I would go with the 88, just because of it’s many uses
Yes it is Il Duce, It was practically used on every front and protected the fatherland for a long time untill we, as in the allies, found a way around it
Well, in every war, isnt it the quality and number of the soldiers and the cunning of the generals?
Yea but if their technology is WAY behind then their in deep crap
No idea how many victims the 88 FlaK claimed in the air, or on the ground, but it must have been immense, a more deadly piece of equipment is hard to find, and the PaK 43 continued the carnage.
By all accounts it wasn’t quite as powerful as it’s British and American counterparts, so it’s hard to understand why the Brits never used the similar 3.7cm gun in North Africa as the Germans did with devastating effect in the flat desert landscape.
Brits just kept them for [at times non existent] AA work.
They eventually got a good gun in the 17 pounders, but the 3.7’s might have been put to better use earlier.
Field Artillery: The King of Battle
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/fa.htm
The history of the United States Field Artillery began in 1775, when Henry Knox was appointed Chief of Artillery of the Continental Army. During the War of Independence, the Field Artillery evolved into a formidable entity on the battlefield, prompting General Marquis de Lafayette to remark at the Battle of Yorktown, “Upon my honor I speak the truth. American Artillery – one of the wonders of the Revolution.” During the Revolutionary War, the Colonies’ artillery, under the command of Alexander Hamilton, performed greatly at the Battle of Trenton, and the skill of American gunners forced the British to siege trenches at Yorktown.
Throughout the early years of the country, artillerymen were considered the Army’s elite. Their pay was above the rate for infantrymen and even the cavalry. In 1784, when all of the Army was abolished except for a single detachment of 80 men to guard government stores, those men were artillerymen. Thus the artillery is the only part of the Army which has been in continuous service since the revolution.
During the Mexican War, the Field Artillery played a key role in campaigns that ranged from the Battle of Palo Alto to Mexico City. In fact, the nickname, “Redlegs”, comes from that era when artillery uniforms had a 2-inch red stripe on their trousers and horse artillery men wore red canvas leggings.
The Field Artillery was also a dominant force in many of the Civil War battlefields. Leading artillerymen who became combined arms leaders included Joseph Hooker, Braxton Bragg, William T. Sherman, A.P. Hill, and Stonewall Jackson.
In 1907 the Field Artillery became a separate branch after parting ways with the Coast Artillery. The Field Artillery and the Coast Artillery were each organized with specific missions obvious from their names, and during World War I the Coast Artillery was given the additional job of developing railroad-mounted and antiaircraft artillery pieces.
[b]During WWI the Field Artillery became one of the most dominant forces in the trench warfare of France. It emerged from the “war to end all wars” as the greatest killer on the battlefield, responsible for 75% of all combat casualties.
Throughout World War II, in Europe, Africa and the Pacific, the Field Artillery once again proved a decisive factor causing America’s great combined arms leader, General George S. Patton, to observe, “I do not need to tell you who won the war. You know, the Artillery did.” [/b]
Development of bigger and better guns and vastly improved field artillery tactics and techniques for using them was rapid with the onset of World War II. By the end of the war, artillery firepower had grown beyond all dimensions previously known to man. During this war, new weapons were developed which were to revolutionize our concept of war - guided missiles, radar, and nuclear weapons.
An interesting comparison of the German and U.S. Armies in the Autumn of 1944 from the book “Lorraine 1944 Patton vs Manteuffel” by Steven J. Zaloga (Osprey, 2000, pp 19-30)
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=73555&postcount=1
Nevertheless, US infantry formations often enjoyed significant firepower advantages over their German opponents. What the squad and platoon lacked in organic firepower was made up in artillery support. While German and American artillery divisions had similar artillery strength on paper, in reality the US divisions were more likely to actually have their establishment of weapons and more often had adequate ammunition supplies. However, the real advantage in infantry combat was communications, especially in mobile operations. The US infantry had far better and more lavish radio equipment than the Germans. At platoon level, the US Army used the SCR-536 “handie-talkie”, a small hand-held AM transceiver. At company level, they used the man-pack SCR-300 “walkie-talkie” FM transceiver to communicate with the battalion and higher headquarters. The German Army had no platoon radios, and their older AM man-pack radios were deployed no lower than at company level. The widespread use of dependable radios meant that US infantry could call for fire support during mobile offensive operations much more easily than their German counterparts.
