Flak 36 AAA From Hell

[Habu_69]

Reviewing events following a mission recently I found that a Flak 36 AAA gun had engaged and sunk a nearby enemy naval destroyer. Does not seem plausible.

[NeilWillis]

And yet there are many documented cases during WW2 where ships were sunk purely by aircraft cannon fire. They're definitely not invulnerable to even 20mm fire.

 

Clearly the destroyer captain needed to withdraw further out to sea out of range of the offending flak 36.

[Habu_69]

And yet there are many documented cases during WW2 where ships were sunk purely by aircraft cannon fire. They're definitely not invulnerable to even 20mm fire.

 

Clearly the destroyer captain needed to withdraw further out to sea out of range of the offending flak 36.

 

Sure, but can a Flak 36 even train its muzzle low enough to fire on a surface object? and 2. Are Flak projectiles or fragments able to penetrate ship armor?

[Pikey]

 

Most arty and AAA has a "direct fire mode" to this day. Would be crazy not to provide it, it's a weapon, they get used in unusual ways always during times of life or death.

[Silvern]

8.8 cm Flak was just as often used against ground targets as it was used against air targets.

 

There were many cases in early war, where Germans specifically brought 8.8 cm Flak to the front, to deal with heavily armoured enemy tanks, because their regular AT guns were unable to penetrate the opposing tanks at longer ranges.

 

Tiger I's gun was also a repurposed 8.8. Flak gun.

 

So yes, these guns are more than capable of dealing with ground targets and it is historically accurate for them to do so.

 

 

Also, against what type of ship did you use it in the mission? :)

[Silver_Dragon]

Flak-36 use 88mm HE shell on AAA fire (unkonow if AP round has been modeled). Remember the 88 was used on WW2 as anti-armour batteries with AP round vs tanks

 

The modern FFG and CGs has no armour as a WW2 Light or Heavy Cruiser, only light armour cover some zones as 19mm Kevlar on command zone on O.H. Perrys or control and machinery on the Ticonderoga CGs (to defeat small arms fire)

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=780

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/27855/why-did-navies-abandon-armour/27859

 

Actually the naval guns calibre has 76-155, a 88 mm enter into that category.

[Tobi1304]

Well, the Flak 36 is the mighty Eighty-Eight Gun, the famos 8,8cm gun. That gun ja absolutely able to penetrante and sink a destroyer.

And even a 3,7cm or 2cm gun could be able to penetrate as an destroyer of the Fletcher-Class for example had a maximum armor of 19mm. But I don’t think they would be enough to sink it.

And yes, they were able to aim downwards for some degrees, as an airplane could fly deeper than the position the AA-Gun ist positioned (Hills) or, and far more important, to use them against targets on the ground.

[Pikey]

88 also on the Subs of that era. If we think about that, HE at the command structures and AP at the waterline for destroyers and below was fairly reasonable, albeit can take a few rounds and wasn't quick unless very lucky. Causing a fire could put out other larger ships too, really there was plenty of reason to shoot at anything.

[Habu_69]

Tx everyone for info. Guess I need to keep friendly forces clear of those deadly Flak 36's.