Jump to content


The legendary German "88" field weapon in critically considered

german 88 field weapon anti-tank anti-aircraft renowned One-Shot Kill Flak 88 Effective 88mm critically

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Macally #1 Posted 26 November 2019 - 08:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53199 battles
  • 4,731
  • Member since:
    10-29-2012


SiliconSidewinder #2 Posted 27 November 2019 - 12:23 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 29102 battles
  • 8,668
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

ups wrong forum:

 

I only comented on the fact that realistic battlefield situations are bound to result in many shots going awry. Bad visibility, inability to exactly pinpoint the enemies location, rangefinding and the difficutly to correct fire when mutiple guns as the most obvious causes.

 

the oneshot kill, as I think, though didn't refer to accuarcy, but rather power of the shell that could penetrate and destroy a tank with oneshot.


Edited by SiliconSidewinder, 27 November 2019 - 01:20 AM.


Scaleop123 #3 Posted 01 December 2019 - 03:44 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5226 battles
  • 104
  • [DPSF] DPSF
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostMacally, on 26 November 2019 - 07:36 PM, said:

 

 

How effective was it really?

 

Effective enough to penetrate a KV-1 at any angle at over 1000 meters.

 

Effective enough for 4 Tiger tanks have taken out 16 IS-2 tanks within only 15 minutes somewhere Germany during the Soviet offensive.

 

Effective enough to pop Sherman tanks like peanuts and sometimes even penetrating two of them.

 

Effective enough to also be an anti-air gun that took a big role in shooting down over 22.000 Allied planes over Germany.

 

 

In my book the 8,8 cm a.k. " 88iger " was the most effective weapon in WW2 as it was effectively used against all kinds of tanks, planes and even infantry as well as structures such as bunkers and buildings.

 

I am aware of especially allied biased sources saying opposite and trying to talk down such marvelous German tech, but this obviously is not reality. The gun was a beast.



Macally #4 Posted 02 December 2019 - 09:31 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 53199 battles
  • 4,731
  • Member since:
    10-29-2012

Just a few words about the anti-aircraft effect...

When the bombers flew in a high altitudes, the 8.8 was no longer effective. Several thousand shots were needed for a direct hit !

 

This video also does not claim the pure truth.  ;)



Scaleop123 #5 Posted 02 December 2019 - 10:05 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5226 battles
  • 104
  • [DPSF] DPSF
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostMacally, on 02 December 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

Just a few words about the anti-aircraft effect...

When the bombers flew in a high altitudes, the 8.8 was no longer effective. Several thousand shots were needed for a direct hit !

 

This video also does not claim the pure truth.  ;)

 

 

I also have a few words..

This is how AA works my dude, or did you think they accurately pick out bombers ?

 

They use fragmentation rounds that explode at a set distance and at contact and then puncture everything within a certain radius. THIS is how Anti-Air cannons work, not any differently.

 

Then you also have weapons such as the Flak Vierling which was made to repel fighter jets, even this one uses fragmentation ammunition....

 

The 8,8 was a beast against air targets and against ground targets and considering the Germans have shot down over 22.000 Allied planes in Europe alone (mostly by FLAK such as the 8,8) proves a pretty decent point I think.

For ground targets I always like to share that a 8,8 was able to penetrate a KV-1 tank at ANY angle at almost 2 km. There is no other gun that was capable of doing so. Shermans etc were like butter for the 8,8.

 

I am not sure why you are trying to talk down the 8,8, either because you are Scottish or someone who supports Scotland or being someone who is biased against Germany and it's technology. I prefer to stay objectively and stick to facts.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Scaleop123, 02 December 2019 - 10:07 PM.


SiliconSidewinder #6 Posted 03 December 2019 - 12:32 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 29102 battles
  • 8,668
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

View PostMacally, on 02 December 2019 - 09:31 PM, said:

Just a few words about the anti-aircraft effect...

When the bombers flew in a high altitudes, the 8.8 was no longer effective. Several thousand shots were needed for a direct hit !

 

This video also does not claim the pure truth.  ;)

 

there is a nice american Bomberpilot training video on this by the way.

It basically comes down to range finding and time delay.