The US Army deployed better communication equipment, and it was more widely distributed. The SCR-536 was a small hand-held originally designed for paratrooper use. The US Army was the only force in World War II to use radios such as this widely at platoon level. This assisted in coordinating fire support, such as the 60mm mortar seen here in action near Perriers-en-Beaufice on 12 August 1944.
In another important tactical innovation, the US Army in Europe regularly deployed an artillery forward observer team with forward infantry companies. The officer was equipped with a man-portable radio linked to the artillery net, and was assigned both to call in and to correct fire. American units in key sectors also enjoyed the added firepower of corps artillery, and infantry divisions often had additional artillery battalions allotted to their support for special missions. US infantry also had better armored support, often having a tank battalion and tank destroyer battalion added to each division.
The German infantry tended to hold a disparaging view of American infantry, judging them to be less aggressive in close-combat tactics. This was in part a reflection of the stagnation in German infantry tactics. Experienced US infantry units, painfully aware of their firepower shortcomings when up against German infantry squads, were perfectly happy to use the killing power of artillery when it was available instead of suffering needless casualties. This difference in outlook was in part a cultural clash: the pragmatism of the GI versus the romantic fighting spirit of the German Landser (fighting man)…
…If there was one combat arm in which the US Army had unquestioned superiority over the Wehrmacht, it was the artillery. This was not simply a question of quantity. The US field artillery battalions were more modern than their German counterparts in nearly all respects. While their cannon were not significantly different in capability, the US field artillery battalions were entirely motorized, while German field artillery, especially infantry division units, was still horse-drawn. US heavy artillery was mechanized, using fully tracked high-speed tractors. The high level of motorization provided mobility for the batteries, and also ensured supply.
The US field artillery also enjoyed a broader and more modern assortment of communication equipment. Another US innovation was the fire direction center (FDC). Located at battalion, division, and corps level, the FDC concentrated the analog computers and other calculation devices alongside the communication equipment, permitting prompt receipt of messages and prompt calculation of fire missions. This level of communication allowed new tactics, the most lethal of which was TOT or “time-on-target.” Field artillery is most effective when the first few rounds catch the enemy out in the open. Once the first few rounds have landed, enemy troops take cover, and the rate of casualties to subsequent fire declines dramatically. The aim of TOT was to deliver the fire on the target simultaneously, even from separate batteries. TOT fire missions were more lethal and more economical of ammunition than traditional staggered fire-strikes, and effective communication meant that the batteries could switch targets rapidly as well.
In the British military tradition, at least as we’ve inherited it down here, the artillery has long been referred to as the Queen of the Battlefield. I don’t know that either of the other arms was ever referred to as the king of the battlefield.
It might have been derived from chess, where the queen is the most powerful piece on the board and is suggested to have derived her increased powers over the original game from the development of artillery. Given that the king in chess is the least useful attacking piece on the board and has to be protected all the time, it would make sense that no other arm in the army is referred to as the king of the battlefield.
Raymond Keene, in Chess: An Illustrated History, notes an increased mobility in chess in the late fifteenth-century, which he suggests is caused by three factors: 1. castling was introduced; 2. pawns became able to move two squares on the opening move rather than one; 3. and the queen, as mentioned earlier, emerged from the earlier Persian vizier and became the most powerful piece on the board, able to move an unlimited number of squares horizontally, vertically or diagonally. Keene views this last as “mirroring the contemporary introduction of artillery, as a long-range means of molesting the opposition, in the sphere of battlefield technology” (p.24).
