Uhhh yeah one is bigger and longer while the other is shorter and tiniyer
@riflemandod1975
2 ай бұрын
estute observation
@user-yr5ee9vm9e
10 ай бұрын
the 88 shell looks like a 375 HH without the belt and almost 4 ft long
@raycaster4398
10 ай бұрын
Good booms, Rick. That 88 a beast.
@user-yn3wp2ux7w
9 ай бұрын
75 мм небольшое и такое же смертоносное... ставлю выше 88 75 mm is small and just as deadly... I put it above 88
@user-vg2mv2yu3u
8 ай бұрын
88㍉威力・破壊力が断然違う❗️
@zhuangsaur227
2 ай бұрын
In either case .... pretty sure it would not be pleasant to be struck by any AT gun and lest be penetration spalling concussion to name a few with multiple firings before the AFV can even zero in the main gun
@patrickperisse2523
4 ай бұрын
The pak 43 ...a really lethal weapon !! 👍👍👍👍
@tur2-021
10 ай бұрын
More videos like this!
@christopheglachet5760
9 ай бұрын
168mm de blindage sous un angle de 300 à 1000m pour le PAK 43..
@magyarlegacy
9 ай бұрын
I see a Wirbelwind at 1:11
@user-yr5ee9vm9e
10 ай бұрын
Great Vid 8.8 is just a bad A round... high velocity
@jamistyk2538
10 ай бұрын
Awesome Rick!😊😊😊
@markusram8715
10 ай бұрын
Top 👍👍👍
@kevinyaucheekin1319
10 ай бұрын
👍 😊
@user-fe4ft4rz9t
8 ай бұрын
불쌍한 M-4 셔먼찡 ㅋㅋ 테스트 당하고 있음 ㅋㅋ
@kurtschulmeyer1041
10 ай бұрын
Pakistan 43 wins in sheer power; Pakistan 40 wins in range.
@bobusamogus
9 ай бұрын
bro wdym pakistan
@kurtschulmeyer1041
9 ай бұрын
@@bobusamogus auto correct
@WorldofColnago
9 ай бұрын
Panzerabwehrkanone: -P-anzer-a-bwehr-k-anone
@niceyoureadmycomment323
9 ай бұрын
PAKISTAN #1 🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰
@Alex-bm4vp
9 ай бұрын
Super Video
@hectorbeserra7126
9 ай бұрын
CARAJO LOS PARTIA AL MEDIO A LOS SHERMAN
@rezaknoufal1049
10 ай бұрын
❤❤
@ralfgoldbach7074
10 ай бұрын
👍🙋♂️
@ztp2130
8 ай бұрын
Is this from a video game? The graphics and realism are incredible.
@RickGamer123
8 ай бұрын
Yes. The game is Call to arms Gates of hell.
@ztp2130
8 ай бұрын
@@RickGamer123 Awesome. Thanks! Going to get a copy. 🙂
@dimkanevidimka.
10 ай бұрын
Где пак 38(
@10Man90
Ай бұрын
What Game is this from ?
@RickGamer123
Ай бұрын
Game - Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront
@DonP1tudo
8 ай бұрын
if tanks dont shoot yeah... they are a great cannons
@erwinsell184
6 ай бұрын
M4 75 and even 76 mm guns were far out range by these 88 guns unless they get close enough to reach it ,the pak 43 could take out far longer and more precise and accurate as pak 43 accuracy and fire ranger were far superior to those used in M4 guns ,The m4 could not even be compared with the oldest Flak 36 88 mm used as AT gun ,read about in the Africa campaing when first used against the German older 88 mm guns .no chances in range ,accuracy and fire rate, plus penetration and payload power . Of course once get closer even an M3 light tank could destroy the AT gun . At gun are meant to take tanks at longer ranges primarily and in ambush mode as crew are exposed open behind it and armor protection is not as thick as tanks .
@DonP1tudo
6 ай бұрын
@@erwinsell184 tranquilo, trancuilo como dicen ellos
@PhongThanhLuu-yn8zb
8 ай бұрын
Pak43😊
@clashericco
3 ай бұрын
What is this map?
@RickGamer123
3 ай бұрын
Just an empty map.
