88mm artillery/

[Alex heritage]

I have a problem. I bought a model of an 88 mm artillery piece from a magazine. Nwow i thought by artillery they meant indirect fire from behind lines using a spotter type artillery. Untill a friend pointed out artillery could be anything from an anti-tank to what I was actually talking about. Now the gun is identical to the pak 88mm in c-mission. Except it is minus the face shield. that is what made me think it was indirect fire, as without a face shield even enemy rifle fire would cause the cre to abandon their gun. so what is it?

Another question. In a book I saw a picture of a stug 3 it said " the stug 3 assualt gun was a popular infantry support self propelled gun" I was wondering does this make all AFV's self propelled guns? or what please tell.

And my final question. why does the m7 priest have a 50. cal (and why is it armoured) mounted on it if it was meant to be in the indirect fire role up to 1 mile behind the front. Likewise for the brittish sexton and the german hummel

These may seem like dumb questions but I keep getting friggin' contradictory information from books. come to think of it anybody no of any good books about mortars

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:

I have a problem. I bought a model of an 88 mm artillery piece from a magazine. Nwow i thought by artillery they meant indirect fire from behind lines using a spotter type artillery. Untill a friend pointed out artillery could be anything from an anti-tank to what I was actually talking about. Now the gun is identical to the pak 88mm in c-mission. Except it is minus the face shield. that is what made me think it was indirect fire, as without a face shield even enemy rifle fire would cause the cre to abandon their gun. so what is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, gunshields could sometimes be removed, and I would assume that a gun crew that operated far behind the lines might do so. I wouldn't think that an antitank gun crew would do so, however. If the piece you describe is supposed to represent the FlaK 88mm, however, I believe that the antiaircraft guns had no gunshields at all. So it is likely (without seeing the model) that you have an anitiaircraft gun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another question. In a book I saw a picture of a stug 3 it said " the stug 3 assualt gun was a popular infantry support self propelled gun" I was wondering does this make all AFV's self propelled guns? or what please tell.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally speaking, any fully-tracked, turreted armored fighting vehicle is referred to as a "tank". Anytime you take a cannon of some kind and put it on a non-turreted vehicle of some kind, you can safely call it a "self-propelled gun".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And my final question. why does the m7 priest have a 50. cal (and why is it armoured) mounted on it if it was meant to be in the indirect fire role up to 1 mile behind the front. Likewise for the brittish sexton and the german hummel

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.S. was a big believer in firepower, and also when many of the basic vehicle designs were put forward, the terror of German airpower was still very real, hence a .50 cal on everything bigger than a pack mule in the U.S. Army. They turned out to be very useful against other types of targets, of course.

-dale

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex heritage:

Now the gun is identical to the pak 88mm in c-mission. Except it is minus the face shield. that is what made me think it was indirect fire, as without a face shield even enemy rifle fire would cause the cre to abandon their gun. so what is it?

Another question. In a book I saw a picture of a stug 3 it said " the stug 3 assualt gun was a popular infantry support self propelled gun" I was wondering does this make all AFV's self propelled guns? or what please tell.

And my final question. why does the m7 priest have a 50. cal (and why is it armoured) mounted on it if it was meant to be in the indirect fire role up to 1 mile behind the front. Likewise for the brittish sexton and the german hummel

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. The 88 was a gun for all occasions. It was used as artillery (indirect), AT gun, and flak gun. The gun was often mounted in different ways though, acording to its role. Wheels/no wheels, shield/no shield. Guns without the face shield were often pressed into service as AT weapons however. This displeased their Luftwafe crews.

2. A "self propelled gun" is an AFV with a big gun that is not mounted on a turret. An assault gun is a sub-type of a SPG that is meant for direct fire. The Hummel is an SPG that is not an assault gun.

3. Even though the SP artillery units are not meant to ever see the enemy, sometimes they are forced to. A machine gun is pretty cheap. I think that is the designers logic.

--Chris

[Barticus]

Hooboy, well, I can try to answer some of your questions.

First of all, the original role of the '88 was anti-aircraft and hundreds (if not thousands) were deployed around Germany in this role. I would guess that this is the reason your model doesn't have the gunshield, although I am not certain.

The term 'self propelled gun' is generally reserved for non-turreted armoured vehicles designed primarily for the infantry support role. This is a very broad generalization as, especially later in the war, Germany relied on the SPG's to fulfill the role of anti-tank vehicle as well. Certainly vehicles like the Jagtiger, Jagdpanther and Hetzer were primarily anti-armour assets (tank destroyers), but still fit the description above. Technically speaking, the term self-propelled gun CAN be used to describe ANY tank mounting something heavier than a machine gun, but the terminology sort of evolved over time in order to keep things from getting even MORE confusing.

While I am sure the Priest had a .50 mg, I didn't think either the Sexton or the Hummel had a mg fitted from the factory, a more groggish forum representative will be able to help you better here. As for the presence of the machine gun on the Priest, these vehicles were intended for combat, and the enemy had a nasty habit of being where he wasn't supposed to be, so the additional machine gun was fitted in order to give the vehicle some sort of defence against infantry close assaults. All three of these vehicles were armoured to give them some protection against shrapnel of enemy counter-battery fire, and weren't meant to stop anti-tank shells.

Hoping I haven't confused you even more.

Bart

[WWB]

Also, remeber that the M7 was designed in 1941 or so, when the Blitzkreig was in full effect and the Luftwaffe ruled the sky. It is really an AA MG, that happened not to have aircraft to shoot at. Note that almost every US vehicle mounts a .50 Flexible MG (good for AA and anti-infantry work).

If you ever see the Germans get an air strike, any unbottoned vehicle lights up the poor guy. It is pretty fun to watch.

WWB

[Trooper]

I'm afraid the turret is no longer a particularly useful distinguishing mark.

How else would you explain the following tracked, turreted, armored vehicles?

M109

Abbot

AS90

PzH2000

2S19 (Even based on a T-72 hull)

All are self-propelled guns (Or howitzers, at least), yet all have tracks, and fully enclosed armored turrets.

These days, I suppose it's best to say that a tank is all of the above criteria, with a gun specifically designed to destroy other tanks. The Strv-103 just has to sit in a class by itself. It's not quite a tank-destroyer, as it was also supposed to support infantry against infantry in addition to killing tanks.

NTM

[Shipmonkey25]

The Priest and the Sexton were both outfited with machine guns at the factory, mainly for antiair defense. As for the Hummel, I'm pretty sure it doesn't have a machine gun in Combat Mission. They most likely could have recieved them once in the field, but it doens't seem likely since the were not meant to be used as assualt guns and were assumed to be covered by divisional AA assests.

[Guest Babra]

The interior of the Hummel crew compartment has mounting brackets for an MG34 and two ammunition boxes. Presumably this could be set up on the crew compartment wall in an emergency.

[Stacheldraht]

Chamberlain and Doyle's Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two states that the Hummel was outfitted with a 7.92mm MG34.

[Enoch]

Why is the Priest Armored? It is a self-propelled artillery piece. They place a 105mm artillery gun on a Sherman Chassis to improve mobility and decrease the time to set up and fire (it takes time to unlimber and artillery gun and set it up to fire). By making artillery self-propelled this allows the artillery to keep up with the spearhead of an armored breakthrough and provide quick fire-support. As pointed out earlier, the armor would increase the survivability of the crew from counterbattery fire as well as troops roaming about during a breakthrough.

Someone more knowledgable might be able to add more or correct me on this.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[Alex heritage]

regarding my questions

1.it looks loke its sitting to low to be a AAA gun or a flak one. but I have just now seen a picture of a german infantryman standing about 20 meters from a gun-on the front line-which looks remarkably similar but the picture is slightly blurred so I can't be sure if it's at or not. if it could be used in any role including indirect fire. Does this mean it could take both fixed and bagged amunnition?

2.is the classification for a gun that it takes fixed ammunition or that it fires in a flatish trajectory and only when it has direct los to the target.

3.I never said the sexton and the hummel had mg mountings. And I can understand the armor on them all. I can also understand the 50 on the sexton for use against infantry if it was right near the front line (was it really close enough to encounter enemy squads)

last thing PLEASE if you know of any books or sites about artillery/mortars please tell me!

[Alex heritage]

oh yeh im tryin to get a picture of the gun on this page (can't work this freakin digital thingy) :mad:

[offtaskagain]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch:

Why is the Priest Armored? It is a self-propelled artillery piece. They place a 105mm artillery gun on a Sherman Chassis to improve mobility and decrease the time to set up and fire (it takes time to unlimber and artillery gun and set it up to fire). By making artillery self-propelled this allows the artillery to keep up with the spearhead of an armored breakthrough and provide quick fire-support. As pointed out earlier, the armor would increase the survivability of the crew from counterbattery fire as well as troops roaming about during a breakthrough.

Someone more knowledgable might be able to add more or correct me on this.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Priests were on occasion used for direct firing. I don't know about Europe, but I've seen a couple of pictures of them blasting Japanese caves on Okinawa. With WP incidientally.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

Priests were on occasion used for direct firing. I don't know about Europe, but I've seen a couple of pictures of them blasting Japanese caves on Okinawa. With WP incidientally.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Father O'Kelly, I want you to take this and run into that bunker, pulling this tab when you get inside, then give all of those Japanese their last rights for me. This item? Well it is a model WP holy water dispenser. Standard issue. Yes, lots of men carry them, must give them comfort. You ready Father? Over the TOP!!!"

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[WWB]

Well, the term 'Artillery' basically meant siege train in medieval french. And the first cannon were part of the siege train, being mainly employed to knock down walls, etc. The name stuck, and most crew-served, big bore guns became known as, well, artillery. In a modern sense this connotes indirect fire field pieces, but it does not preclude other big bore, crew-served weapons.

WWB