New FOV 88mm repaint anyone?

Your forum dedicated to 1/32nd and smaller plastic and metal figures and vehicles.
demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:48 pm

uksubs wrote:
Where do you think people get there facts from to write these books in the first place ?
Imperial War Museum holds all the records of the British army forces, so it should now what it talking about
The fact is the 88 flak gun was used in Normandy
What intell can you give about the 88 in North Africa ?
Authors of millitary books make their own research not just copying museum info and its the British National Archive that have all those documents not the imperial museum . But if you read my post again I wrote that the Imperial musem only said that there was 78 88 guns not if they were FLAK 88s or PAK 88s , and my previous sources mentioned that the PAK 88 was often mistaken many times for a FLAK 88 .


And why do you ask for numbers when Rommel was famous for his use of the Flak 88 guns in Africa , thats not just some side note

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:03 pm

demonclaw wrote:
uksubs wrote:


Authors of millitary books make their own research not just copying museum info and its the British National Archive that have all those documents not the imperial museum . But if you read my post again I wrote that the Imperial musem only said that there was 78 88 guns not if they were FLAK 88s or PAK 88s , and my previous sources mentioned that the PAK 88 was often mistaken many times for a FLAK 88 .


And why do you ask for numbers when Rommel was famous for his use of the Flak 88 guns in Africa , thats not just some side note
Some facts & figures would be nice instead of the same old quote about Rommel :wink:
Would be interesting to see how many 88 flak guns were in North Africa :wink:

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:24 pm

uksubs wrote:
Some facts & figures would be nice instead of the same old quote about Rommel :wink:
Would be interesting to see how many 88 flak guns were in North Africa :wink:

Saying "the same old quote " made you sound pretty ignorant and uneducated (in millitary history) , if you read anything about the african campaign or Rommel the 88 Flak gun will always be mentioned as the Germans most important weapon


But I looked up the battle of El Alamein quickly and found out that the germans deployed 86 88s at the start of the battle

http://books.google.se/books?id=_ooOQnW ... 0#PPA65,M1

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Thu Dec 18, 2008 3:48 pm

demonclaw wrote:
uksubs wrote:
Some facts & figures would be nice instead of the same old quote about Rommel :wink:
Would be interesting to see how many 88 flak guns were in North Africa :wink:

Saying "the same old quote " made you sound pretty ignorant and uneducated (in millitary history) , if you read anything about the african campaign or Rommel the 88 Flak gun will always be mentioned as the Germans most important weapon


But I looked up the battle of El Alamein quickly and found out that the germans deployed 86 88s at the start of the battle

http://books.google.se/books?id=_ooOQnW ... 0#PPA65,M1

Does not being interested in the North Africa campaign make me uneducated in History , I don't think so
I was just asking for some facts about that campaign from you !
Well for a start I've been to Normandy twice , Berlin twice , Dresden & I've went to Monte Cassino last year
The 88mm flak gun was a important weapon on All fronts not just North Africa
Calling me ignorant and uneducated to get your point a cross is low don't you think & show you for what you are
:wink:

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:10 pm

uksubs wrote:

Does not being interested in the North Africa campaign make me uneducated in History , I don't think so
Rommel wasn't a unknown lowranking general , he was the most famous one (even if other generals and field marshals have done more impressive things like Manstein) so not knowing about Rommels famous tactic in africa and the most famous use of the 88 Flak gun that you're so interested in is very ignorant

uksubs wrote: Well for a start I've been to Normandy twice , Berlin twice , Dresden & I've went to Monte Cassino last year
The 88mm flak gun was a important weapon on All fronts not just North Africa
Going to places don't make you more educated (reading about them does) and you seem to deny that the german army was evolving during WW2 , almost everything was eventually replaced or upgraded . Why is it so hard to accept that the Flak 88 got replaced by more effective cannons ? . The Flak 88 had a very important role during 40-42 just like the Panzer III but both got replaced by better equipment

uksubs wrote: Calling me ignorant and uneducated to get your point a cross is low don't you think & show you for what you are
:wink:
If I would question something thats been established as common knowledge I would be called that too . Instead of actually reading more about the African and Normandy campaign (like looking up numbers like I did) and making arguments around that you just try ignore most of the facts thats been posted here

AMERICAN_GRENADIER
Officer - Brigadier General
Officer - Brigadier General
Posts: 2022
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:33 pm
Location: USA

