Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Sharonan artillery

"Hell's Gate" and "Hell Hath No Fury", by David, Linda Evans, and Joelle Presby, take the clash of science and magic to a whole new dimension...join us in a friendly discussion of this engrossing series!
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by John Prigent   » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:02 am

John Prigent
Captain of the List

Posts: 590
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:05 am
Location: Sussex, England

The FlaK 18 was tried out as a direct-fire weapon before WW2 and found to be very effective. So a few were built of a modified version with all gun controls on one side (the normal AA type had them split,one side controlling traverse and the other elevation) and a direct-fire sight on that side. It was also given a gun shield, not fitted to the AA type originally, and came in two versions: one towed with a modified carriage to let it come into action quickly without dropping and spiking down the stabilizing braces, and the other mounted on an armoured halftrack to be self-propelled. They were intended for use against bunkers but found so useful against the heavy armour of French tanks in 1940 that the AA troops were given training for that as well. All of them seem to have therefore been taken out of service by 1941 and relegated to training.

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.

Return to Multiverse