Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: shotgunneeley on March 15, 2012, 02:32:36 AM
-
Ive been trying to look up information on how Axis forces set up their flak defense, but haven't found anything direct. Didn't they have a form of radar to detect the bomber group's altitude, speed and such? If so, I'd like to see a view for a player manning the flak 88 to be able to range the bombers' alt and speed. This will only be available if the radar at that particular field is operational. If radar is disabled, then the player will have to sight, range and fire the flak 88 manually like we currently have to do. The gunner could either auto calibrate the bomber's position and gun targetting information similar to the bombsite calibration, or the information will refresh itself at a fixed rate when the dot dar refreshes itself. For multiple cons, the player could tab between dots to select the one to calibrate for. I suppose this could work against fighters as long as they were flying straight and level. With the random shell placement, i dint think this will be a crazy accurate defense. Gives another level of strategy to protecting and destroying dar towers.
I wouldn't mind having several flak batteries with 3-4 flak 88's each. Would be great for AA defense, but on the other hand not very good for AT. As a backup wish, I'd like for the flak 88's muzzle elevation (in degrees) to be displayed. This will make it possible to produce a relatively accurate range chart.
-
Ive been trying to look up information on how Axis forces set up their flak defense, but haven't found anything direct. Didn't they have a form of radar to detect the bomber group's altitude, speed and such? If so, I'd like to see a view for a player manning the flak 88 to be able to range the bombers' alt and speed. This will only be available if the radar at that particular field is operational. If radar is disabled, then the player will have to sight, range and fire the flak 88 manually like we currently have to do. The gunner could either auto calibrate the bomber's position and gun targetting information similar to the bombsite calibration, or the information will refresh itself at a fixed rate when the dot dar refreshes itself. For multiple cons, the player could tab between dots to select the one to calibrate for. I suppose this could work against fighters as long as they were flying straight and level. With the random shell placement, i dint think this will be a crazy accurate defense. Gives another level of strategy to protecting and destroying dar towers.
I wouldn't mind having several flak batteries with 3-4 flak 88's each. Would be great for AA defense, but on the other hand not very good for AT. As a backup wish, I'd like for the flak 88's muzzle elevation (in degrees) to be displayed. This will make it possible to produce a relatively accurate range chart.
I think that might make base defense a little too easy but I like the idea.
I just feel with a Rangefinder with lower alt cons(-10k) would make them too easy to hit
:salute
-
Neat idea. That would require precision NOE attack to knock out radar prior to the main force coming in. might be worth exploring. :aok
-
Ive been trying to look up information on how Axis forces set up their flak defense, but haven't found anything direct. Didn't they have a form of radar to detect the bomber group's altitude, speed and such?
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm-flak-series-flugabwehrkanone.htm
Here is some good info and PICTURES of the MANUAL TARGETING INDICATORS that linked up to -4- guns together to coordinate fire on an individual target. As I understand it ... a central rangefinder and targeting unit was employed that fed the targeting data to the individual guns (dial indicators - see pics) The Gun Layers only needed to match their gun to the DIAL INFO being provided for ALL of them to be focused on the same target.
The 88s capabilities we have now in AH are disappointing and the 88s in MWA are seldom used and ineffective.
:(
-
Ive been trying to look up information on how Axis forces set up their flak defense, but haven't found anything direct. Didn't they have a form of radar to detect the bomber group's altitude, speed and such? If so, I'd like to see a view for a player manning the flak 88 to be able to range the bombers' alt and speed. This will only be available if the radar at that particular field is operational. If radar is disabled, then the player will have to sight, range and fire the flak 88 manually like we currently have to do. The gunner could either auto calibrate the bomber's position and gun targetting information similar to the bombsite calibration, or the information will refresh itself at a fixed rate when the dot dar refreshes itself. For multiple cons, the player could tab between dots to select the one to calibrate for. I suppose this could work against fighters as long as they were flying straight and level. With the random shell placement, i dint think this will be a crazy accurate defense. Gives another level of strategy to protecting and destroying dar towers.
I wouldn't mind having several flak batteries with 3-4 flak 88's each. Would be great for AA defense, but on the other hand not very good for AT. As a backup wish, I'd like for the flak 88's muzzle elevation (in degrees) to be displayed. This will make it possible to produce a relatively accurate range chart.
Ask Vilkas
-
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/german-artillery-fire-control-equipment.html
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/88mm-antiaircraft-gun/index.html
-C+
-
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/88mm-flak-series-flugabwehrkanone.htm
Here is some good info and PICTURES of the MANUAL TARGETING INDICATORS that linked up to -4- guns together to coordinate fire on an individual target. As I understand it ... a central rangefinder and targeting unit was employed that fed the targeting data to the individual guns (dial indicators - see pics) The Gun Layers only needed to match their gun to the DIAL INFO being provided for ALL of them to be focused on the same target.
