire low flying fighters and fighter bombers

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 2
- 3/19/2002 7:17:15 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		I just did a test 1943, 12 sturmoviks attacking a flak trap consisting of 8 units in a hex formation, first 88flak, then 20mm quad, then 37mm. The 37 did the best, they didn't manage to shoot down any planes but they at least damaged three. I then did the 88 test over again, but edited the experiance and arty leader ratings to 110 reflecting what a campaign core force could have by then. The 88's went from one shot per plane attacking up to about 10 shots. Apparantly each unit has to make a check to fire and normal 1943 Germans are not good enough to pass.

Of course for all that firing the 88's still only managed to damage one plane.

I then decided to try the Germans manning quad 50's since that is often touted as a wonder weapon. Sure enough they managed to shoot down 4 planes and damage others.
thanks, John.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 3
- 3/19/2002 9:36:48 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john g
[B]I just did a test 1943, 12 sturmoviks attacking a flak trap consisting of 8 units in a hex formation, first 88flak, then 20mm quad, then 37mm. The 37 did the best, they didn't manage to shoot down any planes but they at least damaged three. I then did the 88 test over again, but edited the experiance and arty leader ratings to 110 reflecting what a campaign core force could have by then. The 88's went from one shot per plane attacking up to about 10 shots. Apparantly each unit has to make a check to fire and normal 1943 Germans are not good enough to pass.

Of course for all that firing the 88's still only managed to damage one plane.

I then decided to try the Germans manning quad 50's since that is often touted as a wonder weapon. Sure enough they managed to shoot down 4 planes and damage others.
thanks, John. [/B][/QUOTE]

I wonder what the learning curve for those 88 crews looks like? The units I have are all veterans of four previous battles in this campaign. I'll keep in mind the quad 50's though...might be a good thing to stay well away from, playing as an Axis player, or a nice toy to requisition from the captured stockpiles...
;)

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 4
Re: Non-firing 88's and other flak - 3/19/2002 7:40:59 PM   
panda124c

 

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernie
[B]I've noticed since I upgraded to v7.0 from v5.01 that it has become very rare for flak batteries to actually fire on aircraft. I just watched a turn cycle where my mobile artillery was decimated by aircraft, despite being surrounded by four 88 flak, and the only things that fired on the aircraft were two halftracks that were parked nearby! I checked the range setting on the 88's and it was set to 80, visibility was 24 and clear, and they all had clear fields of fire. I've run the cycle a few times now and one or two of the 88's will actually get off a shot only about 10% of the time. Anyone else notice this? Anyone know where I can get a coffee truck to park next to these guys? Obviously they're falling asleep! [/B][/QUOTE]

Be Careful with the 88's since there are two different versions the AA gun and the AT gun, they are the same but are modeled seperatly in the OOB.
For AA I love those German quad 20mm's. :D

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 5
- 3/19/2002 7:56:02 PM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		IRL 88s were used against high flying aircraft. I doubt that they could track a low flying fast moving fighter-bomber. German tactical AA was built around the fast swiveling 20 & 37mm guns.

In the game, as has been stated there are two versions of the 88. In the AA role against high flying aircraft, individual guns were hooked to a central station and used a primitive fire control computer. This set up was not used in the AT role so switching was not possible without set up time. I do not know if a gun set for AT use could just raise its barrel and shoot at diving aircraft.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 6
- 3/19/2002 8:47:43 PM   
Dogmeat

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 12/14/2001
Status: offline 		I've found that AA situated close (within a dozen hexes) to the unit it was to protect, did a poor job doing so. Putting the AA further back and they never failed to shoot at planes for me. I never took any planes down unless I overloaded on AA or I got two lucky 88 hits on the same plane.

Must be something in the game about situating the AAs. The AI always seems to place the AA away from the front line. It could be that the AI is simply treating them like normal on-board artillery but I found the enemy's AA was always effective when located at the back. When I moved their AA to the front, my planes could attack with relatively impunity. Except for AA mounted with infantry for some reason (halftracks and infantry arms always shot at my planes).

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 7
- 3/19/2002 8:56:53 PM   
Marc von Martial


Posts: 10875
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Bonn, Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dogmeat
[B]I've found that AA situated close (within a dozen hexes) to the unit it was to protect, did a poor job doing so. Putting the AA further back and they never failed to shoot at planes for me. I never took any planes down unless I overloaded on AA or I got two lucky 88 hits on the same plane.

