Talk:Type 88 75 mm AA gun
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Loose statement about utility
[edit]This article statement is misguided in the sense of representing AA as being either effective or not "considered capable of handling any targets". If it's a matter of altitude, that should be made clear. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's also a matter of time frame. When adopted, the Type 88 was a good weapon, but by the end of the war it was found to be almost completely lacking.--172.190.50.79 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Lacking" what? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- How about lacking the ability to deal with the performance of 1940s aircraft. LACKING THAT!--172.190.184.240 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Lacking" what? Boneyard90 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- C-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- C-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- C-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Articles with conflicting quality ratings
- C-Class Japan-related articles
- Mid-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles