No magnetic fuse, so the crew had to guess the timer in order to hit any aircraft.Anti-tank capabilities were OK in the begining of the war. But then as heavier russian tanks came, it became obsolete.
Yeah
>the flak 88Which one?
>>65246454yes, it's another boomer world war 2 meme.
>>65246454>No magnetic fuse, so the crew had to guess the timer in order to hit any aircraft.They didn't just 'guess', they used rangefinders and radar to find the range, with timers being set on feeding.In any case, later in the war they ditched fuzes and just aimed for individual planes with impact fuzes which was about 2-3x as effective.>But then as heavier russian tanks came, it became obsolete.The 88 could knock out any Soviet tank in the war, including the latest IS2 models via turret and lower frontal plate hits.
>>65246454gramp toldwhen you fire it as at gun with no elevationand it has no shieldeveryone starts to bleed out of his noseafter some shots
>>65246454It was the main worry for bombers because it could reach them unlike smaller guns.It was a major worry for tankers because nothing came close to bouncing it.
>During the whole war, 51% of aircrew were killed on operations, 12% were killed or wounded in non- operational accidents and 13% became prisoners of war or evaders. Only 24% survived the war unscathed.
>>65246531A soviet il-2 also got shootdown by a german tank btw if it matters
>>65246681if flaks were really effective.then explain why did the americans fly the bombers in a tight formation?doesn't make sense
>>65246692Because otherwise you dont bomb shit ww2 special bombs even with good sights
>>65246692>>65246698It was also so any fighter trying to attack the formation would take fire from several bombers.
>>65246692Because then you're making fighters more effective if you don't. Duh.
>>65246454A decade or two ago I was reading the memoirs of a US towed anti tank soldier, and he talks about how late in the war his unit captured and briefly used some sort of 88, eventually abandoning it because of logistics. IIRC key points were how it was easier to reposition with fewer people, and how it could be used for direct fire, indirect fire, and anti air duties.
>>65246773>indirect fireNever really considered that but the shells were big enough it would basically be an extremely long range mortar.
>>65246681Fun fact: Brazil, the Philippines, and South Africa were the only countries in WW2 to have a positive k/d ratio
>as heavier russian tanks came, it became obsolete.
>>65246860The Phillipines? Surely you jest. Unless you count all the soldiers who threw down their weapons as massacred civilians, those numbers just don't shake out.
>>65246792No it was fully used as artillery. It was essentially a 90mm artillery piece that could aim vertical
>>65246454>no magnetic fuseIt was designed in 1933 and this is a case of ammunition not gun anyways. >guessOk retard>anti tank capabilities were okAnti tank capabilities were extreme overkill and it was such a powerful gun it was impossible to mount on a vehicle chassis until they said fuck it and made the tiger 2 and jagdtiger which were essentially tanks built specifically to be able to fire the 8.8 without flipping or breaking the turret. The only tanks that could even have a shot at bouncing the shells were IS-2s and Jumbo Shermans and the late war Churchill VIII’s but only at longer ranges and they were not impenetrable even frontally at longer ranges. The 8.8cm field gun was designed to be a bunker buster, it was designed after Czech fortifications turned out to be effectively impossible for the Wehrmacht to destroy with any available firepower they had. Anti tank capability was secondary to the requirement to be able to blow through a mountain bunker. There was no foresight in thinking it would be necessary for anti tank duty which is why they started the war with a 3.7cm anti tank gun with a 5cm in the works before quickly realizing both the were hilariously insufficient for the kind of work they’d need to be doing in the war and the 8.8 ended up being a stopgap of sorts until they could get the 7.5cm worked out and fielded.
>>65247059In standard German *take a chassis and put an AT gun on it* fashion, they were probably used more than documented in the early war.
>>65246945Well Filipinos are the most powerful race on earth, so it checks out.They went 4-2 while flying P-26 Peashooters which is even more wild, but the Jap planes were launched from Taiwan and still had drop tanks on, and the pilots would have been fatigued from flying all the way across the South China Sea. The Filipinos were also trained by Eddie Rickenbacker.
>>65247059>it was such a powerful gun it was impossible to mount on a vehicle chassis until they said fuck it and made the tiger 2 and jagdtiger which were essentially tanks built specifically to be able to fire the 8.8 without flipping or breaking the turret.Um… what? They successfully put that sucker on trucks and half tracks, and the Jagdtiger did not use any size of 8.8 gun. The Elefant, Tiger II, and Jagdpanther both used larger and more powerful 8.8s than the Flak 8.8 37, which is very strange is the 37 is supposedly massive overkill as-is.
if the flak88 was so good in anti-tank role.Then why even build the pak 40?
>>65247192TEMPO
>>65246454>>65246692It was good enough that until they ran out of ammo North Vietnam used ones they got from the USSR to shoot down US jets.
>>65247192Because it's much lighter, shares ammo with medium tanks, and doesn't require the additional bulk and complexity needed to aim up? Are you fucking stupid?
>>65247184Also the Nashorn. And it was because the 88 on the tiger was a bit less potent than the 37 meaning it couldn’t reliably one tap soviet heavies and even the up armored turret of the T-34/85 anymore. And the 41 itself was actually kind of bad in its intended role, so the Pak 43 was used mostly because of German autism and deciding that they were going to only be able to make a handful of tanks anyways might as well make them the absolute best they could be. The 36/37 was overkill for the most part but it actually couldn’t pen a Sherman front hull at 1000m if the hull was angled, and even as low as 300m on some reports. The 43 could put a shell end to end through any tank in the war except for the German super heavies by comparison at up to 2km.
>>65247036I mean a 88mm shell isn't a 155 or 203, it's basically an 80mm so offers a pretty small bang like a mortar but it can be thrown a really long way.
>>65247059I heard that the Krauts would flood low areas as they retreated across France denying our tanks the ability to run offroad and evaded 88-armed ambushes. I think it was when the Air Farce was grounded by weather. WITHIN THREE DAYS American farm boys had equipped enough Shermans with duckbills and welded Ship-salvage 5" T for-real-armor-plate on a couple more. Drive down the raised road and bounce the solid 88 shots while compadres went cross country and got a straight shots of HE at the crew. That team got used 3 or 4 times before the weather cleared and RAF Rocket Typhoons would instead just make smoking craters where the barricade, gun and crews used to be.
>>65246454For a sub-90mm caliber gun it was brilliant, but you pay for that power in the stupidly complex breach.
They were deadly accurate
>>65246454>But then as heavier russian tanks came, it became obsolete.It's perfectly capable of knocking out anything the Soviets have put into service until 1945.