Post by AMERICAN_GRENADIER » Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:09 pm

the one point being missed is the 88 itself was upgraded several times.
flak36 37 38 and then flak38/39. I myself have 3 great uncles who all fought in Europe and hated the 88. My uncle a tank commander in pattons division hated the sound and would jump ever time he heared it. fearing it was aimed at him. he encountered the 88 until the very end of the war. hes 84 years old and still tells stories about that gun! he says he can still hear it in his nightmares.
"SEMPER FIDELIS!"
Good Traders: Buckyroo, Razor17019, Sentinel
exether_mega, Snake, thehun, Mesa

GooglyDoogly
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Officer - Lt. Colonel
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:59 pm

Post by GooglyDoogly » Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:36 pm

demonclaw wrote:
GooglyDoogly wrote: Um, you could ask the same thing why the Germans fielded Tigers and King Tigers when they have limited mobility and other tanks and assault guns guns like the Stugs were also potent tank killers?
Those tanks were made to combat other tanks so that was a pretty pointless argument
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. 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.

It was never made or considered to be a major anti-tank weapon during 39-40 , yes the germans made some 88s with a shields and ammo to provide some anti-tank if needed but they were rarely moved during this period and weren't used until Rommel ran into some heavy armour in France .
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?
Once they produced some better anti-tank guns and tanks most of em disappered from the fontline (gradually) .


The only reason they slowly disappeared from the battlefield is because the Germans can't keep up with the demand.

I didn't try to avoid it I just missed it , a Normandy 88 is not bad at all I just whish they would make a version for a theater where it had a much more important role , and sadly Unimax have not made any DAK unit which is strange since it they've made several allied desert tanks
And that's basically why FOV did it. Because there are far more FOV Normandy-themed armor than DaK...which there is none.

The 88mm is one of the most versatile piece of equipment the Germans ever fielded. They were never "replaced". The Germans have used them until the end of the war. There was a huge demand for them. Not just in Africa, but everywhere.

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:01 am

demonclaw wrote:
uksubs wrote:

Does not being interested in the North Africa campaign make me uneducated in History , I don't think so
Rommel wasn't a unknown lowranking general , he was the most famous one (even if other generals and field marshals have done more impressive things like Manstein) so not knowing about Rommels famous tactic in africa and the most famous use of the 88 Flak gun that you're so interested in is very ignorant

uksubs wrote: Well for a start I've been to Normandy twice , Berlin twice , Dresden & I've went to Monte Cassino last year
The 88mm flak gun was a important weapon on All fronts not just North Africa
Going to places don't make you more educated (reading about them does) and you seem to deny that the german army was evolving during WW2 , almost everything was eventually replaced or upgraded . Why is it so hard to accept that the Flak 88 got replaced by more effective cannons ? . The Flak 88 had a very important role during 40-42 just like the Panzer III but both got replaced by better equipment

uksubs wrote: Calling me ignorant and uneducated to get your point a cross is low don't you think & show you for what you are
:wink:
If I would question something thats been established as common knowledge I would be called that too . Instead of actually reading more about the African and Normandy campaign (like looking up numbers like I did) and making arguments around that you just try ignore most of the facts thats been posted here
Where in my post did I say I did not know about Rommel :?:

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
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

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

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:20 am

GooglyDoogly wrote:
demonclaw wrote: Those tanks were made to combat other tanks so that was a pretty pointless argument
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. 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.

It was never made or considered to be a major anti-tank weapon during 39-40 , yes the germans made some 88s with a shields and ammo to provide some anti-tank if needed but they were rarely moved during this period and weren't used until Rommel ran into some heavy armour in France .
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?
Once they produced some better anti-tank guns and tanks most of em disappered from the fontline (gradually) .


The only reason they slowly disappeared from the battlefield is because the Germans can't keep up with the demand.

I didn't try to avoid it I just missed it , a Normandy 88 is not bad at all I just whish they would make a version for a theater where it had a much more important role , and sadly Unimax have not made any DAK unit which is strange since it they've made several allied desert tanks
And that's basically why FOV did it. Because there are far more FOV Normandy-themed armor than DaK...which there is none.

The 88mm is one of the most versatile piece of equipment the Germans ever fielded. They were never "replaced". The Germans have used them until the end of the war. There was a huge demand for them. Not just in Africa, but everywhere.
Great post GooglyDoogly & some one who knows what he talking about :wink:

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:41 am

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

NHoggard12
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:52 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

Post by NHoggard12 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:03 am

I am sure some of us are familiar with this story:
Luck set out for the front, and to his dismay saw a large contingent of British tanks rolling over what had been the dug in positions of I Battalion/125th Panzer Grenadier Regiment, in the direction of Cagny. Spotting a Luftwaffe Flak battery of 88mm guns, Luck ordered the commander to open fire on the flank of the British tanks. The battery commander, a young captain, refused to do so, as he was under orders to engage enemy aircraft. At this refusal Luck drew his service pistol, leveled it at the man and said "Either you're a dead man or you can earn yourself a medal."[18] The battery thus engaging the enemy, Luck spent the remainder of the day furiously trying to plug the gaps in his line. Most of the Kampfgruppes armour had been destroyed in the heavy barrages earlier in the day, so it was left to a few scattered antitank and assault gun batteries to take on the advancing British tanks.