The 88s capabilities we have now in AH are disappointing and the 88s in MWA are seldom used and ineffective.
:(
I'd actually like to have the 88s modeled as a battery of four all slaved to the player's sight instead of singles. Not sure how that would impact GVs though.
-
I'd actually like to have the 88s modeled as a battery of four all slaved to the player's sight instead of singles. Not sure how that would impact GVs though.
+1
-
Not sure how that would impact GVs though.
A thought:
Allow only the primary gun to switch to AP ammo and when the gun is firing AP rounds the three slaved guns don't fire.
-
+1 to both shotgun and Karnak.
-
Not much on targeting systems, however good description of fragmentation patterns of 88 flak shell.
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter10.htm
Don't be clicking on too many links on that site unless you are, ahm, not squeamish. Medical stuff.
-
Great Idea +10!!! I have mentioned this in-game regarding the 88 Flak and ranging Bombers accurately. As far as the whole range finding stuff, that would obviously have to be explored. I have mentioned to some of my fellow countrymen that when there is a large raid, or even just 2 sets of Buffs overhead, that all players manning those 88s need to communicate with one another. Yea, lol....that in itself is a task that can be frustrating. But imagine having all 88s manned, and having all 3 firing at same range all at same time or within 1 second of each other. That right there would produce a HEAVY Barrage that if even close will destroy or damage anything flyin through it. If you think about it u get no perks for killing anything with the Field Guns so why not work in tandem to stop bombing raids that can potentially render a based undefendable??? Thoughts?
-
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.
And in addition to that, theres actually some shell randomization for the 88's, and they seem to require a pretty close hit to destroy or significantly damage a target. At long range (where you want to stop the bombers), that shell randomization is going to come into play.
So while that MIGHT be effective for US 90mm's, with proxy fuzes, it wouldn't be effective for FlaK 36's who have to manually adjust their fuzes. Anytime you put a human element into things, its going to be affected by human error.
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.
-
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 re-calibrate for the target's change.
I think this will only be a threat for buffs. Shouldnt be able to keep up with the wild changes in flight patterns for fighters unless the fighter was flying straight 'n level. If its too much of an issue for buffs, this system could be limited for use only when the radar ring for the base is enabled. I like AA guns for point defense when the enemy is on top of you before you can up an aircraft to engage. Its not going to kill a player to spend three minutes in a gun and then up a fighter right after the buffs pass.
-
4 flak 88's to a battery for AA only; single flak 88's or v-base AT guns for AT only. - In real life, the fuse setting was electrically set by the range information, so the gunner wouldn't change it manually.
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.
I like AA guns for point defense when the enemy is on top of you before you can up an aircraft to engage. Its not going to kill a player to spend three minutes in a gun and then up a fighter right after the buffs pass.
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.
:cool:
-
So...
Has anyone asked Vilkas how the Germans used their AAA guns, yet?
-
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.
:cool:
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.
-
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/
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
:uhoh
-
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.
:uhoh
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:huh
-
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.
:huh
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.
-
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.
:cool:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
:cool:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
:rolleyes:
-
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.
-
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."
:rolleyes:
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.
-
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
-
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).
:rolleyes:
-
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."
:rolleyes:
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
-
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).
No ... I'm NOT ... and you obviously DON'T speak german ... "The guns were universally known as the Acht-acht ("eight-eight"), a contraction of Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter ("8.8 cm")."
Maybe you'd make a good sniper detector too ?
:D
-
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).
:rolleyes:
Well, sometimes it happened that way. I don't need to look it up, I trust Vilkas's memory, since he was there and manned AA guns.
Sometimes guns were fired without a firing solution. It was in desperation, but it happened.
In addition, 'Ack, ack' does not come from German, but from the alphabet used by British signallers in the First World War. The alphabet involved saying 'ack' for 'a', 'beer' for 'b' and so on...hence AA (Anti Aircraft) when transmitted by signallers would be transmitted as 'Ack, ack'.
You should consider a more reliable source besides Wiki...
Oh, by the way, Ich konnte zu sprechen, lesen und schreiben gut Deutsch, seit ich ein Kind war. :aok
-
No ... I'm NOT ... and you obviously DON'T speak german ... "The guns were universally known as the Acht-acht ("eight-eight"), a contraction of Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter ("8.8 cm")."
Maybe you'd make a good sniper detector too ?
:D
The letter "A" in the Royal Corps of Signals uses the phonetic spelling of "Ack" and during the war, "ack-ack" was used to refer to AA by the British army and it's a nickname that has stuck ever since. The use of "ack-ack" by the British in reference to AA is solely born out of the phonetic alphabet used at the time.
This was the phonetic alphabet used by the British army during World War I and the term was already in use by the time the 88mm Flak 17 made its introduction in 1917.
