Tenshinai wrote:Louis R wrote:In normal Anglophone military usage _all_ guns are 'artillery'
When you´re talking generalisations, yes. When you´re separating subtypes of artillery, not automatically no.
Specific names for subtypes have varied a lot between nations and times, and yes that includes within various English-speaking nations, so your jumping up at and saying that is pretty much useless.
Do note that i wrote "artillery piece", not "artillery". The former is a gun for a specific purpose, the latter is the generalised term.Louis R wrote: I think what you are trying to say is that the Flak36 isn't a field gun, and in that you are quite correct.
Actually, the Flak36 is quite effective in the role of a field gun. It is not effective in the role of an artillery piece however. It had exchangeable sights to switch between the role of field gun and anti-air.
As "field gun" can include guns made/useful for direct fire and direct fire support, which the 88L56 does perfectly fine at.
The 88 Flak 18 or 36 is not an artillery piece, or artillery gun. It COULD be use even as that but was not good for the role.
It was not designed as a field gun, but it works in that role, as history clearly shows.Louis R wrote:What really has me scratching my head is where the OP got the idea that the 37 is a "dead ringer" for the Krupp 88. AFAICT, the only things that they have in common are the caliber, rate of fire and use of fixed rounds - there's no detailed description that would indicate any other resemblance.
For anyone who has no real knowledge, those things in common are more than enough to call them twins. Regardless reality. Heck, having the same caliber is enough for many.
I even tried to check in case there was some obscure 88, but i´m not finding anything but the Flak family.