>Otto carius supposedly had his gunner score a direct hit on a slow flying soviet plane flying a predictable path without flak shells(albeit the 8.8cm gun of the tiger was used for that at first)>Modern abram tank fire control system can track enemy aircrafts flying slower than 250kmh on its own>Merkava durying the 80s killed an arab helicopter>Other case (i cant find this) in which heli won but tank being armed with flak shells resulted in it almost dyingHow effective would an abram tank with flak shells be to hunt helicopters or slow prop planes flying close to the ground?
>>64209093there is a documented score of one of rommels pzivs taking down a hurricane with the short bore main gun in africa
>>64209093>Modern abram tank fire control system can track enemy aircrafts flying slower than 250kmh on its own?
>>64209137Its a thing ive read online once while researching tanks shooting down flying objects.I thought it to be true but cant find the specs for it.
>>64209093>>Otto carius supposedly had his gunner score a direct hit on a slow flying soviet plane flying a predictable path without flak shells(albeit the 8.8cm gun of the tiger was used for that at first)>>64209132>there is a documented score of one of rommels pzivs taking down a hurricane with the short bore main gun in africathat probably happened more often than one might thinkt. the gunner of my grandfathers tank also did it, but he was clear that it was pure luck the soviet plane's flight path lined up so perfectly that it would be a crime to not take the shot, also it didn't destroy the plane outright as much as damage it enough to force a crash landing
>>64209093>How effective would an abram tankwith near zero deflection? it'll do finebut that's like a super ideal shot>Otto carius supposedly had his gunner score a direct hit on a slow flying soviet plane flying a predictable path without flak shells(albeit the 8.8cm gun of the tigeryeah, the 88mm had a pretty flat trajectory for its time so it's quite plausible not that this was surprising. the Brits and Americans also used their ~90mm AA guns for about the same thing. British AA guns at Tobruk famously killed quite a few Panzers, although the lack of AT shells meant they were eventually out-duelled. the difference between those guns and the famous 88s however is that German 88s were built with much lighter mountings so they could be manoeuvred around the battlefield easier, which was absolutely critical for effective antitank use. also, the downside to using your flak guns as antitank guns is added vulnerability to air attackand we know how that turned out for the Germans
>>64209093I have done it a bunch of times in war thunder so yes it's quite effective
>>64209093How good would 88mm flak shells be against soft targets if you fired them from the Tiger tank? What would the tactical implications be?
>>64209459it'd be extremely painful. the 88 is a big gun.
>>64209459thats a shell supposed to transport the projectile up to 6000m.must be fun to get hit at 300m.
>>64209553Wtf was the Kriegsmarine thinking? No wonder the Bismarck was sunk by biplanes, they really should’ve invested into quad 20mm turrets like the Wirbelwind.
>>64209093The HE shells is designed as a multi purpose, and that includes killing helicopters. That's why it's a subcaliber HE.
>>64209553Are those 37mm guns at 10 second mark? Why are they manually loaded like 37mm anti tank guns? Why are they not autmatic and loaded with clips like the german army 37mm flak gun?Who the fuck even allows hand loaded small caliber anti air guns to be introduced? It is okay if you are gona use them to bust open torpedo/ gun motor boats but fucking airplanes?
>>64209497U*4
>>64209933The Kriegsmarine was a meme, the Wehrmacht had the 3.7 cm Flak.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3.7_cm_SK_C/30
>>64209166>I thought it to be true but cant find the specs for it.It makes no logical sense at all. What sensor(s) would the tank even use to do this? there's no radar antenna on an Abrams.
>>64209497>>64209497>>64209497>>64209497>it'd be extremely painfulI'm not sure they'd last long enough to feel the pain.
>>64209553I've heard those guns were bad but never seen them before. Loaders do not look like they are having fun with their hands right there
>>64209459>How good would 88mm flak shells be against soft targetsVery effective>>64209459> if you fired them from the Tiger tank? Oh. Very ineffective. The shells would immediately lose all their potency and would in fact bounce off of a cow.