Assuming the story is fact, the 88mm guns at Cagny had indeed stopped the British advance, inflicting heavy causalties on the 11th Armoured Division. The following division, the Guards Armoured Division did not heed the fate of the 11th, and it too took massive losses in the area, effectively halting the British armoured advance. Advancing without infantry support, the armour units were unable to overcome the entrenched antitank guns. The Luftwaffe 88mm battery Luck commandered earlier in the day accounted for about 40 British tanks alone.

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:02 am

NHoggard12 wrote:I am sure some of us are familiar with this story:
Luck set out for the front, and to his dismay saw a large contingent of British tanks rolling over what had been the dug in positions of I Battalion/125th Panzer Grenadier Regiment, in the direction of Cagny. Spotting a Luftwaffe Flak battery of 88mm guns, Luck ordered the commander to open fire on the flank of the British tanks. The battery commander, a young captain, refused to do so, as he was under orders to engage enemy aircraft. At this refusal Luck drew his service pistol, leveled it at the man and said "Either you're a dead man or you can earn yourself a medal."[18] The battery thus engaging the enemy, Luck spent the remainder of the day furiously trying to plug the gaps in his line. Most of the Kampfgruppes armour had been destroyed in the heavy barrages earlier in the day, so it was left to a few scattered antitank and assault gun batteries to take on the advancing British tanks.

Assuming the story is fact, the 88mm guns at Cagny had indeed stopped the British advance, inflicting heavy causalties on the 11th Armoured Division. The following division, the Guards Armoured Division did not heed the fate of the 11th, and it too took massive losses in the area, effectively halting the British armoured advance. Advancing without infantry support, the armour units were unable to overcome the entrenched antitank guns. The Luftwaffe 88mm battery Luck commandered earlier in the day accounted for about 40 British tanks alone.
Yes I've read this story before its from his book Panzer Commander . I also see that you just looked it up on wikipedia and left this bit out

"In recent years the truth of this portrayal of Luck's guns has been questioned by academics such as Ian Daglish who have studied the aerial photographs of Cagny taken hours after the battle; these show no sign of an 88mm battery or even that one had been positioned in the village. However, no suitable alternative seems to explain the heavy destruction wrought on 11th Armoured."


I've also read different accounts of this story by other sources like this one

"In Cagny, Hans von Luck organized a flank attack using an 88mm AT gun, a handful of 88mm AA guns, and a small number of PzIVs, destroying several of the 11ths Shermans before the bulk of them moved on"

http://www.saak.nl/panzer2/


Von Rosen did however dismiss this as pure fantasy

"The retired Tiger commander von Rosen went as close as he could to saying von Luck's little episode in Cagny was pure fiction, and that he had a reputation for telling tall stories. The alleged incident with the Luftwaffe 88mm battery commander is a classic example. In his research for his recent book on 'Goodwood' Ian found absolutely no evidence that any 88mm guns were ever deployed in that town."

From a intresting discusson on armchairgeneral about this subject

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=59119

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/s ... hp?t=58770

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:36 am

This is what I found out about the new wonder weapon the Pak 43

Without doubt one of the most famous – and feared – anti-tank weapons of World War II was the “German 88.” The 88mm Pak 43/41 was the anti-tank gun developed from the 88mm Flak anti-aircraft gun.

While the original Flak gun was pressed into service in the anti-tank role as a stop-gap measure that worked exceedingly well, a purpose-built anti-tank gun – the 8.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone (PaK) 43 and later 43/41 L/71 – was developed and put into production in 1943.

The original PaK 43 was a minimal departure from the Flak version:

So a P43 is just a 88 mm gun :lol: :wink:

NHoggard12
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:52 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

Post by NHoggard12 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:48 am

Is anyone familiar with a book called Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness by Niklas Zetterling?-great information.

From the text:
According to the British official history of the campaign in Normandy, most knocked-out British tanks fell victim to the German "long-range antitank guns, particularly 88's". This seems to be a statement made without any deeper research behind it. Instead, the available evidence suggests that German tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers were the main killers of Allied tanks.
From data found dating from the 29 June of the 21st panzer division, 8.8cm antitank guns destroyed 41 tanks, while their tanks destroyed 37.

