So yes, the tactics is apt since no one should feel like their are not being overly protective of the equipment they have if they can sufficiently do something. So if a gun is designed specifically to lob shells at planes, some folks will think, hmm, it's really just an AA gun forgetting it's heart is a LARGE Calibur Gun first and foremost. Right, because there is a tendency with regards to roles and responsibilities to be literally functionally fixed with the equipment you have on hand. You have to defeat someone fearsome and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. The resource you post comes after the battle of France.Ĭooper definitely did exaggerate the German capability.

The role they were supposed to play would have been the same whichever branch Unlike 88's, they were always supposed to shoot ground targets so the move from shooting fortifications to shooting tanks wasn't a big jump. The STug comparison is bad since they were made artillery only because the panzer arm lacked the resources to handle them. If I had read a US Navy manual from 1939, would it have emphasized the carriers as being the primary weapons of the US fleet? Or actually to make an even better example, the US switching to carriers after Pearl Harbor, while they remained the bastard step children of the British Fleet where doctrine. Having fought two ever victorious campaigns at this point, why would they switch the guns? It's kind of like how Japanese subs and US subs were designed to attack naval assets, and despite both being perfectly capable of attacking shipping, the US were the only ones who did. Their weapons could also fight ground targets, but they didn't see that as their primary job. During the time you're talking about (the battle of France), the 88's were crewed by people who thought their mission was to engage air targets.

These are the first of your responses I find unconvincing.

World of tanks armageddon