88mm Flak Targetting System

[VonMessa]

So...

Has anyone asked Vilkas how the Germans used their AAA guns, yet?

[shotgunneeley]

These 2 factors are important ... German Flak technique was to fire a barage at a formation (the heavier the better) NOT to target individual planes precisely. They spent nearly 1/3 of their armament budget on AAA guns ... Allied flyers often suggested they could get out and WALK HOME on the flak as it was so thick. To be EFFECTIVE against HIGH ALT BOMBERS it's obvious the game needs to model the reality and link several guns together so that a player can employ the same technique. The player should be operating the targeting console NOT a gun (won't look as sexy, but MIGHT produce actual hits). Targeting could be done by keeping the plane centered between brackets that you adjusted to match the wingspan to get the approximate range. Guns should fire automatically when "triggered" by the player operating the targeting console. Individual guns should be vulnerable to deacking, as they are now, but the targeting console should be in a hardened position that isn't killed so easily.

In defending a location against allied night bombing raids the searchlight would first "acquire" a target. The operator of the targeting device would then visually track the target as seen with the searchlight. The targeting device itself would automatically transmit angle and elevation readings directly to the indicators on each gun.

You will notice that all the attitude indicator dials on the gun have both a small and a large indicator. The smaller indicator would display the targeting instructions transmitted down from the central targeting device. The gunners had only to track their indicators (move their individual guns) to follow and match those sent down from the central spotter to follow a moving target. In this manor the firepower of all weapons in a battery could be brought to bare on one target with devastating results.

But according to the link you posted that's exactly what they did. I suppose with daylight operations they did the same thing just without the search light. I also thought about using an indirect firing console (perhaps in the tower) to aim the guns at a blip on a screen, but apparently they didn't do that. Like you said as well, this system wouldn't be as appeasing to a player as actually seeing the results of the AA fire.

Also, how often do you see a long train of bombers? Certainly not as often as you see just 1-2 sets. Firing a widespread flak barage with only a couple 88's would not mimic the intensity that a more precise firing system could give with the same number of flak 88's.

Basically, what I propose is a reverse manual bombsight: The player is a stationary object targetting a moving aircraft rather than a moving aircraft targetting a stationary object. With this system, the central targetting device and the gun system would be combined into one position for gaming purposes. 

That's fine against LOW LEVEL attack, but upping a fighter to go after 15K+ buffs AFTER they pass isn't a very good option.

Sure its a good option. If you're sitting in the tower when you first spot a set of buffs approaching you're not going to intercept them two minutes before they drop ords. If an enemy con is within a dar ring and making its way to the base I like to see first what I'm up against to determine what I'm going to fly to counter the threat. If its buffs, I'll get an idea of the alt, type and vector so I can see where I want to up from. I'll up from a base that will be best suited for intercepting them; may not be the base directly under them, but as long as I'm figuring out what to do next I might as well be firing AAA at them. In fact, I hardly ever up from the base a set of buffs is already attacking unless I'm sure they're about to turn around and that's my only option.

So...

Has anyone asked Vilkas how the Germans used their AAA guns, yet?

PM sent. I've been out of town. Thanks for the referral.

[Scotty55OEFVet]

Because the guns are located in different parts of the field. They're far enough away that the required lead and travel distance of the shell from one gun will be significanly different from the shell of another.

Also theres like, what, 3 88's on a field? Sorry, but 3 '88s aren't going to throw up a 'heavy' barrage. At best, it could be considered worrisome.

I mean unless we want to ASSUME that:

1) enough people are going to care about defending a base to go help

2) 3 of those people are going to hop into '88s instead of aircraft or vehicles

3) those 3 are both well educated in high-level math and quick with the calculations so that they can coordinate and give each other usefull range information.

4) and that what are most likely 3 strangers are not only going to work together, but work together effectivly as a cohesive team.

then we better give the '88 gunners command of a battery of 3-4 guns, simmilar to the bomber-drones.

And I think that would be a good decision, because I don't know about you, but I think that betting on all 4 points happening simultaneously makes for some piss-poor odds.

