88mm Flak Targetting System

[Tank-Ace]

EVZ, its not like they just blasted away in the general area of the target, and fuzed their shells for a multitude of various altitudes and  ranges, if an individual target was identified. In that case, they would be trying to get all of their rounds in as tight an area around the target as possible, so as to have the highest possible density of fire, and therefore the greatest chance of a direct, or near-direct hit.

[Karnak]

EVZ, its not like they just blasted away in the general area of the target, and fuzed their shells for a multitude of various altitudes and  ranges, if an individual target was identified. In that case, they would be trying to get all of their rounds in as tight an area around the target as possible, so as to have the highest possible density of fire, and therefore the greatest chance of a direct, or near-direct hit.

Every RAF Bomber Command account I have read has strongly indicated how important it was to get out of the searchlights if they locked on to you and that if you failed to do so your odds of survival were very slim.  Lancaster, Halifax, Wellington or Mosquito, it didn't matter beyond the Mosquito being more able to get out of the lights.

[Tank-Ace]

Thanks karnak, I was going to post something about the spotlights, but I didn't have any detailed info about them; all I knew was that there was spotlights, they would try to skewer a bomber for the flak batteries, and that bomber crews prefered not to be caught by them.

[EVZ]

EVZ, its not like they just blasted away in the general area of the target, and fuzed their shells for a multitude of various altitudes and  ranges,

That's pretty close to what they did ... Gun Layers did NOT aim at targets they coordinated the dials of aiming console to match those sent by the targeting console ... the SAME COORDINATES were sent to every gun in the battery, if they got a perfect burst ... the shells were spaced apart exactly as the guns were on the ground ... Shells were FUZED electronically BY THE TARGETING CONSOLE (I think?), not the gunners.

if an individual target was identified. In that case, they would be trying to get all of their rounds in as tight an area around the target as possible, so as to have the highest possible density of fire

No ... It was a BARAGE - not targeted fire. They weren't TRYING for direct hits, they were relying on FRAGMENTATION ROUNDS that were deadly over a large spherical area ... Gun placement was arranged so that there was a central zone of overlapping fragmentation ... Get an artillery manual and LEARN something about WHAT you are talking about.

BTW, spotlights just provided a verifiable aiming point for the targeting console, rather than firing randomly into a night sky.

[Tank-Ace]

Not quite EVZ. Flack guns were capable of independent fire, and IIRC, the guns usually just oppened up on targets the spotlights caught (its a known, pinpointed target, which offers better chances for a kill).

And while it was a barrage, they weren't just firing wildly into the sky, hoping the fragments will do some good, as you seem to suggest. If that were so, then firing at a fixed point somewhere within the bomberstream, and not adjusting fire, would be just as effective.

[AustinAustin]

How about at least a basic marked min. reticle to help. And maybe a zoom indicator. Like 1.5 ,2.0 ect, yada yada yada.

[EVZ]

Not quite EVZ. Flack guns were capable of independent fire,

You just don't get it do you? ... AAA 88 batterys DID NOT HAVE GUNSIGHTS ... They were AIMED by a targeting console that was up to 1/4 mile away. NONE of the crew tending the gun actually AIMED anything.

And while it was a barrage, they weren't just firing wildly into the sky, hoping the fragments will do some good, as you seem to suggest. If that were so, then firing at a fixed point somewhere within the bomberstream, and not adjusting fire, would be just as effective.

They were firing wherever the targeting director told the crews to aim them (via the electronic dial on the guns that the gun layers matched their mechanical indicators to) doctrine was to concentrate on the lead elements in each formation as the germans knew the loss of experienced lead crews would screw the mission up.

[shotgunneeley]

That's pretty close to what they did ... Gun Layers did NOT aim at targets they coordinated the dials of aiming console to match those sent by the targeting console ... the SAME COORDINATES were sent to every gun in the battery, if they got a perfect burst ... the shells were spaced apart exactly as the guns were on the ground ... Shells were FUZED electronically BY THE TARGETING CONSOLE (I think?), not the gunners.

That's effectively what I wished for two dozen posts ago. I suggested it be set up at the gun battery instead of some little room so the player can see the effects of the flak. This would simply combine the roles of the target coorinators and the gun battery operators into one game position for a player to man.

[Tank-Ace]

So you really and honestly believe that the Flak crews were incapable of developing a feel for the balistics? Really? If you do, you're even more ignorant that I thought.

They were SUPPOSED to fire wherever the fire control system indicated. And they OFTEN did. That doesn't mean they ALWAYS did. They wanted to knock bombers down, first and foremost. If you think that they didn't 'accidently' screw up the aim, so the gun just happened to be pointing at a nearby bomber lit up by the search lights, then you're not just ignorant, you're stupid.


And beyond that, not every single 88mm gun used was used as part of a FlaK battery. They made highly effective AT weapons, and were very accuate. That they could hit anything from beyond point blank range indicates that they had some sort of sighting mechanism for ground targets at the very least. I'm not entirely sure I trust you on the 88's not having sights, since 88's didn't always fire at aircraft in batteries.