@clashericco
3 ай бұрын
@@RickGamer123 Was it filmed in editor mode?
@infantryattacks
9 ай бұрын
Losses of German towed antitank weapons and crews were incredibly high. The actual 75mm and 88mm antitank guns were very effective when fired from ambush positions behind the German HKL, or main battle position, but this tactic enabled Soviet tanks to overrun the forwardmost German infantry positions with little opposition. Unfortunately for Germany, it produced too few antitank guns and lost them faster than they could be replaced. Finally, losses in 88mm antitank guns due to the inability of the mostly underpowered and two-wheeled drive German prime movers to rapidly displace the guns or to tow to safety during withdrawal actions, especially during the muddy seasons, led to the abandonment of many weapon systems, some of which were used by the Red Army against the Germans. A cursory reading of the two-volume work, TIGERS IN COMBAT, shows numerous Tigers were knocked out by the Red Army using captured 88mm antitank guns. Yes, the 88mm antitank gun had a powerful punch, but its size and weight were limiting factors on its effective use in combat.
@dinhduy3110
9 ай бұрын
can 88 destroy T54 or T72?
@sztypettto
9 ай бұрын
Likely no with historical shells. Can severely damage it at short ranges. But the T-54 and T-72 were armoured in a post-WW2 way such that regular APCBC and similar shells are unable to penetrate it. That's why Sabot and shaped charged munitions became a feature post-WW2. So maybe a custom shape charged sabot or HEAT round in a 88 could knock out a T-54 and T-72.
@christopheglachet5760
9 ай бұрын
Peut-être avec une pointe en tungstène..
@filipmisko9363
8 ай бұрын
t 54 from the front with the PZGR 39/43 shell can be penetrated at very short distances of 100-200 m and only the turret with a lucky hit, PZGR 40/43 similarly but at 500 m. t72 from the front has no chance even in weakened zones. apart from the effectiveness of APBCBHE and APCR poics in penetrating multi-layer armor, the pitch would have to be able to penetrate twice as much (assuming t72a. with t72b mod89 even three times)
@JaHail-oy6vq
4 ай бұрын
Pak44 can (128mm)
@slavianskiy
9 ай бұрын
In real combat, these guns would have been able to fire 1-2 shots before the tanks settled them and destroyed them.
@duke6389
9 ай бұрын
In real combat, the tanks would have been shot down before they were even within range of their own guns. the PaK has a significantly longer range and is absolutely deadly for the Shermans
@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289
9 ай бұрын
In real combat, it would depend where the guns were hidden. Anti-tank guns are far more concealable than tanks, and the PaK 43 and PaK 40 both had muzzle-brakes which reduced their muzzle flash as well. Depending on how well they were hidden and how well drilled the crew is they could easily get off even more shots before their target knows where they are. The majority of Sherman losses were due to anti-tank guns.
@kalicom2937
9 ай бұрын
@@duke6389 In real combat the tanks would fire HE and kill the gun crew very quickly - there is no armour to penetrate. Or they would stop the attack, call in artillery support and get the same effect. The British were well known for calling in artillery support when they met significant resistance, I am sure the Americans were the same.
@kalicom2937
9 ай бұрын
@@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289The video does not have the guns in concealment, they are in the open. As are the tanks. In North Africa the German tank crews placed a premium on killing anti-tank guns and many of the British weapons of the time were more than capable of taking out German armour at the time. i.e. tanks kill anti-tank guns with HE if said guns can be spotted. Like they are in this video.
@duke6321
9 ай бұрын
@@kalicom2937You forget that a PaK, which was used as an ambush against advancing tanks or convoys of vehicles, would not have been parked in the open field and uncamouflaged. It is also known that the effective range of these guns was much higher than that of the Sherman and T34 guns. At long distances, camouflaged ambush positions are very difficult to detect. The advantage on the side was the camouflaged PaK (low silhouette and often also slightly buried or behind a protective wall. The enemy tank had to be able to detect the firing position even with HE and then be able to aim and hit very accurately. It was not for nothing that artillery support was often waited for in order to be able to attack over a large area, because they did not know exactly where the firing position was. This effort is not only a time-consuming affair, but also logistical.
Пікірлер: 63