88's indirect fire? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

maniacalmonkey -> 88's indirect fire? (1/6/2003 9:27:10 PM)

The German 88mm Flak gun, also used very effectively in an AT role, arguably the best AT gun in the war. But I keep picking up stuff about 88's used as indirect-fire artillery? I haven't found anything concrete on this... Did the Germans employ an 88mm Howitzer, or could the 88 Flak actually be fired indirect?



Panzer Leo -> Re: 88's indirect fire? (1/6/2003 11:42:51 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by maniacalmonkey
[B]The German 88mm Flak gun, also used very effectively in an AT role, arguably the best AT gun in the war. But I keep picking up stuff about 88's used as indirect-fire artillery? I haven't found anything concrete on this... Did the Germans employ an 88mm Howitzer, or could the 88 Flak actually be fired indirect? [/B][/QUOTE]

Many direct fire guns were used adhoc as indirect support, even tanks by the US, captured 75mm Pak by Russians and the 88 also...but it was usually because of lack of real arty or the simple need to lumb some rounds at an area (to prevent enemy movement, e.g.)...it cannot be seen any close to the controled arty fire real arty batteries could bring up and really was a sort of improvisation...but if you got nothing else, well, what's your alternative - it's better then no arty, but not much :)



Bing -> (1/7/2003 1:21:53 AM)

After taking cre of all the enemy armor there was, lacking anything else to shoot at, US tanks were used as indirect artillery fire weapons in the Korean War.

Somewhere I have a picture of Patton tanks lined up on a bulldozed embankment - insufficient elevation on level surfaces - firing away as artillery support. Per postings here, the accuracy was not the best due to lack of true field artillery mechanisms. But it gave them something to do.

Bing



James P -> (1/7/2003 3:36:12 AM)

Yeah - I have seen lots of photo's of US armour being used for indirect fire in late 44 / early '45 - especially M10's for some reason (guess lack of German armour around and obsolete gun)

I have also read accounts of 88mm airbursts, although this could be down to misidentification by Allied troops i.e. every gun an 88mm and every tank a Tiger…..



BARKHORN -> (1/7/2003 4:10:02 AM)

All 88cm.Flak gun's came equipped with indirect fire equipment and actually were used quite often in this mode after all it was produced in greater number's than any other large artillery piece in the german inventory.As for the use of tank's in the indirect role I've got quite a few photo's of M-10's and Sherman's being used in this role in Italy,the static almost WWI type of fighting required every tube so these vehicle were driven up a dirt ramp to increase elevation and conducted fire mission's.



maniacalmonkey -> (1/7/2003 4:22:54 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BARKHORN
[B]All 88cm.Flak gun's came equipped with indirect fire equipment and actually were used quite often in this mode after all it was produced in greater number's than any other large artillery piece in the german inventory.As for the use of tank's in the indirect role I've got quite a few photo's of M-10's and Sherman's being used in this role in Italy,the static almost WWI type of fighting required every tube so these vehicle were driven up a dirt ramp to increase elevation and conducted fire mission's. [/B][/QUOTE]

Whoa... :eek:

I bet an 88cm gun makes one [B]HELL[/B] of a bang! :p

Thanks for the info! Man, imagine that, excellent flak, excellent AT, [I]and[/I] (excellent?) indirect arty all rolled into a single field piece! Modern-day weapons industry would NEVER stand for it.



BARKHORN -> (1/8/2003 4:36:52 AM)

Oop's:)



Bing -> (1/8/2003 4:59:04 AM)

"I bet an 88cm gun makes one HELL of a bang! "

Not any bigger than a 155 and considerably less so than an 8" field piece and a peashooter compared to naval 15" to 17" rifles.

Bing



maniacalmonkey -> (1/8/2003 6:41:38 AM)

Let's see... 17" x 2.4 = 40.8 cm

So imagine firing a shell twice the diameter of a naval 17".

Compare:

[I]BOOOOOOM![/I]


To:

[I]* utter silence*[/I]

Because no eardrum within hearing range would survive a bang like that :D



Goblin -> (1/8/2003 8:36:11 AM)

An 88mm is around 3.5 inches, give or take a little.

Goblin



Possum -> (1/8/2003 11:07:21 AM)

The Nashorn 88mm Tank Destroyer came standard with Artillery Dial Sights, and Communications gear, to allow it to take indirect fire missions direct from a fire control director.
It was also capable of elevating it's main gun up to around 45 deg too.



maniacalmonkey -> (1/8/2003 7:09:27 PM)

I hate explaining jokes...

Were Barkhorn and I the only ones who noticed the 88[B]cm[/B] typo? Too bad, I thought it was kinda funny :D



Belisarius -> (1/8/2003 7:20:24 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by maniacalmonkey
[B]I hate explaining jokes...

Were Barkhorn and I the only ones who noticed the 88[B]cm[/B] typo? Too bad, I thought it was kinda funny :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Nah, I noticed it too, but since you guys already had pointed it out, I found it meaningless to post replies like "Wow, and Gustav & Dora was only [B]80[/B] cm... " ;) :p



Kraut -> (1/8/2003 7:26:53 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bing
[B]After taking cre of all the enemy armor there was, lacking anything else to shoot at, US tanks were used as indirect artillery fire weapons in the Korean War.

Somewhere I have a picture of Patton tanks lined up on a bulldozed embankment - insufficient elevation on level surfaces - firing away as artillery support. Per postings here, the accuracy was not the best due to lack of true field artillery mechanisms. But it gave them something to do.

Bing [/B][/QUOTE]

Steel Panthers 2 has some footage of that.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7030029