GooglyDoogly wrote:
No, it isn't. Your contention is that the Germans wouldn't have wanted to employ 88mm guns since they are cumbersome. Kinda like the Tigers and King Tigers. The Germans had Panthers, Panzer IVs, many many Stugs, Panzerjagers, etc.
So why employ Tigers and King Tigers at all? Because they dominate the battlefield.
Those tanks were still made to specifically for that role not just something the germans suddenly came up with so you argument is still pretty pointless . The Tiger also had a great mobility with a speed of 38 km/h (23.6 mph) and a operational range of 110-195 km , The Tiger II was however a technical nightmare and was just a waste a of resources with most of em breaking down on the battlefield . But you must also remeber that the germans had very few Tigers I's operational at any day of the war and only produced 1355 compared to almsot 6000 panthers so they did concentrate on more lightly armored tanks
GooglyDoogly wrote:
And so did the 88mm. The only reason they do not have enough 88 is because they were HIGHLY in demand in all fronts. There were even talks of stopping the use of the 88mm as an anti-aircraft gun, because they're really not effective against Allied bombers (fighters were better) since they are far more suited for anti-tank role.
Yeah instead of more mobile , smaller and effective cannons the germans asked for more Flak cannons

, cmon get real . They probably asked for more heavy guns but they would probably want a gun that was more suited for that role , there was a reason why the germans devloped the PaK 43 . If the germans had enough resources to these produce AT cannons and enough manpower to train more infantry divisions we would probably see very few Flak 88s at the frontline during 1944 ,its even mentioned earlier in the thread that the 4th army on the eastern fron only had 118 Flak 88s . But the lack of other heavy guns made it hard to replace the ones they had in the field
, the luftwaffe divisions that they deployed as a desperate move to get more men to the front did also contributed a lot to their continuous use since they were trained to use these cannons
And yes the Flak 88 became less effective as a flak cannon and there were some suggestions to move many of them to an anti-tank role , this would however be a politically unpopular move so it was never made . But that would just be a deperate move to get more heavy guns to the front
GooglyDoogly wrote:
Um...if they were never made or considered to be a major anti-tank weapon, then why bother making anti-tank shells and anti-personnel shells for them?

And apparently, they were moved plenty enough to be with Rommel during the 1940 campaign, since he had some in Arras! Or are you saying that Rommel rarely moved as well?
The Flak 88 was never widely used as a anti-tank weapon during 1940 but they could fill that role if needed which why the germans made anti-tank shells . But the ones that was made for that and had a protective shield was rarley moved at all during 1940 . The cannons Rommel used during the battle of Arras came from his flak regiment that was suppose to protect his troops from air attacks that didn't have the shield
GooglyDoogly wrote:
The only reason they slowly disappeared from the battlefield is because the Germans can't keep up with the demand.
No it was replaced by the PAK 43 , the troops did request more heavy guns yes but they would probably rather have the PAK 43 than the cumbersome Flak 88
GooglyDoogly wrote:
And that's basically why FOV did it. Because there are far more FOV Normandy-themed armor than DaK...which there is none.
And its weird that Unimax haven't made any DAK units since they made 2 Grants , 2 Mattildas and one Lee . I can understand why they made a Normandy version since that campign have the most FOV models , I just personally think a DAK version be a lot more intresting since it was esstesial to the german victories in africa not just one of many weapons like in normandy
uksubs wrote:
Where in my post did I say I did not know about Rommel
That you keept asking for the information on the 88s role in africa made you sound pretty ignorant of the african campign and Rommel
uksubs wrote:
For your information I have loads of books on WW2 thanks very much ,
You keep going on about the North Africa campaign but to the Germans the Eastern front was the important front
I also wrote that the Flak 88 had a very important role on the eastern front so you should maybe read my posts a little more before you post
uksubs wrote:
Can I ask what weapon replaced the 88 & was more effective ?
A fact for you more 88mm guns were made in 1944 than in 1942
What I find funny is you think the North North Africa campaign is more important than Normandy
All you done is quoted from WW2 forum hardly make you a expert on it
Ehh this question kind of suprise me since the PAK 43 88mm cannon was mentioned pretty early in the thread , you shuould pay more attention
uksubs wrote:

I will be buying the Normandy 88 + the eight ton half track , can't wait

Well I can't argue against that since both of em are two great models , I own the grey 88 and I'm also planning on buying the the 7/2 half track one day