Just because a vehicle shouldn’t doesn’t mean it can’t. Artillery pieces including Artillery tanks, a historical example the FLAK 8.8 truck, was meant to be for Anti Air however it started to get used to engage enemy KV-1 tanks as well with great effect, it’s not its job but it does it damn well just like the STUG Assault Guns not meant to kill tanks but does a good job at it. if forced to can be used to engage direct targets however it is not what it is designed for. Also, this is a video game. Do you think we give af? Sure we wouldn’t mind the idea of functional artillery however maps are just not big enough for it and most of us will prefer a spotter drone or in WW2->late Vietnam era, a spotter plane.
This would only give you the positioning as well as the elevation but you would still need to do some math to figure out your distance, you would also need to use the sight distance controls and adjust accordingly.
Actualy in this game there are few vehicles that are or were SPAGs like the low tier katusha truck or that premium HE spammer. Gajin was lazy when they made them and only way to use them is as a tank.
I think Flak 8.8 truck was never meant to actually be used against Air as primary. If im not wrong First batch was given to Heavy TD troops for bunker busting with some towed 88s and then they realized that towed ones were awful for that job while keeping truck mounted and improving them for bunker busting and TD duty.
Armor has nothing to do with this. Here is SU-100P self-propeled Anti-tank gun and it has even less armor then M109, but it is still meant to fight against tanks.
Also you have not explained how are you going to use your indirect fire artillery pieces in maps like Cologne, Alaska and Breslau.
And it has a low profile, not a high profile and it was a stupid thing with the Russian design and no armor protection and not a lot of main gun elevation and you can’t depress the gun very far you need to be on flat ground of corset that’s a Russian thing because all the Russian even in there modern tanks because all Russian modern tanks you can’t depress the gun very far you almost have to be on level ground to fire. Soviet experimental 100-mm self-propelled howitzer , and is designed by OKB-3 of the heavy machine construction division of Uralmash. And never went into battle
Cope more. Your idea is stupid and you should drop it.
Almost like TDs are meant to be light armored.
The Flak 88 truck was designed to primarily engage hostile aircraft however after the interaction with KV-1 tanks the Germans realized they did not have any cannons that could effectively kill the damn things. However some remembered the 88mm cannon, it wasn’t meant to fight tanks however as I previously stated ended up doing well to where it was utilized for more than just Anti Air.
Most vehicles in the game are assault guns like the STUH. Duke just doesn’t realize that not all Artillery pieces are meant for indirect fire a majority are not. It is a very small minority that was often for rapid insertion and tactical withdrawals.
I really would like to know where you get that 88 Flak trucks were for Anti-air use? Original 10 vehicles were all part of Panzerjäger-Abteilung 8 as a first company during invasion of Poland and Invasion of France where their primary targets were enemy bunkers. It was later formed into Panzerjäger-Kompanie 601. They were not part of organic Anti-air force that Panzerjäger units had, but were part of Tank destroyer force.
I dont have H.Doyle book about these vehicles, but I do have “History of Panzerjäger volume one” that has about these vehicles.
But Gaijin would make you start out using the artillery tables and a virtual slide rule.
Guns might have a direct fire capability, but no one designs their artillery, by hardware or doctrine, for going up to the front line and shooting directly at enemy troops since the late 19th century. Even “assault guns” spent the majority of their time providing indirect support.
1 Like
What? Assault guns are 100% meant for direct fire role and that is what they did most of the time. Where do you get that things like StuGs, Jumbo and SU-152s were used more for indirect fire. Stug is 100% most well know assault gun and original 7.5cm L24 had max range of 6.4km so good luck firing indirect fire with that.
It is even in the name “ASSAULT gun” They are meant to assist infantry by destroying pillboxes, bunkers and hardpoints using direct fire.
Huh neat. Just going off memory from reading a source which was a PDF I do not believe it exists anymore since the link I bookmarked is dead. Sadly. But from what it said, its primary job was anti-air duties given that they were given a time-fused shell. However, I’m gonna assume it was used in its secondary role more often than where it was swapped. Something around these lines.
Aside from that rather interesting reading what’s on the book you posted. Thanks. n_n
Yeah WOT artillery system is kinda busted, there’s just a few things though, scouting is required to be able to se an enemy target in Ground RB, and visual contact in Ground AB, and barely any definition in SB, so it think an indirect fire would work similar to the mortar system in enlisted, iykyk.
Go read some unit histories. Assault gun units didn’t spend all their time assaulting.
Pls share some of these your sources that tell Stug batteries firing indirect fire more then direct or Jumbos firing indirect fire. You’re the one stating that they fired more indirect fire so I guess you have to sources that support your claim?
You can’t afford to have me do your research for you and I don’t care what your opinion is.
Have you heard about burden of proof?
The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies
You are saying Assault tanks were used more in indirect role then direct so pls show the proof.
I already told you how to find out.
Okay this discussion is over then if you don’t want to show your proof.