Dude, was just making A suggestion and you dont have to be a rocket scientist to say "Hey guys, lets set range at "# yds and fire at intervals of 500" or somethin. Just for fun and the way these 88s can destroy a plane if it hits close enough...3 88's firing at a set of buffs that are close to one another CAN be a barrage. Damn dude, take a percocet lol/

[BigKev03]

The germans employed the Kommandogerat 40 (basicaly a range finder unit) for the 88mm flak guns as well as the 128mm flaks.  This unit I think had to have a crew of 5-6 men just to operate and feed the data so the flak batteries could put the firing data into the gun.  Not as effective as proximity fuses the allies used but it did put flak on target with a reasonable chance of scoring a hit.  I just dont know how it could be implemented in the game unless while in an 88mm position you get fed altitude data for aircraft you are actively looking at.  Say for example you put the aiming are on an aircraft it gives you alt, est speed and direction then you could adjust the gun.  Granted you probably wont have time to do it for a fighter but bomber formations may be different.  I am still working the 88 against bombers attacking bases when I get the chance and it is a science.  Please feel free to flame or add a comment.

BigKev

[MK-84]

Hijacking but relevent to topic.

How long would a bomber formation be bombarded by flak historically?  I assume it varies WILDLY, but are we talking 30 seconds, 30 minutes...I have no idea.

Any historical anecdotes anyone can provide?

[EVZ]

Basically, what I propose is a reverse manual bombsight: The player is a stationary object targetting a moving aircraft rather than a moving aircraft targetting a stationary object. With this system, the central targetting device and the gun system would be combined into one position for gaming purposes.

I think HT went to considerable trouble to TRY and keep it REAL ... Fuzed Ammo, Manual Ranging, etc ... RATHER than just adopt an arcade -Point And Shoot- system "for gaming purposes." I think further work is needed. The historical -BARAGE- technique can be modeled.  A 3 or 4 gun battery with central OPTICAL aiming console IS REALISTIC and does allow visual targeting. I think adjusting range finding crosshairs might be a lot more intuitive than trying to chase numbers under an Icon and that players would find it MUCH more stimulating.  The only shortcoming I see is that it adds objects to the ground clutter ... But not really that many.

If you're sitting in the tower when you first spot a set of buffs approaching you're not going to intercept them two minutes before they drop ords. - In fact, I hardly ever up from the base a set of buffs is already attacking unless I'm sure they're about to turn around and that's my only option.

If perk points and score are all that interest you, that's a good policy ... If you want to DEFEND your bases? chasing bombers AFTER they drop fails miserably. Base DEFENSE IS POSSIBLE, but it won't maximise your perks or score ... AND it requires that you accept risk and act without complete information about the enemy you must confront. The 88s were added to ENHANCE defense capabilities.

[shotgunneeley]

I think HT went to considerable trouble to TRY and keep it REAL ... Fuzed Ammo, Manual Ranging, etc ... RATHER than just adopt an arcade -Point And Shoot- system "for gaming purposes." I think further work is needed. The historical -BARAGE- technique can be modeled.  A 3 or 4 gun battery with central OPTICAL aiming console IS REALISTIC and does allow visual targeting. I think adjusting range finding crosshairs might be a lot more intuitive than trying to chase numbers under an Icon and that players would find it MUCH more stimulating.  The only shortcoming I see is that it adds objects to the ground clutter ... But not really that many.
If perk points and score are all that interest you, that's a good policy ... If you want to DEFEND your bases? chasing bombers AFTER they drop fails miserably. Base DEFENSE IS POSSIBLE, but it won't maximise your perks or score ... AND it requires that you accept risk and act without complete information about the enemy you must confront. The 88s were added to ENHANCE defense capabilities.

The idea I came up with for a 88mm flak targetting system doesn't sound easy at all. The player still has to calibrate and range the target to give the gun battery the appropriate lead and fuse length to reach the target. There's shell randomization in the game, so this isn't some sort of laser beam - there will still be error. If a target is 10.5 k-yards (direct line of sight) away when the gun is elevated to a 45 degree angle, then the target is about 22,300 feet above the gun position. If fired at a 90 degree angle straight up, the shell would take about 13.6 seconds to reach this height and explode. The flak 88's should be used for immediate base defense against high flying level bombers; it shouldn't be expected to be an effective defense against zippy little fighters on the deck (that's what the 37mm field guns are for). In game currently, firing a single flak 88 at 20k alt buffs is not effective just eyeballing the lead and fuse length. I think we need some sort of central targetting device to manually calibrate the lead and fuse length - I'm not proposing some sort of automatic computer guided aimbot. Since it took crews of several people to operate both the targetting system and flak battery connected to it, I proposed the targetting and gun fire control system to be integrated into one position for one player to operate "for gaming purposes" as there aren't any other vehicle in game that requires more than one person to operate.

