The case for well hidden AAA...

[wulfie]

...German WW2 manuals re: deployment of AAA weapons - a couple of interesting 'rules' for the AAA crews (list below is not inclusive of all 'rules' stated in manuals):

A. FlaK crews are not to fire at any enemy aircraft if possible for at least 6 hours after moving to a new position.

The reasoning behind this order was to negate the Allied tactic of sending armed recon flights over the areas of future ground attack missions in an effort to 'draw out' enemy AAA defenses.

B. FlaK crews are to have 3 firing positions selected at all times. Firing positions must have good concealment, be at least 200 meters apart, and give the weapon the ability to defend the target.

Pretty self explanatory after you read 'C' below.

C. FlaK crews are to immediately move to an alternate firing position after engaging an enemy aircraft once the immediate threat of air attack has passed.

Makes sense in the real world. It's pretty tough to spot a camoflaged AAA weapon while flying along at 250+ MPH TAS. If you are flying at low level you need to keep your eyes working to keep you from hitting the ground. If you are cruising at a higher altitude the visual range is greater and the ability to spot camoflaged ground targets is hindered.

The bottom line - wouldn't it be cool if it was tougher to spot AAA positions from the air? If you actually had to aim your strafing run or bombs at the 'area where you saw the gun flashes'?

To make combined arms mean more...

Make it so guys in an aircraft never actually see an AAA gun, just the gun flash. Take away the easily identifiable firing position and the AAA weapon shape altogether.

Make it so guys in a ground vehicle *or* a recon/liason type aircraft (Storch, L-5, Lysander, F-5, Bf 109 with cowl MGs only and cameras, etc.) *can* see the AAA weapon shape.

How cool would it be - if your Pz IVHs on the ground were using their smoke rounds to give target areas to fighter bombers.

"All Typhoons drop ordinance on my smoke, 3 AAA positions smoked, have at it."

Pretty cool in my opinion. What do you guys think?

Mike (wulfie)

[wulfie]

Also, if you have 12 revetments, 6 of which must be hit to prevent the rolling of enemy fighters (see my other topic), make it so ground vehicles and recon/liason aircraft can actually see which 6 revetments are the 'magic' reventments.

Mike (wulfie)

[Fishu]

Since you already have got them smoked with a tank, why not to use HE rounds instead  

[funked]

Cool

At the same time we'll need to degrade the accuracy of the AAA by a factor of 10 or so, to reflect realistic tracking and lead estimation ability.  Right now these guys can get a perfect solution on a 400 mph target pulling 5g, every time, no problem.

Also how about some realistic IFF?  AAA gunners in WW2 tended to fire at friendlies almost as much as enemies.  If friendlies and enemies are mixed in a fight, the AAA should either fire at both or not at all.

Also, even if you think the Luftwaffe strictly followed the manuals (doubtful), consider all the other countries who used different procedures.

[lazs]

It would be great so far as I'mconcerned.  It would really change the "feel" of the strat element to one that was more like the real deal and less of a gameplay gimick (a gimick that is getting very long in the tooth IMO).

It would also make for a more realistic "closure by degree" instead of all or nothing.   What we have now with the hangers is basically like the very first fighter plane damage models... Any hit was tallied and when enough hits were recorded... Boom.  I think we can do better now.   Maybe the strat guys would get a few more recruits if the strat wasn't so phony feeling.
lazs

[funked]

Oh yeah, I forgot, we would also need to have a realistic rebuild time on the AAA emplacements.  I guess with airfields only 20 miles apart, they could move in a new crew or weapon within a few hours or so.

In addition to being destroyed, they should also be capable of being suppressed.  If you get a few rounds in their gun pit, they might not fire for a few minutes.  That would rock.

Oh yeah, I forgot, that's how it works already...

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 03-05-2001).]

[wulfie]

Funked,

I agree with the IFF issue. AAA crews should have a chance of engaging friendlies when there are hostiles in close proximity.

AAA weapons were made to defend ground targets from air attack, not to defend air units from other air units while both were in flight.

I also agree about the accuracy issue. But is there a way to simulate a 2cm AAA weapon firing to put up enough shells so of the 4 or 6 ground attack aircraft involved in an attack one of them will probably fly into a shell?

Why do you doubt the rules were followed? These were tactical guidlines and sound ones at that. I don't know what your military experience is, but by and large when a common sense guidline is taught to guys who work at a dangerous job, they tend to try and follow said 'guidelines'.

I didn't know that supression of AAA positions was currently a feature of AH. If so, then they definitely need to remove the convenient 'here I am' different shade of brown that the gun pits are made of.

At least in my opinion.

Mike (wulfie)

[wulfie]

Fishu,

Assuming some realistic blast radius effects...

If you have several Typhoons nearby with 1000 lb. bombs under the wings, a smoke round in the vicinity *before* you started to try to zero in a close proximity 7.5cm HE hit would be a smart move.

If supression works, the gun crew is not going to like 1000 lb. bombs being chucked in their general direction.

Mike (wulfie)

[bowser]

I think you guys are really on to something.  If a friendly is engaging a con nearby, the AAA doesn't fire for fear of hitting the friendly.  Sure would cut down on the ack hugging!  

bowser

[Otto]

Lots of good points in this post.  The rotating AAA and 'flashes only' would add a lot to their realism.

------------------
576 Squadron (Bomber Command)- RAF