Ack
Beer
Charlie
Don
Edward
Freddie
Gee
Harry
Ink
Johnnie
King
London
Emma
Nuts
Oranges
Pip
Queen
Robert
Essex
Toc
Uncle
Vic
William
X-ray
Yorker
Zebra
ack-ack
-
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).
:rolleyes:
Yes, the FlaK 36 series was originally designed as an AAA gun. They were multipurpose yes, but they were still classified as an AA gun in the German inventory. You did not anywhere state that they did not have sights for AA use, you simply stated that the AAA guns (every FlaK cannon ever produced) did not have sights.
And again, if you think that people will follow all orders precisely and to the letter, never deviating from the plan, in the heat of battle, you're incredibly naïve and rather ignorant to boot.
-
Yes, the FlaK 36 series was originally designed as an AAA gun. They were multipurpose yes, but they were still classified as an AA gun in the German inventory. You did not anywhere state that they did not have sights for AA use, you simply stated that the AAA guns (every FlaK cannon ever produced) did not have sights.
No ... EVERY FLAK CANNON ever produced was NOT AAA ... You really know VERY LITTLE about this subject ... AAA ... stands for Anti Aircraft Artillery ... Do you have any idea ? what the difference is between GUNS and ARTILLARY ??? Evidently NOT ... If it has SIGHTS ... ? then it's NOT ARTILLARY ... Maybe consider changing that name to TANK DUMMY ... OK, next excuse please ...
:rolleyes:
-
No ... EVERY FLAK CANNON ever produced was NOT AAA ... You really know VERY LITTLE about this subject ... AAA ... stands for Anti Aircraft Artillery ... Do you have any idea ? what the difference is between GUNS and ARTILLARY ??? Evidently NOT ... If it has SIGHTS ... ? then it's NOT ARTILLARY ... Maybe consider changing that name to TANK DUMMY ... OK, next excuse please ...
:rolleyes:
Yes, artillery did have sights. For example, the 88mm Flak 36 had sights for direct fire and also a range finder for indirect fire in addition to being able to connect to a fire control system for AA work.
Another example is the US 90mm, which also had sights to allow for direct fire as well as a range finder for indirect artillery fire and like the German 88mm, was able to connect to a fire control system (M7/M9) for AA work. So, while not all artillery had sights, some did and still remained "artillery".
ack-ack
-
Yes, artillery did have sights. Another example is the US 90mm, which also had sights
ack-ack
Artillery, by definition, is used for indirect fire that is targeted on an AREA ... GUNS are used for Direct Fire and have GUN SIGHTS. The Pieces you refer to are known as DUAL PURPOSE GUNS ... they are GUNS because they DO have sights, but they may ALSO be tasked for indirect fire as ARTILLERY. This is kind of - Basic Military Nomenclature 101 - . Now about your tuition ... :cool:
-
Artillery, by definition, is used for indirect fire that is targeted on an AREA ... GUNS are used for Direct Fire and have GUN SIGHTS. The Pieces you refer to are known as DUAL PURPOSE GUNS ... they are GUNS because they DO have sights, but they may ALSO be tasked for indirect fire as ARTILLERY. This is kind of - Basic Military Nomenclature 101 - . Now about your tuition ... :cool:
Yes, the 90mm I used as an example was a dual purpose gun. Not because it was capable of both indirect and direct fire, it was a dual purpose gun because it could be used both as an anti-aircraft gun and as ground artillery. Howitzers are capable of both direct and indirect fire, does that make them dual purpose guns? No it does not.
ack-ack
-
Yes, the 90mm I used as an example was a dual purpose gun. Not because it was capable of both indirect and direct fire, it was a dual purpose gun because it could be used both as an anti-aircraft gun and as ground artillery. Howitzers are capable of both direct and indirect fire, does that make them dual purpose guns? No it does not.
ack-ack
Well, if I made a bong out of a Howitzer, would that make it dual-purpose?
-
Howitzers are capable of both direct and indirect fire, does that make them dual purpose guns? No it does not.
Howitzer is a design specification, generally refering to Barrel Length (short but longer than a mortar) Muzzel Velocity (slow) and intended angle of fire (high). It has nothing to do with classification by usage ... They can be any of the 3 types.
Sorry, you've been expelled from this institution for incompetancy.
:rolleyes:
-
Howitzer is a design specification, generally refering to Barrel Length (short but longer than a mortar) Muzzel Velocity (slow) and intended angle of fire (high). It has nothing to do with classification by usage ... They can be any of the 3 types.
Sorry, you've been expelled from this institution for incompetancy.
:rolleyes:
I'm not surprised you missed the obvious point, it seems to be a trademark of yours.
In any event, the point I was making is that just because the 88mm (and the US 90mm I used as an example) could fire both direct and indirect didn't make it a dual purpose gun. What made it a dual purpose gun was the ability to be used in both the anti-aircraft and ground fire (either direct or indirect) role.
ack-ack
-
First you say -
just because the 88mm - could fire both direct and indirect didn't make it a dual purpose gun.
Then you say -What made it a dual purpose gun was the ability to be used - either direct or indirect
Feeling a little confused ???
With a telescopic sight and a special carriage, some 88s could be used for DIRECT FIRE (generally AT, but also capable of airburst anti personel use). While on it's carriage it could NOT be used as AAA and was NOT connected to a target director. When dismounted from it's carriage it was capable of BOTH functions, if it's telescopic tanksight was installed. But in THAT state it was HIGHLY VULNERABLE and likely to be over-run in any enemy advance. It's ability to serve BOTH functions (DUAL PURPOSE) was a design factor. IN AH we have neither the AAA battery with multiple guns & targeting director, or the AT configuration with the telescopic sight ... we have a basically useless (but very decorative) white elephant.
:huh
-
If you're going to quote someone, make sure you include the complete quote and not selectively edit it.
What made it a dual purpose gun was the ability to be used in both the anti-aircraft and ground fire (either direct or indirect) role.
As you can see, I said what made it dual purpose was the ability to be used as both AA and for ground fire. The fact that a gun can fire either direct or indirect fire does not make it a dual purpose gun as you claim to think.
ack-ack
-
As you can see, I said what made it dual purpose was the ability to be used as both AA and for ground fire. The fact that a gun can fire either direct or indirect fire does not make it a dual purpose gun as you claim to think.
The 88s were used for INDIRECT AAA barrage fire ... in batterys of multiple guns ... they had NO SIGHTS for direct individual AA fire ... where have you been ?
:rolleyes:
-
EVZ, you're being incredibly moronic. You intentionally miss AKAK's point about the gun being dual purpose. You constantly try and redirect attention away from your own **** ups, like failing to clairfy things, failiure to do any research at all (even a quick trip to wiki), and just failiure in general.
You attempt to get off the hook on technicalities, but do it wrong. Quite often, you actually draw attention to an erroneous comment you made. But whats funny is when you try and slide off the hook when you're not even ON the hook, and end up skewering yourself in the arse with it.
The previous post is a good example of this; AKAK has said nothing about sights thus far, but instead has argued from a point of the FlaK 36 family being multipurpose. Yet like an idiot, you bring up the sights thing again, only drawing attention to the fact that, like an idiot (again), you failed to clarify in your previous post about sights. Instead of saying words to the effect of "the Flak 36 family never had sights for targeting individual aircraft", you simply say "the Flak 36 family had no sights".
Whats more, you try and quote AKAK out of context so as to change the meaning or implication of the quoted text, and simply assume that everyone else is as dumb as you are, and that they won't notice what you did.
Oh, and every FlaK cannon produced WAS an AAA weapon. The defenition of artillery does not include anything about whether or not it has sights. Also, every artillery piece is a gun, but not all guns are artillery pieces. This is just another example of you screwing up an attempt to escape on a technicality; in this case, you did it backwards.
Skuzzy, Hitech, sorry for anything that crosses the line in there, but that little punk really had it comming. More than that if you ask me, but I'm too tired right now to give you enough evidence to perma-ban me ;).
-
EVZ, you're being incredibly moronic. You intentionally miss AKAK's point about the gun being dual purpose. You constantly try and redirect attention away from your own **** ups, like failing to clairfy things, failiure to do any research at all (even a quick trip to wiki), and just failiure in general.
You attempt to get off the hook on technicalities, but do it wrong. Quite often, you actually draw attention to an erroneous comment you made. But whats funny is when you try and slide off the hook when you're not even ON the hook, and end up skewering yourself in the arse with it.
The previous post is a good example of this; AKAK has said nothing about sights thus far, but instead has argued from a point of the FlaK 36 family being multipurpose. Yet like an idiot, you bring up the sights thing again, only drawing attention to the fact that, like an idiot (again), you failed to clarify in your previous post about sights. Instead of saying words to the effect of "the Flak 36 family never had sights for targeting individual aircraft", you simply say "the Flak 36 family had no sights".
Whats more, you try and quote AKAK out of context so as to change the meaning or implication of the quoted text, and simply assume that everyone else is as dumb as you are, and that they won't notice what you did.
Oh, and every FlaK cannon produced WAS an AAA weapon. The defenition of artillery does not include anything about whether or not it has sights. Also, every artillery piece is a gun, but not all guns are artillery pieces. This is just another example of you screwing up an attempt to escape on a technicality; in this case, you did it backwards.
Skuzzy, Hitech, sorry for anything that crosses the line in there, but that little punk really had it comming. More than that if you ask me, but I'm too tired right now to give you enough evidence to perma-ban me ;).
You are pissing up a rope, bro.