You're either misreading my comments or completely misconstruing them. If you want to effectively defend a base against a set of buffs then you need to be already at 20k when they hit your base's DAR ring. If they have any sort of respectable altitude you're still not going to prevent them from dropping their ords on your base even if you immediately take off when they enter the DAR ring. For example, a b-17 as dictated by the AH speed charts travels at about 258 mph at an altitude of 10k-feet. The DAR ring has a radius of 12 miles. At this rate, the b-17 will cover the radius of the DAR ring in about 2:45 minutes (any higher, and its even faster than this). Are you saying that you can up a fighter (non-163 or 262) and be able to intercept a set of buffs at 10k or higher before they drop on the base? If you don't, then you are not defending your base - you are attempting to catch the suckers that just bombed your base. The flak 88 should be used as a last line of defense against bombers within visual range of the base. If you first spot a buff 12k-yards away elevated to a 45 degree angle, they are at a ground distance of less than 5 miles away and will be directly over the top of you in little more than a minute. Assuming that you're waiting for them in the gun position, that still doesn't give you much time to calibrate, range and fire at the buffs with at least some sort of system. You're certainly not much of a threat now firing at 20k buffs completely eyeballing the lead and fuse length for the target in under a minute. In no way do I imagine this being a reasonable way to bring down fighters. They're going to be zipping around too much changing alt, course and speed to even try to calibrate, range and fire at. Furthermore, how did you even come to the conclusion that I don't like to up from a base that's already being attacked was because I don't like defending and was only concerned with perks? I don't up from a base that's already being attacked because I would not be defending the base, but playing catch-up to the buffs as they bomb more bases or try to RTB. I up from other bases to get ahead of the buffs and defend the healthy bases.

Edit: I talked to Vilkas. He said that the AA gunners used an optical instrument to range and calibrate the amount of lead and fuse setting for the projectile at the gun batteries, but since he was stationed on a 20mm gun he only heard that the flak 88 crews had radar (maybe later in the war).

[Tank-Ace]

Hijacking but relevent to topic.

How long would a bomber formation be bombarded by flak historically?  I assume it varies WILDLY, but are we talking 30 seconds, 30 minutes...I have no idea.

Any historical anecdotes anyone can provide?

Depends on the flight path, they could be under fire for only 10mins or less, several times, or almost continuously when over enemy territory.

[tunnelrat]

Depends on the flight path, they could be under fire for only 10mins or less, several times, or almost continuously when over enemy territory.

This is correct.  It all depended upon the target value, how often it was being hit, and the area around it.  The corridors en route to the Big B were stacked with batteries.

[Tilt]

OK, after reading some of the great info from the links this is what i envision:

1) 4 flak 88's to a battery for AA only; single flak 88's or v-base AT guns for AT only.

2) radar doesn't seem to have been needed for the range finding process, although it certainly would've given the defenders a heads-up. Determining the sight information seems to have been purely occular from ground based instruments.

3) a player operates his/her own AA battery. The gunner will use his/her joystick or mouse to place a set of black cross-hairs on the target and track it just like the manual bombsite system. While tracking the target, the player will use the "u" and "y" keys to calibrate the target's alt, speed, and vector. When the player is calibrated, a pair of green cross-hairs will appear along with the black ones. The better the calibration, the closer both cross-hairs will line up. In real life, the fuse setting was electrically set by the range information, so the gunner wouldn't change it manually. Keep the black cross-hairs lined up on the target and fire at will.

4) as long as the target keeps a steady course (speed, alt and vector constant) and the gunner keeps The black cross-hairs on the target, the the gun should automatically correct the fuse settings to meet the range information as the player changes its elevation and orientation.

5) of course, the target will eventually change course either subtly or aggressively and the gunner will have to recalibrate for the target's change.

I like this.... it requires input and brings rewards I think there will be some sort of mouse/button click required to "select" the target your tracking else there is no range data.

In easy mode our bomb sight auto adjusts for terrain/target height (assuming a fixed (calibrated) bomber alt and speed) which is known and sitting on our FE.

Our FE knows the height and speed of the 88's target but must be told which target it is. Hence having selected the target (we have this function already)  we then determine vector using the tools shotgun describes, which as he says then sets lead on the sight and changes the fuse delay incrementally. Every # secs

e.g

go to sight
select range finder
zoom on target
select target
start tracking
end tracking (sight adjusts)
Continue to hold sight on  target,
When the sight illuminates (after # seconds)- press fire. (accuracy is down to how well the sight is calibrated, how well the target is subsequently tracked, reaction speed to the fire command, any deviation from flight path by target)
Continue to hold sight on  target,
When the sight illuminates (after # seconds)- press fire.
Rinse and repeat or re calibrate

[Babalonian]

I'm wondering what thoughts HiTech and/or Pyro are having about the current state of the flak88 in AH?....  In particular, what areas they feel can be improoved with it, and what aspects abotu the flak88 they feel should be left as is or kept somewhat limited in the MAs.

