Ya got a source for that? I have many WW2 era flak crew handbooks, and i havent heard them getting used for indirect fire missions.
There is cases i know of, where tanks were used. But the Flak 88, or the Vomag truck specifically? No.
3 Likes
From what I know it was used against fortifications and even soft targets but mostly with direct fire. No? Or at least shooting with a very shallow arc.
I have never ever heard of using heavy AA guns as mortars by lobbing shells far into the sky. So Iâm very baffled as from what I see most ppl seem to take it as granted.
I donât question that.
But there is a difference between emergency procedures and simply using a gun âwrongâ.
1 Like
as long something is possible, its not wrong. even if its used only 5% of the time. as long as troops are trained for something, its to be considered normal.
you can google to find sources by searching stuff like flak88 tobruk rommel mortar as he famously used it to shell british positions. also countless examples on the eastern front though i dont know specific examples and i dont memorize sources, my brain only memorizes facts & logical webs from everything i hear.
1 Like
It was used as artillery pieces for indirect fire when the situation was optimal for do it, there was issue in doing that im not gonna explain
Anyway leaving aside real life, it would be a huge overkill do that in enlisted simply camp at the ream point and shelling the cap zone with HE or AP for kill tank from a unreachable spot for the enemy, itâs the same reason why rocket vehicles in game canât do indirect fire, it would be balance breaking to extreme extent
2 Likes
how is it balance breaking if mortar squads do the same, but also have the utility of arti strikes, rally points and sniping/easily changing position when attacked.
the flakbus is extremely fragile and markable by spamming V from a plane. by that logic any BR4 tank shouldnt be allowed to grey zone as the damage they do is higher since the will survive for longer than the flakbus that gets taken out instantly.
i dont see any realistic problems with giving an underpowered vehicle additional utility thats also fun. coding the mortar ability into a tank would also open up future similar vehicles and DF can treat them like paratroopers and have them only as premium stuff to keep them rare.
to explain it even shorter: the calliope post nerf is much stronger than the flakbus with indirect fire would be, that straight up proves its ok to upgrade the flakbus.
Put yourself in the re-ammo point and start indirect fire toward the cap zone with 88mm HE ammo, at least mortar need reload and have limited reload, In this way you are simply stay put in one point all time and score kill after kill without someone can even hit you
1 Like
2 wrong assumptions here:
a) its still easily blown up by strafing it with 20mm from any BR1 plane
b) mortaring being useful/dangerous â it aint
I have a heavy mortar squad in my BR5 german lineup and it does nothing 50% of the time, maybe 25% it actually performs well because even on open points you often time dont shell in the right moment. having a random glas cannon sitting in the greyzone hitting nothing instead of taking an actually good tank like a panther g and shell the point directly is MUCH weaker and therefore makes it easier for the enemy team, not harder.
edit: in terms of power the flakbus is comically underpowered atm. making it mortar capable would make it a bit better, but still not even close as strong and dangerous as other BR4 tanks. it would fit better into br3 where i have the very similar dicker max which sucks hard except for the name.
2 Likes
Sure, we can add this
Itâs minimal firing range will be off the map though and shell dispersion will be probably about as wide as your average map. Itâs not gonna be hitting within 3-400m (which is generous given most of the distances between maps and resupply points are possibly smaller) in indirect fire mode since the shell charge isnât variable
Also having a large-splash mortar than can infinitely sit in safety on the ammo resupply is dumb.
Maybe just actually let it do its job (like the title implies) and make it better against planes.
5 Likes
tiger 1 88 on a fast truck is âunderpoweredâ 
2 Likes
Claims countless examples. Provides none. Diagnosis: bullshit.
3 Likes
Iâm getting german mortar truck vibes out of all this.
1 Like
Strictly speaking, he has almost no toxicity
His reload time is about 7 seconds
After adding the ballistic ejection time (maybe more than 15 seconds) and possible ballistic error
Even though he drops 1 high explosive round every 30 seconds
He may not be able to effectively kill the enemy either
If he hides far away and wants to carry out precise artillery fire, he can only rely on the coordinates of friendly forces.
(This means he has to pray that the enemy barely moves or can only attack immobile targets)
So he basically wonât cause harm to any intelligent player.
2 Likes
Tanks also have the disadvantage of reloading time
Not to mention that the vehicle has almost no defensive capabilities
Donât forget that he will also be more easily spotted by high-altitude aircraft because of his firing.
The playerâs aircraft and mortars are fully capable of destroying him
Which is more terrifying: continuous artillery fire for 40 to 80 seconds or heavy artillery that can only be fired every 20 to 30 seconds and relies heavily on friendly guidance?
Reload is 6.5 second, with the reload perk drop to 5 second, so you can spam the whole Capzone with powerful indirect artillery fire without issue from the ammo point without end ammo, this is the same reason rocket vehicles cant do indirect fire, it breaks the game balance to an extreme extent because it can be exploited
2 Likes
They need friendly markings to become a horrific death bombardment
If officials are worried about frequent shelling
then he can make distinctions in different modes
For example, the reload time from the tank perspective is 6 points and 5 seconds.
However, the reloading time from the mortar perspective is extended to 25 to 30 seconds (personally I hope it is limited to high-explosive bombs)
The prerequisite for long-range artillery fire to be terrifying is that they can be guided by friendly forces.
Otherwise it would be almost impossible for them to effectively suppress the enemy from a distance
If they can work effectively as a team I donât think it can be called harmful.
Because this is the result of their (cooperation)
And strafing and fixed shooting that lack vision and guidance can almost be ignored.
Because the enemy is fully capable of bypassing fixed artillery fire areas (unless they have no ability to think)
The hit rate of strafing shots without a target is usually very poor and hardly poses a threat.
There are very few maps and effective strike points that can be used for this kind of artillery fire capability.
And judging from current experience
in open terrain
Most players with normal thinking ability will stay away from capture points that are easily bombarded and build defense lines around them.
Or use the terrain or bunkers within the stronghold or large-scale edge areas to avoid artillery fire.
Not to mention that all rocket launchers and 88 gun trucks are very fragile.
Even anti-tank rifles or aircraft machine guns or 37MM or ordinary mortars have a chance to damage the launcher or car body
So I donât think thereâs a problem with giving this type of vehicle some degree of high-angle parabolic strike capability.
Imagine hitting a plane with this?
Only time Iâve ever hit a plane without an AA gun or another plane has been with the PTRS when they flew low enough.