5" gunners didn't have a panoramic view of the battlefield, they were peering through vision slits and sighting equipment. But we give them onen anyway. Concesions have been made for game play all over the place.

[EVZ]

So you really and honestly believe that the Flak crews were incapable of developing a feel for the balistics? Really?

So you really and honestly believe that German AAA 88 crews fired their weapons by "FEEL" ... Idiocy aboundeth !!! Just so you know ... The 88 FIRED automatically when the breach closed on a shell ... Rate of fire was around 25 RPM. and no they DIDN't HAVE TRACERS.

I'm not entirely sure I trust you on the 88's not having sights, since 88's didn't always fire at aircraft in batteries.

The Germans were very inventive and adaptive. They're responsible for many/most of the TACTICAL developments during WWII (in Europe) ... The 88 WAS used in SPAIN as an artillery/AT gun, but Erwin Rommel really wrote the field manual on using the 88 as an AT weapon  ... in N. Africa. They didn't just happen to notice there were tanks to shoot at and retrain the guns to fire horizontally. Rommel used AT 88s in prepared ambush positions and to secure his advance so that his tanks could be relocated. He also developed the tactics for moving and repositioning the 88s to defend a general withdrawl. Since you OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW ... a telescopic sight was employed for AT configuration (which AH also lacks) attached to a mechanical indicator for the other gun layers use. The sight had a very limited field of view and was NOT suitable or employed for use against aircraft.

Just FYI - The term ACK-ACK derives from the German pronunciation of "88". Now please tell me more about how terribly ignorant I am ... Idiot. I suspect if the germans had you enlisted you'd have found yourself on the eastern front as a "sniper detector."

[RTHolmes]

I like the idea of the player just using an optical tracking/ranging sight for AA (as long as its realistically inaccurate) and get rid of all the range icons/data. could also be applied to ship guns.

it should also be possible to switch to a (iron sight?) direct fire mode for engaging vehicles.

[Tank-Ace]

So you really and honestly believe that German AAA 88 crews fired their weapons by "FEEL" ... Idiocy aboundeth !!! Just so you know ... The 88 FIRED automatically when the breach closed on a shell ... Rate of fire was around 25 RPM. and no they DIDN't HAVE TRACERS.

The Germans were very inventive and adaptive. They're responsible for many/most of the TACTICAL developments during WWII (in Europe) ... The 88 WAS used in SPAIN as an artillery/AT gun, but Erwin Rommel really wrote the field manual on using the 88 as an AT weapon  ... in N. Africa. They didn't just happen to notice there were tanks to shoot at and retrain the guns to fire horizontally. Rommel used AT 88s in prepared ambush positions and to secure his advance so that his tanks could be relocated. He also developed the tactics for moving and repositioning the 88s to defend a general withdrawl. Since you OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW ... a telescopic sight was employed for AT configuration (which AH also lacks) attached to a mechanical indicator for the other gun layers use. The sight had a very limited field of view and was NOT suitable or employed for use against aircraft.

Just FYI - The term ACK-ACK derives from the German pronunciation of "88". Now please tell me more about how terribly ignorant I am ... Idiot. I suspect if the germans had you enlisted you'd have found yourself on the eastern front as a "sniper detector."

You honestly think that humans are going to be sensible and reasonable in the middle of an air raid, when high explosives are falling all around them? For all their training and their reputation for submissivness to officers, the German's weren't little tin soldiers who did their job perfectly and exactly as they were told.

I'm aware of the fact that the '88s sight wasn't well suited for AA use, but you said they didn't have sights. Not just that they didn't have AA sights, but that they didn't have sights in general.

If you don't clarify, its your fault if you get called out on what you say.

[Ack-Ack]

You just don't get it do you? ... AAA 88 batterys DID NOT HAVE GUNSIGHTS ...

I believe we have the 88mm Flak 36, which did have sights that were used for direct fire of ground targets.  The Flak 37 didn't as it was purely a AA gun for high altitude targets.


ack-ack

[EVZ]

I'm aware of the fact that the '88s sight wasn't well suited for AA use, but you said they didn't have sights. Not just that they didn't have AA sights, but that they didn't have sights in general.

I said that AAA guns did NOT HAVE SIGHTS - AAA - do you know what that stands for ??? evidently not ... you're concept that German gun crews (10 men to fire 1 gun) were using Kentucky Windage and Tennessee Psychic Sights to fire at individual aircraft with guns that had no sights is ludicrous - (look it up).

[Ack-Ack]

Just FYI - The term ACK-ACK derives from the German pronunciation of "88". Now please tell me more about how terribly ignorant I am ... Idiot. I suspect if the germans had you enlisted you'd have found yourself on the eastern front as a "sniper detector."

The term Ack-Ack is not derived from the German pronunciation of the 88mm.  You are thinking of the word "flak" which was coined from the German name of the 88mm "Fliegerabwehrkanone" (aircraft defence cannon).  "Ack" was the phonetic alphabet word for "A" used by the British Army signal corps, so "Ack-Ack" was the phonetic alphabet word for "AA".

Now, I'll leave it up to you figure out in what capacity you'd find yourself in on the Eastern Front.


ack-ack