>>64210345
>>64209497You're a big tank
>>64210351
>>64210358
>>64210366
>>64210370
>>64209093
>>64210433Reminder that Miyazaki contacted Carius while doing this manga to get some details>I do a manga about your book, you know>Also, all people in it, you included, are funny looking pigs>This is fineCarius must have had some humor.
>>64209933>why did they use muskets instead of laser guided munitions hindsight reasoning
>>64209553sumimasen what the fuckhow many loaders lost fingertips to this horseshit?
>>64210595RetardThe 3.7 cm Flak 18 was developed and produced the same year as the 3.7 cm SK C/30 was being produced, 1935. Flak 36 and 37 came the years after. You would think the german navy would have one guy realise how much better the army 3.7cm guns are and lobby for it be the standard 3.7cm dual purpose gun on all navy ships immedietly or develop an clip fed automatic 3.7 cm SK C/30 atleast 4-2 years before world war 2 starts.Or they could wait to 1944 and just have a navy version of 3.7 cm Flak 43 or have the 3.7 cm Flak M42 in 1943. Well after the time when german navy surface fleet had any relevance in the atlantic.https://youtu.be/HZqMqhUnVMU?t=1335
>>64210013>What sensor(s) would the tank even use to do this?Thermals would work.This is going to be for low and slow planes/drones.
>>64210795>dosen't know about German interservice rivalry They were nearly IJA/IJN levels of dysfunction.
>>64209093What gave you the idea that gunnery manuals don't already cover this extensivelyGo read FM 3-20
>>64209553And I thought the Japanese Type 96 25mm were bad.
>>64210590>Carius must have had some humor.I think if you survive the Eastern Front you learn not to get stuck up over stuff like that.
>>64209093Abrams would rather fire sabot at most choppers because the projectile flies a lot faster and a lot further. It's not ideal, but if you have to shoot down a helicopter in a tank you aren't in an ideal situation. Assuming the path is predictable, you can lase target and the turret will auto auto lead. The chopper is probably going to see you before you see it though, chances aren't good unless you see him first and he's flying in a way that makes him easy to hit. t. odlfag tanker
>>64209294I spaa main. I need to make a compilation of all the times I've acked over confident casniggers
Based
>>64210013Idk if the abrams has it, but a lot of tanks and IFVs have a system where you manually track a target (grounded or not) for a second and then laze it with the FCS calculating based on the speed the turret rotates and how far away the target is how it should turn and lay the gun to hit it with the gunner just making small adjustments for when the turret drifts off-course.
>>64209093>slow biplane scout flying directly at themAI— integrated SAA down to augmented reality optics/glasses for infantry, and the Jap notion of returning fire with absolutely everything on ground attack aircraft rather than scattering will be a reality. Same for MBTs doing indirect fire missions in Ukraine carrying over to deep penetration, and engaging artillery positions on the move (or helicopters from much further out than originally Cold War conceptualized).
>>64209093I shot many planes in War-thunder with tank gun and damaged countless numbers with tanks machine guns. And i didn't even play much. If plane is flying straight at you its easy.
>>64211895>Jap notionall armies do that
>>64209933its a navy thing, i thing the Frog navy had also a manually loaded AA gun way longer than they should haveprobably because AA was only an afterthought for them, till Kuantan hammered that point home
>>64214407the development of combat air capabilities in the late 30s was so fast that even the Air Force itself couldn't keep up with it, let alone the Navyalso it takes time and money to churn out AA guns, and there wasn't enough of eithereven the mighty USA had a chronic shortage of adequate AA up until about 44, after two-plus years of full war mobilisation
>>64209093If you're sending Abrams to hunt Helos with flak shells, you've got larger issues. Has your AA network been destroyed? Wheres your SPAAG? The only anti air work an Abrams should be doing in the future MAYBE is anti drone with a 20-30mm mounted firing prox fuze.
>>64209553>German engineering is the best in the world!
>>64210013I think it’s actually the turret traverse can keep up with a slow flying aircraft (like a helicopter) flying at 250kph
>>64210433Thanks, anon.
>>64209093Yeah
