88mm deck gun vs the wehrmacht's 88mm

Tonnage_Ace · 12-22-06, 12:42 AM

I know the guns were not the same weapon, they even used different ammunition. But does anyone know which was more powerful? I'm guessing the Navy's because they're shooting at ships, not tanks.

Letum · 12-22-06, 12:58 AM

Naval shell: 700m/s 13.7kg
Flack Shell: 820m/s 9kg

Naval Range: 12,350m
Flack Range 14,860m

The naval gun was less stable (obviously) and a little slower to reload. It fires a heavier shell at slower speed and not as far. It has more explosive power, but less armor piercing force.
The naval gun has no range finder unlike some of the flack guns. This limits its range futher.

http://uboat.net/technical/guns.htm
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/88mm.htm

MRV · 12-22-06, 06:21 AM

I wonder why some Flak-Versions of the 88 werent mounted on the Type IX's front deck *lol* I'd be worth a try and the piercing power won't be bad against a ships waterline.

LeafsFan · 12-22-06, 07:31 AM

Well the 105mm does pretty good, but to answer you question, perhaps the advanced optics on the 88mm FLAK is not compatible with atmospheres of pressure??

HB

Melonfish · 12-22-06, 07:52 AM

more likely that the barrels would have been much different.
remember one is used as a traditional shell thrower and is submersible.
the other is designed to lob shells as high as possible as fast as possible (hence why they used it for tanks) the rifling was probebly quite different too and i'm guessing the standard luftwaffe 88mm would need a serious refeit before it would be submersable. couldnt comment on the materials used mind.

one other issue is that because the luftwaffe 88 fires so fast it wouldnt be ideal for naval battles, in naval warfair you aim to drop rounds onto the deck of your opponant, you never aim for the hull (but do at the waterline) so the slower heavier shell of the naval gun would be ideal for this, whereas the faster lighter luft 88 would zing clean over the ship.

pete

MRV · 12-22-06, 08:08 AM

thx for explaining

hyperion2206 · 12-22-06, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melonfish

more likely that the barrels would have been much different.
remember one is used as a traditional shell thrower and is submersible.
the other is designed to lob shells as high as possible as fast as possible (hence why they used it for tanks) the rifling was probebly quite different too and i'm guessing the standard luftwaffe 88mm would need a serious refeit before it would be submersable. couldnt comment on the materials used mind.

one other issue is that because the luftwaffe 88 fires so fast it wouldnt be ideal for naval battles, in naval warfair you aim to drop rounds onto the deck of your opponant, you never aim for the hull (but do at the waterline) so the slower heavier shell of the naval gun would be ideal for this, whereas the faster lighter luft 88 would zing clean over the ship.

pete

The ammunition was different, so you could not fire naval ammunition from a flack 88. If you'd want to fire Flack shells you'd need a second 88 on your boat.

SilverGhost · 12-22-06, 10:59 AM

The dreaded and famed "88" of the land forces was an entirely different...and more powerful rifle.

It was used as anti-a/c and more famously, on the Tiger, and King Tiger tanks. The best the allied armor had was a 75mm and it usually took several Sherman tanks, for example, to defeat one Tiger tank. The German field 88mm was a truly awesome and deadly weapon...

tycho102 · 12-22-06, 04:04 PM

I would guess the naval 88 had more explosive in each shell. Land shells needed fragmention to kill infantry or airplanes, whereas on a sub, you wanted to ignite internal stores and otherwise de-comparmentalize a ship.

The warhead was probably considerably longer on a uboat, with a thin steel shell and lots of explosive. The AP rounds were probably closer to what was used on the flak version.

12-22-06, 12:42 AM	#1
Tonnage_Ace XO Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 411 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	88mm deck gun vs the wehrmacht's 88mm I know the guns were not the same weapon, they even used different ammunition. But does anyone know which was more powerful? I'm guessing the Navy's because they're shooting at ships, not tanks.

12-22-06, 04:04 PM	#9
tycho102 Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,100 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I would guess the naval 88 had more explosive in each shell. Land shells needed fragmention to kill infantry or airplanes, whereas on a sub, you wanted to ignite internal stores and otherwise de-comparmentalize a ship. The warhead was probably considerably longer on a uboat, with a thin steel shell and lots of explosive. The AP rounds were probably closer to what was used on the flak version. __________________ My little Silent Hunter 4 repository

12-22-06, 12:58 AM	#2
Letum Navy Seal Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: York - UK Posts: 6,079 Downloads: 43 Uploads: 0	Naval shell: 700m/s 13.7kg Flack Shell: 820m/s 9kg Naval Range: 12,350m Flack Range 14,860m The naval gun was less stable (obviously) and a little slower to reload. It fires a heavier shell at slower speed and not as far. It has more explosive power, but less armor piercing force. The naval gun has no range finder unlike some of the flack guns. This limits its range futher. http://uboat.net/technical/guns.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/articles/88mm.htm

12-22-06, 06:21 AM	#3
MRV Frogman Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 296 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 0	I wonder why some Flak-Versions of the 88 werent mounted on the Type IX's front deck lol I'd be worth a try and the piercing power won't be bad against a ships waterline.

12-22-06, 07:31 AM	#4
LeafsFan Watch Officer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Posts: 332 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	Well the 105mm does pretty good, but to answer you question, perhaps the advanced optics on the 88mm FLAK is not compatible with atmospheres of pressure?? HB

12-22-06, 07:52 AM	#5
Melonfish XO Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Warrington, UK Posts: 417 Downloads: 106 Uploads: 0	more likely that the barrels would have been much different. remember one is used as a traditional shell thrower and is submersible. the other is designed to lob shells as high as possible as fast as possible (hence why they used it for tanks) the rifling was probebly quite different too and i'm guessing the standard luftwaffe 88mm would need a serious refeit before it would be submersable. couldnt comment on the materials used mind. one other issue is that because the luftwaffe 88 fires so fast it wouldnt be ideal for naval battles, in naval warfair you aim to drop rounds onto the deck of your opponant, you never aim for the hull (but do at the waterline) so the slower heavier shell of the naval gun would be ideal for this, whereas the faster lighter luft 88 would zing clean over the ship. pete

12-22-06, 08:08 AM	#6
MRV Frogman Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 296 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 0	thx for explaining

12-22-06, 10:59 AM	#8
SilverGhost Electrician's Mate Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Melbourne, FL Posts: 131 Downloads: 39 Uploads: 0	The dreaded and famed "88" of the land forces was an entirely different...and more powerful rifle. It was used as anti-a/c and more famously, on the Tiger, and King Tiger tanks. The best the allied armor had was a 75mm and it usually took several Sherman tanks, for example, to defeat one Tiger tank. The German field 88mm was a truly awesome and deadly weapon...