Seems we, the players, have many things we like about the 88, and many things we object rather strongly about.  And I strees the many, as in all over the place, shotgun.  Is it the AP ballistics?  The gun's sight for the AP (and maybe even AA) mode?  The AA fusing method?  AA round lethality/effective area?  Lacking fire-control/support/aiming-assistance?

I'm getting confused quite a bit by all the directions this thing is going.  I'm only definitively going with the "there's many things I like, but there are a number of things I'd like to see improoved with the flak88" crowd at this point.

[shotgunneeley]

I'm wondering what thoughts HiTech and/or Pyro are having about the current state of the flak88 in AH?....  In particular, what areas they feel can be improoved with it, and what aspects abotu the flak88 they feel should be left as is or kept somewhat limited in the MAs.

Seems we, the players, have many things we like about the 88, and many things we object rather strongly about.  And I strees the many, as in all over the place, shotgun.  Is it the AP ballistics?  The gun's sight for the AP (and maybe even AA) mode?  The AA fusing method?  AA round lethality/effective area?  Lacking fire-control/support/aiming-assistance?

I'm getting confused quite a bit by all the directions this thing is going.  I'm only definitively going with the "there's many things I like, but there are a number of things I'd like to see improoved with the flak88" crowd at this point.

The ground game is not my fortay, so I'm going to leave the opinion about the AP balistics and gun sight up to you armored GV guys. What I'm calling attention to in this thread is that there isn't a gun sight/targetting system for putting up AA flak at high alt (20k plus) buff formations. At the moment, we have the ability to change the fuse length for the flak shells, which i like because i feel involved having to work for the kill. However, this does little good for high-alt buffs requiring the gunner to "eyeball" a 2-mile lead where the buffs should be 25 seconds after the flak 88 fires. I think that a battery of four guns rather than one single gun per player would put up the density of flak enough to threaten a buff formation. One single flak burst going off within a 1-mile sphere (complete guess) of the target every five seconds just doesn't seem adequate for base defense or simulating the flak wall bomber crews would've faced.

[EVZ]

it shouldn't be expected to be an effective defense against zippy little fighters on the deck (that's what the 37mm field guns are for).

Maybe you should review the statistics on GERMAN FIGHTERS that were shot down while RTB by their own AAA ... the 88 barage was very effective against small fighters too.

[shotgunneeley]

Maybe you should review the statistics on GERMAN FIGHTERS that were shot down while RTB by their own AAA ... the 88 barage was very effective against small fighters too.

Well yeah but the amount of AAA fire the Germans put up then way out scales the flak we have in game now. I always thought, as far as fighters getting hit, it was just due to the thousands of ack bursts going off all around eventually one was going to hit home. Was a single gun or battery accurate enough to react to and bring down a fighter using evasive maneuvers?

Just speculating, if those fighters were RTB'ing wouldn't they be level if not low and slow? If that was case then yeah, like I said before, fighters would be vulnerable to targetting and ack fire. But being high, fast and evasive I never thought of a "single" flak 88 or battery being accurate enough to target and bring down an evasive fighter on its own. I stress "single" gun because that is what we have in game now and with hundreds of flak 88's firing thousands of shells anything has a chance of getting hit.

If a single flak 88 or battery was accurate enough to target a maneuvering fighter then so be it, it should be modeled into the fame to be able to target both level bombers and fighters.

[EVZ]

If a single flak 88 or battery was accurate enough to target a maneuvering fighter then so be it, it should be modeled into the fame to be able to target both level bombers and fighters.

The POINT is that -SINGLE 88 Guns- were NOT used for AAA by the Germans ... Using them that way in the game is UNREAL.

As far as the RTB german fighter losses, they were ERRORS made by individual batterys (perhaps joined by surrounding batterys when firing commenced) Gun Crews were SUPPOSED to be informed of friendly aircraft in the area, but if NOT informed, often fired on ANYTHING FLYING. One or two batterys engaging a fighter was devastating ... Evasive Manuvers? How do you evade a generalised barage ? the GUNS were not trying to HIT THEM as individual targets ... (which IS what AH is doing wrong). The only Evasive Manuver possible was to get the hell out of the area and THAT was best done in a straight line at full throttle.

The Aliies "D-DAY" Wing Stripes Paint and the schooling of INFORMED gun crews EXPECTED to make decisions rather than blindly follow orders prevented a LOT of allied losses to friendly AAA. But that plan was devised and executed before it was needed. The Germans were unprepared for the situation and unable to implement any similar ID scheme or training.