P-38 or Mosquito?

Which was better?

  • Total voters
    116

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

You didn't know the 88 had air burst!?!
Of course they did. You've never seen it!? Jesus christ there's footage of it, and yes they used timed charges to DEADLY effect.
 
plan_D said:
You didn't know the 88 had air burst!?!
Of course they did. You've never seen it!? Jesus christ there's footage of it, and yes they used timed charges to DEADLY effect.
Click to expand...

No I've never seen footage of the 88 using airburst shells against ground targets. Where can this footage be seen?

Do you realize the precision needed to cause an effective airburst using timed fuses? And the number of variables involved in setting that timed fuse? I really doubt this was done, the dial on the fuse simply does not graduate that precisely, and I don't think the mechanism was accurate to within less than a millisecond anyway.

I believe the first use of airburst artillery was at the Battle of the Bulge, where the VT fuse was used to burst the shells approximately 20 feet above the ground.

=S=

Lunatic
 
It was used by the 88 in Africa, Russia, Europe and Italy. I cannot believe you didn't know. I've seen the footage on TV, but I'll try and find it on the internet.

Do you know how much death this 'useless' timed fuse caused!?!
 
plan_D said:
It was used by the 88 in Africa, Russia, Europe and Italy. I cannot believe you didn't know. I've seen the footage on TV, but I'll try and find it on the internet.

Do you know how much death this 'useless' timed fuse caused!?!
Click to expand...


Well, try to find it. I can see such a thing on a howitzer round, since it is arced and thus timing it would require less precision. But on a flat trajectory 88 mm? Only if the target area were particularly wide could this be effective.

If it was used, it would have been because there was simply no other way to put the 88's on the target. The flat trajectory may have made it impossible to attack dug in positions with direct fire, so they may have set the FLAK fuse and fired them over the target positions. But this would hardly have been an efficient way to use 88's.

=S=

Lunatic
 
Exactly why would this be ineffective use of the 88 against troops on open ground, though? Shrapnel is extremely effective, and has been used for centuries. Since before the Napoleonic Wars (Even during that, the British Army used it to deadly effect).
 

Because there is no way to precisely control where the airburst is going to happen. Effectiveness diminishes with the cube of the distance from the target beyond the burst radius (size of the HE expansion, about 1000 fold its pre-detonation volume).
 
When there's a lot of people out in open plain, these things can be pretty lethal. As they were.
 
hi RG
I can only say what my father told me and he is not prone to telling lies as for effectiveness against ground troops I thought that multiple small projectiles against soft targets is the norm even now eg: cluster bombs, Claymore mines (which is an up dated version of the WWII shue mine ). if air bursts where so ineffective why did AA guns employ them so widely
I always believed that only air bursts where employed over 10.000 ft by the 88,s and the British 4.5inch QF AA as lighter weapons such as the Orlikon and Bofors lacked the effective range.
 
While they were over looking Foy, air burst was used on the 101st lads.
Trackend, your father certainly is not wrong, or lying, air burst was used to great effect against troops on open ground. FlaK is generally air burst, and I believe the British AA was 3.7 inch but I may be wrong.
 
Ive seen video of airbursting 88's pretty wild stuff! I remember when I saw the video I tried to find out some information on the shell and all that was ever said was that it was simply timed. I figured thats all they really could do anyway as they didnt have proximity fuses.

They probably had some good tables and a bit of trial and error to get some rounds where they wanted it, but it still was very effective.
 
Sorry Plan D you are quite right it was the 3.7 . I was getting all navy-fide when I put down 4.5 Out of interest I don't know if you've been to Duxford and seen the post war twin barrelled 3.7 AA prototype on display there it's got two massive rotary auto feeds and the designed rate of fire was fantastic.
RG me old china I believe you are not totally correct in describing the 88 as a flat trajectory weapon as all explosive propelled projectiles are subject to the force of gravity, thus the reason for elevation of the barrel and taken to its conclusion as the 88 started life as an AA gun the possible arc of fire was even higher than that of a Howitzer assuming of course the gun is on its original AA mount and you had a very good spotter or very big range finder

PS love the pic of the Bear Lightning Plan D (my favorite jet of any period)
 
No, I have never been to Duxford I would certainly like to go some time though. It sounds like an interesting idea, auto-AA cannon with such a huge calibre.
The US tried to design an auto-cannon 75mm for their Sherman, but proved too complicated and big.

A good point on the FlaK 18 36 88mm. It was a remarkable weapon used as an Anti-aircraft cannon, Anti-tank cannon, Anti-personel cannon and an artillery piece. In fact, those guns at Brecourt Manor that were pounding Utah beach on D-Day were no other than 105mm AA cannon, resembling the 88 but just larger in calibre.

And the Lightning is my favourite plane of all time. My dad served with them in 11 Sqn. during the Cold War.
 
RG_Lunatic said:
[

No I've never seen footage of the 88 using air burst shells against ground targets.
Click to expand...
The 88 was used against ground troops in WW2 using air-burst shells. I've read numerous accounts of the fact in British accounts of the fighting in the Desert and Italy.
In fact during the Italian Campaign the British also used their 3.7 inch AA guns in the direct fire mode using air burst shells.
 
How could you consider the Spitfire a good interceptor compared to the Lightning. Taking into account their time period, the Spitfire wasn't far ahead of its time. The Lightning was a 1947 design that lasted until 1988, first being put into service in 1960.

The Lightning was a far advanced aircraft, that was untouched by anything for decades. The Spitfire was not.
 
ten i ask you, wasnt the Go-229 far its time ahead? it wasnt in mass production only cuz germany lost the war. but that but that still doesnt make that plane less advanced or a less good plane.
what i want to say is, its not only the design that counts.
 
The existence of the Go-229 as a design has something to do with comparing the Lightning to the Spitfire, how?

The Lightning was not just a design, it existed. See that thing in my sig, escorting a Tu-95 'Bear' ...THAT'S A LIGHTNING!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
Replies
4
Views
246
Snautzer01
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, or F-35
Replies
5
Views
1K
FLYBOYJ
  • Locked
  • Poll
P-51 vs P-47
Replies
1
Views
1K
FLYBOYJ
C
  • Poll
How did you read your last aviation or history book
Replies
8
Views
2K
Glider
G
Menu
Log in
Register