Marilyn Yalom, in Birth of the Chess Queen: A History, has a different explanation, however. She suggests that the emergence of the queen piece in chess as the most powerful piece on the board today paralleled the rise of powerful women in myriad royal courts of medieval Europe. In contemporary times, she asserts, the chess queen has become “the quintessential metaphor for female power in the Western world”.
Keene disagrees. According to him, these sudden shifts “must be explicable in terms of the overall Renaissance dynamic — the increasingly urgent perception of distance, space and perspective which distinguished that period of human intellectual development”. The queen’s new power specifically reflected the introduction of siege artillery at Constantinople in 1453 and “had nothing to do with the example of powerful, warlike females such as Joan of Arc or Elizabeth I” (p.32).
Yalom’s argument is perhaps more compelling. Even if siege artillery was an important factor to be absorbed in this war model, why was it the queen that was granted the additional powers? Put another way, why was the most fearsome war technology in history gendered female when introduced into chess?
http://www.sportswebconsulting.ca/sportsbabel/2006/03/the-chess-queen.htm
Tanks of AFVs?
Pursuing the chess argument, they could qualify like the chess king as being unwilling to advance without the queen’s protection at times, and unwilling to advance against the enemy queen. For example, often rather timid in the bocage in Normandy in 1944 and in the jungle in Vietnam.
Yes, I am aware that in the game of chess, the queen is the most powerful piece.
Artillery may be referred to as the “queen of the battlefield” in British military tradition.
But in American military tradition it appears that the field artillery is referred to as the “King of Battle”
Note: the title was “King of Battle” - not “King of the Battlefield”.
Jargon Database.com
Army
http://www.jargondatabase.com/SubCat.aspx?id=44
King of Battle
Artillery
http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1380
Queen of Battles
Artillery.
http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1337
Urban Dictionary: king of battle
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=king+of+battle
the strongest person in the game.
Field Artillery: The King of Battle
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/fa.htm
FIELD ARTILLERY KING OF BATTLE
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fieldartillery/message/1024
Welcome to the Field Artillery website!
KING OF BATTLE!
http://www.branchorientation.com/fieldartillery/
King Of Battle
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/cadence/marching_cadence/king-of-battle.shtml
King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army’s Field Artillery by Boyd L. Dastrup
The Public Historian, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 154-155 (review consists of 2 pages)
Published by: University of California Press
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3377982
DASTRUP, BOYD L. King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army’s Field Artillery
Washington, Office of the Command Historian. 1992, First Printing. Soft Cover, 4to - over 9¾" - 12" tall. VG+, wraps with card covers. White cover with black text. ROTC sticker inside front cover. Few light cover smudges, internally clean and tight. Letter from Malone, Chief Historian enclosed; o CMH Pub 70-27. xii, 381 pages; 25 cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. 319-356) and index. Very Good +.
http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/ver/026513.shtml
Field Artillery The King of Battle
http://www.lotsasites.com/topic?topic=artillery
‘King of Battle’ still reigns
by Spc. John Crosby
115th MPAD
http://rosemarysthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/king-of-battle-still-reigns.html
‘King of Battle’ Thunders in Afghanistan
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/may2005/a052005wm1.html
U.S. Marines in Japan
http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/public%20affairs%20info/Archive%20News%20pages/2007/070427-king.html
Forward observers act as eyes for ‘King of Battle’
Cpl. Warren PeaceCAMP FUJI, Japan (April 27, 2007) – Dictionary.com defines indirect fire as “fire delivered on a target that is not itself used as the point of aim for the weapons.” But that definition is not completely accurate. Modern mortarmen and artillerymen always have eyes on their targets. They are called forward observers, and they are the first piece of a complex puzzle that comes together to form the “King of Battle.” …
“King of Battle” advanced google search - 19,100 results ( 5 June 2008 )
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=“king+of+battle”&btnG=Search