88AA gun ?

[Cthulhu]

But they did have timed fuses that were automatically calculated and set by the fire-control director. At extreme altitudes like 30k this would not be very accurate compared to VT fuses, but at low to medium altitudes the difference would not be that big when using saturation fire from several batteries.

They were not accurate at any altitude. (and the German's knew it)

[Die Hard]

They were not accurate at any altitude. (and the German's knew it)

I'd love for you to substantiate that claim.

[RipChord929]

Hmmm, accurate enough?
I suppose so, accurate enough to drive the bombers up
to higher alts, 17 to 23 k.. The heavier the ack coverage,
the higher their bombing alt.. Definately higher than their
wished for drop alts.. And they still suffered loss or damage..
The higher alts definately affected their bomb concentration
and accuracy..  To say otherwise is just incorrect!!!

The german hvy ack operated rather simply. Calculate alt,
and fire all guns into a designated area (box) in front of the
planes, forcing them to fly thru it.. The ack got better over
yrs, and plenty of practice... Also, german radar was having
an effect as well, improving fire concentration, and fusing times..

Once the bombers made their final turn at the IP, and the
lead bombardiers had control, they flew nice flat and level..
Which made the german system work fairly well, considering
the state of technology at the time..

Later in the war, the crews were issued flak vests, helmets...
They gladly wore them, even carrying extras to pad the floor
under their positions.. Because the ack was growing more
intense, and concentrated, as the war went on..
Something was obviously working, LOL!!!!

I understand that some just hate the idea of manned puffy ack at
air bases.. But the fact is, it was there in reality, so it should
be there in the game.. I've been popped so many times by those
eagle eyed puffyack gunners that it makes me laugh.. But if it
wasn't there, it would be completely bogus.. Not having puffyack
at our fixed concrete installations is bogus too!!!

I don't really care WHAT kind of guns they are..

RC

[Cthulhu]

The issue was accuracy, not effectiveness by sheer volume of fire. Perhaps a slim matter of semantics, but 4000 rds to down one buff is nothing to brag about. Given enough muskets firing at a man-sized target 200 yds away, someone will actually manage to hit the target. Does that make the musket an accurate weapon? No.

By mid-1944 German flak was indeed accounting for more damage to Allied bombers than fighters were, however it was primarily due to a large increase in the volume of fire. The 88mm had a spherical kill zone with a radius of about 30 ft. (roughly 113,000 cubic ft.)  When the Germans developed AAA aiming radar (the Wurzburg A), it proved disappointing.  It could locate a bomber flying at 24,000 ft. as only being somewhere in a box 1,000 by 4,000 by 1,700 ft. (6,000,000,000 cubic ft.) (<- Looking for independent confirmation on this)  In order to guarantee destruction of the bomber, something like 59,000 evenly spaced 88mm shells would have to be fired into that space.

As I said, a USAAF study indicated that were the Germans to use proximity fuzes, 8AF flak losses would triple and the (lower flying) B-24 would probably be knocked out the European war entirely. (Presumably, so would the low-flying RAF heavy bombers.)  <- Still trying to find where I got this.

By comparison, the 90mm and 3.7" guns were proximity-fused and as a result were far more accurate and effective than the 88. (Provided we can find common ground on the meaning of effective. Perhaps cost-effectiveness is a more accurate term.)

[RipChord929]

If you are trying to point out that Proxy fusing made ack
more effective, you don't really have to.. It goes without saying!!
US Navy stats, say it all.. And are heavily documented.. Effects
of the VT fuse are also well ducumented against the V1's as well...

"Accuracy" in this context, I think is relative to this subject..
For example, The "accuracy" of a sniper getting a 600yd headshot,
cannot be correctly applied to an 88mm, (or 5in for that matter)
shooting almost vertically up to 23,000 ft, or higher yet... In this
context, getting the shell in the general area of the target, (with
the available German technology of the time) is pretty darn good...
Or "accurate" in this context...

Was German hvy ack "effective"? I would say yes, again considering
the technology available to them.. Often driving the bombers above the
cloud deck, where effective bombing was impossible.. So the bombers,
many times, had to dump their loads into the general target area, hitting
nothing of much consequence.. Thus Defeating the purpose of the Allied
bombing mission, and making a victory for the defenders... Also figure
how many times the bombers had to return to the same target.. Suffering
losses each trip, until that certain target was considered destroyed.. Hmmm?
It added up to some pretty ugly numbers...

Just bean counting the number of shells fired vs bombers hit, doesn't give
the complete picture of "effectiveness"...

enjoying this convo so far 

RC

[Die Hard]

Comparing the effectiveness of the VT fuses against Japanese naval aircraft and buzz-bombs with the effectiveness of German flak against allied bombers is beyond comparing apples and oranges.

The Japanese rarely flew above 15,000 feet, and usually flew lower than 10,000 feet. Likewise the V1's flew at low to medium altitude. Any statistical comparison of that to German flak effectiveness against heavy bombers flying at 20,000 - 30,000 feet is nonsensical.

[Angus]

Hehe, when the 88 was pulled down and used as anti-tank, it earned its day.
Went through armour as if it were wet dog-poop.

Anyway, firing entire batteries does change things if possible in AH. Imagine being able to time the fuse with a dot command and hammer from a battery of 5?

2 weeks?