Bog Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 Has anyone ever actually seen an 88mm FlaK fire at a Jabo? I don't really see what the advantages are to buying them instead of 88mm PaK guns. OT, what does "sic" mean when placed after a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 AFAIK, 88mm guns do not fire at aircraft in CM. I am not familiar enough with the different versions of the gun to tell you the advantages of each; however, it is my understanding that the AT version of the gun has a lower silhouette than the flak version, making it easier to hide. The flak version has a mount that makes it easier to turn so that it can acquire targets more quickly. Sic is used when quoting something that has an error in it. Sic denotes that the original source contained the error and that the person using the quote is repeating the error rather than creating it to maintain the integrity of the quote. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Pvt. Ryan ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bog: Has anyone ever actually seen an 88mm FlaK fire at a Jabo? I don't really see what the advantages are to buying them instead of 88mm PaK guns. OT, what does "sic" mean when placed after a word?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (1) I dunno - design a scenario on a perfectly flat map with no trees or other obstacles. Place 12 88's on the map. Buy two JABOS for the allies. If one of hte Jabos gets shot at, you'll have your answer. I rather doubt they do because they were designed to fire at high altitude bombers, not nimble low altitude fighters. (2) [sic] means Spelling InCorrect. Typographical mark used when you quote someone else, and they misspelled a word, and you don't want people to think you are the idiot who misspelled the word. MrSpkr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 "Sic" is Latin for "thus", meaning that whatever was quoted immediately prior to it was exactly how it appeared in the original. It implies that the author does not agree with the quote. It usually, but not always, refers to spelling mistakes. "The student argued that, since compass needles point East [sic], they must be headed West." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tailz Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bog: Has anyone ever actually seen an 88mm FlaK fire at a Jabo? I don't really see what the advantages are to buying them instead of 88mm PaK guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had the understanding that the 88mm AA was actually for use against medium and high altitude targets, and it's use as an AT piece was an almost accidental discovery during the invasion of the Low Countries. Given that, I would assume they are of no advantage to purchase... Surely someone knows better than me... :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 I recently made a little Flak test scenario. The 88 does not fire at Jabos. Even if the other guns acquire them at 2000 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 The required support, manpower and equipment for using the Flak 88 in an AA role is not present on the tactical battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 Even if the gun crew could swing the 88 around fast enough to track a Jabo racing by at 100 feet (instead of a B17 ambling along at 20,000 feet), I'm not sure they could set their shell fuses to detonate that soon after leaving the barrel And you'd be a damn unlucky P-47 pilot to take a direct hit from an 88mm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 88's and other large calibre AA weapons (US 90mm in the game) were not used to shoot at low flying aircrafts. Actually, I believe they didn't target any aircrafts at all. Instead they were used to "area fire" the sky, to hurt aircrafts that would happen to fly into the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: 88's and other large calibre AA weapons (US 90mm in the game) were not used to shoot at low flying aircrafts. Actually, I believe they didn't target any aircrafts at all. Instead they were used to "area fire" the sky, to hurt aircrafts that would happen to fly into the fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> German Flak officers consistently stated in post-war interviews that they did not "spot fire" in hopes of aircraft flying into the fire, but rather they did, in fact, aim at specific airplanes. It is actually much harder to shoot at a spot that far away in 3 dimensions than it is to use a specific aiming point, at least in terms of firing near your target, not necessarily hitting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen-x87 Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 Anywho away from AA capabilities or lack there of for this weapon. The 88 flak gun is actually pretty decent against most medium tanks on the allied side. It has a lower velocity which means it penetrates less armor than the Pak gun but if you are playing in a small QB where it is highly unlikely that the opposing player has anything like a Churchill, Sherman Jumbo, or Pershings the gun actually works like a charm since it can target really fast and it is only 85 points vs the 119 for the equivalent Pak gun. I have used this gun on a few occasions with mixed results. The thing can hide like a champ and if you can lure the armor target to within about 200 meters the 88 flak gun will penetrate alot of armor. It is also pretty decent for pounding soft targets. So you have to think "do I need the extra velocity of the 88 AT gun? or can the 88 flak just work fine" Gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sock Monkey Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 There was a passage in MacDonald's Company Commander (fun read!) where he and his men were tasked with assaulting a bunch of dug in 88 flak guns. They were tearing up infantry pretty good with shells that, from the description (and I could be wrong) were fused to explode before they hit, spraying large areas with shrapnel, much like American VT shells. His description made them sound like murder on infantry. Is this modeled in CM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 Its modelled in that the blast value for this weapon is high. Which, of course, is hell on infantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tailz: I had the understanding that...it's use as an AT piece was an almost accidental discovery during the invasion of the Low Countries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, actually that was figured out during the course of the Spanish Civil War. As a consequence, AT rounds were put into production for it and were on hand in time for the war with Poland. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunnee Posted May 13, 2001 Share Posted May 13, 2001 I actually prefer the 88 flak to the Pak...it's good against most tanks, and comes with a lot of HE, good for stomping the footsloggers. Very versatile weapon, some historians say it was the best gun of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts