The German 88 is quite famous for its use as an anti-tank gun and there is often the question why the allies did not use their quite comparable designs as AT as well.
To tackle this problem i would put forward a two-pronged approach.
1) The 88 had a few design features (the cruciform platform that could depress to +85° and -3°, the lower mass, the semi-automatic breach, the zielfernrohr 20 and special AT-ammunition) that made it better suited to AT work.
This could be tackled by a tech 'Adopt AA for AT use' with a minimal rise in production cost.
2) Doctrinal reasons: Allied AA, especially on the Western Front, was back, far back and the crew were simply not trained at AT work. German crews were trained in AA, AT and artillery work (the 88 could reach out to 14860 m) while officers were aware that they could and were allowed to use them as AT.
This i would tackle as a part of the Land Doctrine tree.
To tackle this problem i would put forward a two-pronged approach.
1) The 88 had a few design features (the cruciform platform that could depress to +85° and -3°, the lower mass, the semi-automatic breach, the zielfernrohr 20 and special AT-ammunition) that made it better suited to AT work.
This could be tackled by a tech 'Adopt AA for AT use' with a minimal rise in production cost.
2) Doctrinal reasons: Allied AA, especially on the Western Front, was back, far back and the crew were simply not trained at AT work. German crews were trained in AA, AT and artillery work (the 88 could reach out to 14860 m) while officers were aware that they could and were allowed to use them as AT.
This i would tackle as a part of the Land Doctrine tree.
- 3
- 1