Must be something in the game about situating the AAs. The AI always seems to place the AA away from the front line. It could be that the AI is simply treating them like normal on-board artillery but I found the enemy's AA was always effective when located at the back. When I moved their AA to the front, my planes could attack with relatively impunity. Except for AA mounted with infantry for some reason (halftracks and infantry arms always shot at my planes). [/B][/QUOTE]

That is basically AA doctrine. AA seldomly is at close range of the to protect units, also it´s "easier" for the AA guns to track a plane when farer away. It´s very hard to track a fast flying plane when it´s close to you. Okay beeing farer away from the potential target also has an impact on accuracy of course. So you´ll have to find a point in the middle here.

The german MG42 can be outfitted with an AA gunsight. The Mg42, also the MG34 where used in a AA role by infantry units. Firing with small arms (carbines, sub machine guns etc.) on planes has no great impact of course but a lucky shot can wreck the pilots day.

_____________________________

Marc von Martial
instagram stream

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 8
- 3/19/2002 9:38:54 PM   
Bing

 

Posts: 1366
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Gaylord, MI, USA
Status: offline 		If you want to fool the game engine with respect to enemy CAS, it isn't that difficult: Buy cheap, expendable trucks. Place them in the open where you are pretty sure the axis of attack will allow the enemy aircraft to find them.

Station your AA about a dozen hexes behind the unlucky candidate. Enemy CAs will go for the truck just about every time, you will be in a position to at the very least damage them, which means they won't be back for some time - you also should get several kills this way in a typcial campaign. I know I have.

Bing

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 9
- 3/20/2002 12:07:25 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt
[B]This set up was not used in the AT role so switching was not possible without set up time. I do not know if a gun set for AT use could just raise its barrel and shoot at diving aircraft. [/B][/QUOTE]

It could.

The difference between AT 88 vs. AA 88 is the carriage. Lower for an AT 88 (and that wasn't around until '43 or something anyway)

Not sure about the whole targeting bit, tho'... using AT sights to pin a bomber must be somewhat challenging. Oh yeah, ammo is another one: Timed triggers ought to work better against aircraft, while using impact triggers against tanks... wouldn't it?

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 10
- 3/20/2002 12:44:18 AM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernie
[B]

I wonder what the learning curve for those 88 crews looks like? The units I have are all veterans of four previous battles in this campaign. I'll keep in mind the quad 50's though...might be a good thing to stay well away from, playing as an Axis player, or a nice toy to requisition from the captured stockpiles...
;) [/B][/QUOTE]

The German nickname for the quad .50 tracks was sausage grinder. Something to do with the results when used on ground troops:eek:
I am playing a 7.1 game now where my opponent is using Flak guns in an offensive role. It seems they can unload and fire on the same turn. He tore me up last game with 88's and this game he is using the russian 85 flak gun in the same role. It's hard to deal with a big gun that pulls up unloads, shoots, loads back up and moves off out of LOS. I'm coping, but just barely.
T.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 11
- 3/20/2002 1:02:53 AM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt
[B]IRL 88s were used against high flying aircraft. I doubt that they could track a low flying fast moving fighter-bomber. German tactical AA was built around the fast swiveling 20 & 37mm guns.

In the game, as has been stated there are two versions of the 88. In the AA role against high flying aircraft, individual guns were hooked to a central station and used a primitive fire control computer. This set up was not used in the AT role so switching was not possible without set up time. I do not know if a gun set for AT use could just raise its barrel and shoot at diving aircraft. [/B][/QUOTE]

Didn't the forum have this arguement about 18 month ago? It sticks in my mind 'caus I produced 3 seperate occasions where german 88's in AA mode, lowered their barrels and blew away British Tanks. The 88 was such a flat trajectory weapon that bore sighting was combat effective. that is why the Load out for an 88 flak gun alway included a few AP rounds, and a few contact fused HE. But this is a debate that started when the Pilum was invented. Do Tactics drive weapons development, or does weapons development produce Tactics? Chicken or the Egg?
T.(who think that weapons are fitted into Tactical systems and one of the requirement for a RMA is a change in Tactics caused by weapons development).

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 12
- 3/20/2002 1:16:27 AM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tomanbeg
[B]
...
I am playing a 7.1 game now where my opponent is using Flak guns in an offensive role. It seems they can unload and fire on the same turn. He tore me up last game with 88's and this game he is using the russian 85 flak gun in the same role. It's hard to deal with a big gun that pulls up unloads, shoots, loads back up and moves off out of LOS. I'm coping, but just barely.
T. [/B][/QUOTE]
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.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 13
So... - 3/20/2002 1:18:04 AM   
SeppDietrich

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 3/20/2002
From: Washington DC
Status: offline 		Basically does the AA version of the 88 have a use? Or could you be better served simply purchasing the AT version, with supplimentary smaller calibre AA guns?

_____________________________

"To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself."

-Sun Tzu

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 14
- 3/20/2002 1:19:22 AM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]

It could.