In short the Flak batteries try to aim at the point were the enemy bombers will be in the futre, so

as long as a the bomber squadrons constantly make course adjustments, the flak won't be able to hit them.

(This is why the germans were already resarching self guiding AAmissiles in WWII.)

if this aimed firemode proved ineffective, the Flak would switch to a barrage defense, which is the flak fire you usually see in the movies.

it's very ineffective and basically means you are hopeing for a lucky hit.

 



Scaleop123 #7 Posted 03 December 2019 - 01:09 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5226 battles
  • 104
  • [DPSF] DPSF
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSiliconSidewinder, on 02 December 2019 - 11:32 PM, said:

 

there is a nice american Bomberpilot training video on this by the way.

It basically comes down to range finding and time delay.

In short the Flak batteries try to aim at the point were the enemy bombers will be in the futre, so

as long as a the bomber squadrons constantly make course adjustments, the flak won't be able to hit them.

(This is why the germans were already resarching self guiding AAmissiles in WWII.)

if this aimed firemode proved ineffective, the Flak would switch to a barrage defense, which is the flak fire you usually see in the movies.

it's very ineffective and basically means you are hopeing for a lucky hit.

 

 

If it is so ineffective, how did they shoot down over 22000 allied planes alone in Europe?

 

This is not ineffective, it is just how FLAKs and AAs back then worked in general, not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

 

I see, I am discussing with historians, I am out. Have a good one xD



SiliconSidewinder #8 Posted 03 December 2019 - 01:53 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 29102 battles
  • 8,668
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-16-2012

View PostScaleop123, on 03 December 2019 - 01:09 AM, said:

 

If it is so ineffective, how did they shoot down over 22000 allied planes alone in Europe?

 

This is not ineffective, it is just how FLAKs and AAs back then worked in general, not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

 

I see, I am discussing with historians, I am out. Have a good one xD

 

unable to understand the meaning of complex sentence, check.

fake numbers, check.

looks down on educated people, check.

can't have a discussion for the sake of learning, check.

thinks discussions are about winning, check.

 

but yeah you have a good day too.



Scaleop123 #9 Posted 05 December 2019 - 01:41 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 5226 battles
  • 104
  • [DPSF] DPSF
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostSiliconSidewinder, on 03 December 2019 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

unable to understand the meaning of complex sentence, check.

fake numbers, check.

looks down on educated people, check.

can't have a discussion for the sake of learning, check.

thinks discussions are about winning, check.

 

but yeah you have a good day too.

 

Haha, it is always the same. If someone says something pro German or seemingly pro German and does not glorify the Sherman tank who apparently took on hundreds of enemy Tiger tanks while a labrador puppy is driving it, one is called a liar or fool.

 

Instead of insulting me you could also just prove me wrong and behave in a reasonable and objective manner rather than a rude pleb making accusations that simply are not true.

 

1.  I have never used fake numbers even if my numbers might not be 100% accurate, they are as close as it gets, sorry that I do not have every number burned in to my brain, I am not good with numbers but it was either 22 or 20 000.

2. I also do not look down on educated people nor do I know your educational background, that being said you do not make an educated impression on me as you can not even stick to the discussion and also come up with accusations, personally attacking me rather than actual arguments. This is not educated in my book.

3. I am always willing to learn, feel free to teach me, maybe what you are going to say actually makes sense.

4. No, I do not think discussions are about winning, I think discussions are about defending your point you made to a realistic and reasonable extend and be willing to learn something new, especially in terms of weapon technology, there is nothing to win or lose, it's either factual or it is not.

5. Claiming I am not able to understand complex sentences is offensive and hypocritical, you are claiming I look down on educated people while on the other hand you are pretty much calling me stupid?

 

Many terms and meanings come to me head when thinking about your response, but I will keep that to myself as I don't want to derail this topic nor go down to your unreasonable and immature level.

 

 

Check this out, equipment losses, maybe you find more about the 8,8 cm FLAK.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II

 

 

If you are looking for reasons to dislike the 8,8, go for it. But it is easier to dislike any other FLAK of this time. 8,8 was a beast and would probably even do some serious damage in today's time, just not as a FLAK.

 

Have a good day.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users