Also, the Artillerie-Pak-Abteilung 1041 went into battle with 27 88's connected to the 17Luft-field division. In battle only 15 88's arrived.
The Arillerie-Pak-Abteilung 1039 had 27 88's operational in the Goodwood area, and on July 19, it knock out 35 enemy tanks

Here is the website based off the book:
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:12 pm

uksubs wrote:This is what I found out about the new wonder weapon the Pak 43

Without doubt one of the most famous – and feared – anti-tank weapons of World War II was the “German 88.” The 88mm Pak 43/41 was the anti-tank gun developed from the 88mm Flak anti-aircraft gun.

While the original Flak gun was pressed into service in the anti-tank role as a stop-gap measure that worked exceedingly well, a purpose-built anti-tank gun – the 8.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone (PaK) 43 and later 43/41 L/71 – was developed and put into production in 1943.

The original PaK 43 was a minimal departure from the Flak version:

So a P43 is just a 88 mm gun :lol: :wink:
That is absolutely correct but you could have looked this up the first time the PAK 43 (or PAK 88 as it was called many times) was mentioned , finally you understand how the Flak 88 was replaced

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:25 pm

NHoggard12 wrote:Is anyone familiar with a book called Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness by Niklas Zetterling?-great information.

From the text:
According to the British official history of the campaign in Normandy, most knocked-out British tanks fell victim to the German "long-range antitank guns, particularly 88's". This seems to be a statement made without any deeper research behind it. Instead, the available evidence suggests that German tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers were the main killers of Allied tanks.
From data found dating from the 29 June of the 21st panzer division, 8.8cm antitank guns destroyed 41 tanks, while their tanks destroyed 37.

Also, the Artillerie-Pak-Abteilung 1041 went into battle with 27 88's connected to the 17Luft-field division. In battle only 15 88's arrived.
The Arillerie-Pak-Abteilung 1039 had 27 88's operational in the Goodwood area, and on July 19, it knock out 35 enemy tanks

Here is the website based off the book:
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/index.html
Great info but one should note that those were PAK 88s not Flak 88s

Arillerie-Pak-Abteilung 1039
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normand ... rtpak.html


Arillerie-Pak-Abteilung 1041
http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normand ... rtpak.html

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:51 pm

demonclaw wrote:
uksubs wrote:This is what I found out about the new wonder weapon the Pak 43

Without doubt one of the most famous – and feared – anti-tank weapons of World War II was the “German 88.” The 88mm Pak 43/41 was the anti-tank gun developed from the 88mm Flak anti-aircraft gun.

While the original Flak gun was pressed into service in the anti-tank role as a stop-gap measure that worked exceedingly well, a purpose-built anti-tank gun – the 8.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone (PaK) 43 and later 43/41 L/71 – was developed and put into production in 1943.

The original PaK 43 was a minimal departure from the Flak version:

So a P43 is just a 88 mm gun :lol: :wink:
That is absolutely correct but you could have looked this up the first time the PAK 43 (or PAK 88 as it was called many times) was mentioned , finally you understand how the Flak 88 was replaced
It was replaced by a 88mm gun ok :roll: rofl

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 12:57 pm

uksubs wrote:
It was replaced by a 88mm gun ok :roll: rofl
I hope you understand that the whole discussion was about the use of the Flak 88 during 1944 , I also hope you understand that the PAK 43 used a different gun barrel than the flak cannons

NHoggard12
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:52 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

Post by NHoggard12 » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:03 pm

I see, then what unit carried the FLAK 88?

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:10 pm

NHoggard12 wrote:I see, then what unit carried the FLAK 88?
The 16. Luftwaffe-feld division

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:13 pm

demonclaw wrote:
uksubs wrote:
It was replaced by a 88mm gun ok :roll: rofl
I hope you understand that the whole discussion was about the use of the Flak 88 during 1944 , I also hope you understand that the PAK 43 used a different gun barrel than the flak cannons
The original PaK 43 was a minimal departure from the Flak version: :wink:

demonclaw
Sergeant
Sergeant
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 7:58 am

Post by demonclaw » Fri Dec 19, 2008 1:34 pm

uksubs wrote:
The original PaK 43 was a minimal departure from the Flak version: :wink:
Technically yes since they just modified the gun barrel but the mount is quite different


Image

Image

uksubs
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Officer - 2nd Lieutenant
Posts: 372
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:44 am

Post by uksubs » Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:49 pm

demonclaw wrote:
uksubs wrote:
The original PaK 43 was a minimal departure from the Flak version: :wink:
Technically yes since they just modified the gun barrel but the mount is quite different


Image

Image
Lets hope FOV make a PaK 43 in 1/32 , now that would be cool

Post Reply