The difference between AT 88 vs. AA 88 is the carriage. Lower for an AT 88 (and that wasn't around until '43 or something anyway)

... [/B][/QUOTE]
Quite right. I was posting about the AA 88 used in the AT or AA role. Later there was a specific AT 88 developed with the lower carriage that had no AA capability.

I read somewhere that the 88 was designed to have an AT capability.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 15
Re: So... - 3/20/2002 1:21:34 AM   
Larry Holt

 

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by SeppDietrich
[B]Basically does the AA version of the 88 have a use? Or could you be better served simply purchasing the AT version, with supplimentary smaller calibre AA guns? [/B][/QUOTE]
Your latter suggestion is probably the better course of action however the AT 88 is not available early in the war so we are forced to purchase the AA 88 if we want heavy German AT capability.

There are other options for killing tanks. I've stopped using 88s in my cores. It certainly makes for exciting games.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 16
- 3/20/2002 1:51:43 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt
[B]
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]

Yes, that you could. But with a trained crew, unloading and priming an 88 could take as little as 20 seconds. :) As one turn in the game is approx. 1 minute, you have time to unload, shoot and load back up again. The carriage was two separate parts, basically the forward and rear wheel pairs, with the gun mount itself holding everything together. So you just shoved the two halves in under the gun and jacked them up to get it moving again.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 17
- 3/20/2002 3:28:17 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]

Yes, that you could. But with a trained crew, unloading and priming an 88 could take as little as 20 seconds. :) As one turn in the game is approx. 1 minute, you have time to unload, shoot and load back up again. The carriage was two separate parts, basically the forward and rear wheel pairs, with the gun mount itself holding everything together. So you just shoved the two halves in under the gun and jacked them up to get it moving again. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't have any video of 88's firing while still attached to the prime mover, but I do have video of them firing while the wheels were still attached, they didn't lock the brakes so the 88 rolls back and forth while firing. I have read of 88 units spotting aircraft while moving on the road, and unloading and firing before the aircraft make it overhead to attack position.
thanks, John.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 18
- 3/20/2002 4:31:08 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt
[B]
Quite right. I was posting about the AA 88 used in the AT or AA role. Later there was a specific AT 88 developed with the lower carriage that had no AA capability.

I read somewhere that the 88 was designed to have an AT capability. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.

_____________________________

What, me worry?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 19
- 3/20/2002 4:37:12 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
[B]

That is basically AA doctrine. AA seldomly is at close range of the to protect units, also it´s "easier" for the AA guns to track a plane when farer away. It´s very hard to track a fast flying plane when it´s close to you. Okay beeing farer away from the potential target also has an impact on accuracy of course. So you´ll have to find a point in the middle here.

The german MG42 can be outfitted with an AA gunsight. The Mg42, also the MG34 where used in a AA role by infantry units. Firing with small arms (carbines, sub machine guns etc.) on planes has no great impact of course but a lucky shot can wreck the pilots day. [/B][/QUOTE]

This works fine in a game with high visibility, but what about a game with limited visibility? It does not seem like such a great idea to put your AA 20 hexes back from the front when the visibility is 25. You end up with planes firing at your frontline troops long before the AA even "sees" them. Not to mention that when the troops move forward the problem worsens unless you move the AA forward with them. You could, and I've seen it happen, end up in a situation where only one or two AA units were in condition to actually fire while all the other AA was on the move...and have them all lost to a wave of F/B's

_____________________________

What, me worry?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 20
- 3/20/2002 5:11:28 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		If visibility is low why would planes be out at all?

_____________________________


(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 21
- 3/20/2002 5:51:36 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
[B]If visibility is low why would planes be out at all? [/B][/QUOTE]

It depends on what you define as low visibility. I suppose I should have said [I]restricted[/I] 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.

_____________________________

What, me worry?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 22
- 3/20/2002 6:25:08 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 23
- 3/20/2002 6:28:24 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager
[B]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. [/B][/QUOTE]

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

_____________________________

What, me worry?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 24
- 3/20/2002 7:53:10 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernie
[B]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 25
- 3/20/2002 8:07:07 AM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		Originally posted by Larry Holt

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.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 26
- 3/20/2002 10:42:29 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tomanbeg
[B]Originally posted by Larry Holt

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. [/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.

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 27
- 3/20/2002 11:00:43 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 28
- 3/20/2002 11:28:41 AM   
Bernie


Posts: 1779
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Depot HQ - Virginia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by john g
[B]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

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. :)

_____________________________

What, me worry?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 29
- 3/21/2002 1:57:17 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]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][/QUOTE]

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

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?

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Bernie)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Non-firing 88's and other flak Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.480