88's as off map arty

[Michael Emrys]

Yes that is right, as I put in the list but the problem is that if you are having to clear an intervening obstacle, the flatter your trajectory becomes the less clearance you have, also the "dead zone" i.e. that area where you cannot land a round behind an obstacle is increased.

Life is complicated. At least it is when you are going around trying to kill people. Especially if they are trying to kill you back.

Michael

[JonS]

Sure. That's a tactical issue, but as I already said - if the 88s are in a scen, it is assumed that the tactical/technical issues have been satisfactorily resolved. Resolved enough to allow the 88s to fire on this map in this scen. If CMBN had a meta layer your concerns would be valid, but such a layer doesn't exist, except in the imagination.

I guess I don't really get the point you're trying to make here.

Are HAA guns as good as 'regular' field artillery pieces? Well, no, not really. They have some useful features*, but on balance there's a reason field artillery has the characteristics it has. Everyone acknowledges that, and no one has claimed it to be otherwise. Their use by the Germans was another example of their increasing desperation. Their use by the Allies was due to an embarrasment of riches.

Can 88s conduct 'proper' indirect fire anyway? Absolutely they can.

Jon

* like; comparatively plentiful and accurate airburst fuzes, which meant that the rounds didn't necessarily have to land on the target, just fly over it at a fairly low altitude.

[rune]

JonS,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the problems the 88 would have firing indirect would be the same as the vickers firing indirect? Flat trajectory, can't change cartridge, but i know you kiwis love the vickers and indirect fire, and it was used. Smae principles in general?

Rune

[JonS]

In some respects, yes. Some significant differences too, though.

[Magpie_Oz]

yes the HMG question is the same and technically they too are not really firing indirect in the true sense, probably better referred to as plunging fire

The point is the OP asked if using an 88 as OBA is historically accurate and given the limitations of the weapon firing in this mode the answer is I think, no.

Not sure but I think the OBA model would not support the way an 88 would have to fire, it would have an elongated "beaten" zone like an HMG but I think the FFE pattern of the arty is linear or circular ?

I like the airburst using AA fuses, I hadn't thought of that. Of course most of the shrapnel would be travelling parallel to the ground not down on the troops.

[rune]

Original question:

First off forgive my noobness in these matters. I have searched the forums and google, but I can't find any good reference to using 88's as indirect artillery. I experimented with it quite effectively in a QB, but I was just wondering about the historical accuracy of doing so.

Correct Answer: Yes, it was historically done. At Omaha, during Goodwood, and during the Battle of the Bulge.

Debatable points: FFE beaten zone. OK, shots will land elongated, but target can still be linear or circular.

Rune

[JonS]

The point is the OP asked if using an 88 as OBA is historically accurate and given the limitations of the weapon firing in this mode the answer is I think, no.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts 88s as indirect OBA is technically possible AND supported by actual use in the field. Heck, there's even examples of the British using the 88 for indirect fire (look for < 'Mac' Troop > here). There can be no doubt - none - that the 8.8cm and other HAA could and did conduct indirect fire missions against ground targets.

I like the airburst using AA fuses, I hadn't thought of that. Of course most of the shrapnel would be travelling parallel to the ground not down on the troops.

Splinters and fragments come off the shell body as - more or less - an annular ring, which continues forward along the flight path due to residual momentum. As long as the target is in the second half of the trajectory (i.e., on the downward bit) then there'll be plenty of splinters and fragments coming down. The really tricky bit is getting the range right - with an MV of ~800m/s, an error or mistake of just 0.25 of a second equates to 200m on the ground.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yes I don't dispute the fact that the weapons did conduct what could be considered indirect fire missions, my point is that they could only do so in quite specific situations.

I guess the trick with the timed air burst would be to attempt to have the explode well before the target, although the second half of the trajectory is much steeper than the start so perhaps that would help.

[JonS]

Yes I don't dispute the fact that the weapons did conduct what could be considered indirect fire missions, my point is that they could only do so in quite specific situations.

A point which nobody has disputed.

[Magpie_Oz]

Looking forward to the British Module and the 17lbr OBA.

[JonS]

Don't hold your breath.