Treadhead,

I think a group build is a fine thing.

Mika

A group build works for me, too.

outstanding photos never knew that the soviets had a rr gun but I shouldnt be suprised though all kind of info is coming out since the wall fell....larry

Howdy guys,

Thx Madmeex and Tony, for posting your interest. As I said, Group Build or Campaign, makes no never mind to me, I just want to share model building with all of you gentlemen!
That's all. I get my kicks from the 'sharing' part of the dance!
But, on the realistic side of things, I think we need at least 10 people for a GB. So, we'll have to see who want's to participate. Maybe I'll give Heavy Arty a PM and let him know about this and see if he would interested as well.
With any luck, another seven (7) members will 'chime' in!

Tread.

(heck, I may start an 'Arty' piece right now just to take the 'edge' off of my peaked interest!)
#:-) #:-) #:-)

Am I crazy ? to answer my own question, Yes! I would like to enter the fray. Let see that would mean I would be in 3 builds from this site, plus one from another site. Why not!
Count me in gents, I'm game.

Cheers,
Garry
P. S. That is if you dont mind having a Swabbie onboard.

To 'Treadhead' about his pic of the atomic cannon. If that's a 15K round exploding, wouldn't the gun crew get fried?

:-) Hi Biggles. That pic is an actual archival photograph taken from the (now) declassified records of the time. If I remember correctly, I believe that the epicenter of the nuclear artillery rounds impact to the gun itself was 20 miles!
I'm pretty sure(?) that's enough.....

Tread.

Actually, your question is a legitimate one. I just recently told the story of a seaman who stood on the deck of a seaplane tender during the atomic explosion at Bikini....he was also told it was OK to view the explosion itself.....six months later, he was blind.

Now here would be an interesting kit bash.....

This is the Soviet TOR-M1short-range Air Defense Missile System. It is designed to address med-low and very-low aerieal targets, including UAV's.

Tread.

Is that a T-72 under there?

"As IF" we don't have enought to do........ #:-) #:-) #:-) #:-) #:-) #:-) #:-)

AA arty, "intended for direct fire"would fall out of this category then too! Or wouldn't it? They also used 88's for indirect fire.......

Golikell,

I don't know what the final parameters of the Arty GB are going to be, but the discussion revolved around "indirect fire at ground targets" to sum it up. So, yes, AA pieces would be left out of the running, but would allow self-propelled varieties.

Was the 88 actually used in an indirect fire role? I'd heard of this as anecdotal, but haven't ever read anything directly in support of it.

Mika

golikel,

the 88 was indeed used as an indirect fire weapon, and was rather effective in the role.

likewize the British 3.7' AA gun (superior to the 88) was never used as an anti tank weapon like the 88 was, but once put ashore on the nomandy beachheads, was used almost exclusively to bombard ground targets, due allied air superiority

would that be allowed in the build?

cheers

joe

Hooking up on the comment about the 3.7"aa, bot hthe Brits and the Russians had a gun similar to the '88 in their arsenals. Yet they are not particularly renown fro their AT usage! To me this eems rather odd. I mean, I I would have had any saying about this I certainly would have pushed for the production of AP shots for these weapons and shoot those Kraut tanks to the junkyard! Does anyone of you know if ther's any official phylosophy about this?

Of course this is not actual evidence but in Band of Brothers (Taistelutoverit) they have a few 88s shooting what seems like indirect fire in Normandy. I believe they are hammering the beach(es) with them until Easy company takes them out. (that might make a nice diorama btw.) Band of Brothers seems to be pretty accurate about things so maybe it could serve as "further evidence".

If self propelled AA pieces are allowed (aren't they still direct fire?) I might have a go with a Möbelwagen. What I'd really like to have for this is a Finnish 130 mm coastal gun kit but I guess that's just a fool's dream for a marginal audience.

druid,

I was referring to self-propelled artillery pieces, such as the Hummel, SU-76, Paladin, AS-90, etc. Since pretty much all artillery pieces are capable of direct fire, it's use isn't the distinguishing characteristic in the group build, but rather was it capable of indirect fire (with any degree of efficiency)

Mika

Duh! Of course! Thanks for clearing that up.

I am in agreement (essentially) with MadMeex on the discriptive parameters regarding 'Artillery'. And I have basically paraphrased that discription on another thread.
(thx MadMeex ).

Tread.

well the only thing i can think of is the rigid structure and sometimes curious tactical doctrine of the british forces prevented it being used for anything other than AA.

by all accounts the 3.7 was superior to the 88 in all respects, except it was much larger and heavier. with my desk ruler 3.7' works out about 94mm, so it had a bigger shell. it was more complex and bulky also





cheers

joe

Complex indeed! It almost looks as if there is a complete steamengine buidl aorund it!
I would take quite some time to deploy a gun like this!

To continue evidence for 88 indirect fire, I remember reading an autobiography called 'Combat Camerman' about 35 years ago. It's about (of all things!!) a combat photographer during WWll. Most of his work was done from B-24's and 17's during bombing raids, but he was also on the ground in Normandy. One of his anecdotes was about the unit he was attached to was held up at a particular cross-roads. The Germans had the co-ordinates plotted and were firing 88 HE rounds every 30 or so seconds making it extremely difficult to cross. The gun, or guns, were firing from out of site.