Matrix Games Forums

New information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

88 mm Bugged still or again?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> 88 mm Bugged still or again? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:14:06 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Simbelmude

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3284648

The issue has been mentioned before, but the devs did not react...

I've run a combat with a german inf div with flak regiment attached to it (the ones that cost 50 admin pts) vs a soviet tank div, in clear weather and terrain

The div has 95 7.92mm ATR rifles and they massacred the T-26 at range 50: something like 95% of 80+ tank losses (that's not far from a1:1 ratio, a bit exagerated IMO)

The 60 88mm guns did not fire once. Zero casualties. Yet, they were there, and close enough to the action, as one even got destroyed by a ... Soviet MMG.

This is no statistical accident. It has been mentioned before, these guns, the most feared tank-killers of WWII, simply don't fire.


Big DoH if this is true

< Message edited by Pelton -- 3/11/2013 10:15:19 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk
Post #: 1
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:43:03 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
I would say WAD and its a good thing. AA units attached to cities were operated by guys who were trained to shoot B17's and were old guys and kids mostly. I would say these units should not even be allowed to be anywhere else but in a city.

However if you run the test with an 88mm Flak unit that is actually designated as an AT capable/trained unit then there is a problem.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 2
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:44:59 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Yes they are not firing.

You think 1 out of 234 would fire and 569 AA Guns did not even shot down a dam plane

Somethings is NOT right.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 3
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:47:04 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I would say WAD and its a good thing. AA units attached to cities were operated by guys who were trained to shoot B17's and were old guys and kids mostly. I would say these units should not even be allowed to be anywhere else but in a city.

However if you run the test with an 88mm Flak unit that is actually designated as an AT capable/trained unit then there is a problem.


DoH but they should shot at planes son.

Also they were firing fine in the past, I was like 6 for 6 winning battles with 1/2 or less the V of attacker.

Something is not right.

Just ran that turn several times and its messed up.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 3/11/2013 10:49:19 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 4
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:50:22 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Do you know how difficult it is to get an 88mm (assuming it is an AT capable type) gun in to a firing position when attacking? FYI they were primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 5
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:50:33 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
AA should do something other then cost ammo and armament points.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 6
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:51:19 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Do you know how difficult it is to get an 88mm (assuming it is an AT capable type) gun in to a firing position when attacking? FYI they were primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon


Never fired one have you?

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 7
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:53:14 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
As far as shooting planes down they were not used to shoot down low flying attack aircraft. I don't know why people moan about this stuff. You expect to use units in completly incorrect roles and expect them to work.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 8
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 10:54:05 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Can you read?

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 9
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 11:04:18 PM   
The Guru

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 12/24/2012
Status: offline
quote:

Do you know how difficult it is to get an 88mm (assuming it is an AT capable type) gun in to a firing position when attacking? FYI they were primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon


Not exactly true. It was used one many occasions in 1941 in an offensive role, particularly against KV or T-34 tanks that present German tanks were unable to deal with effectively. This use derives from its extraordinary efficiency during the 1940 campaign of France, when used (mounted on trucks, true) to massacre B1-bis counterattacks

I'm ok with the fact that Flak regiments were primarily, well, anti-aircraft units, (even though in 1941 I'm not sure they were necessarily manned by "kids and old guys") but their complete non-intervention in battle, even though they are close enough to be destroyed by short range enemy equipement, is a little too much.

If it is so, why bother allowing them to be allocated to combat units... at a price of 50 admin pts!!!!!!

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 10
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/11/2013 11:12:07 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The game does not have 'idiot proof' rules. It will allow people to do stuff that will have no appreciable effect. I think this is one of those situations.

I say again, do a test with 88's that are AT types or AA types trained in an AT role. AND use them defensivley. If the result is weird report it.

I think these results shown so far are perfectly acceptable.



_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to The Guru)
Post #: 11
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 12:39:09 AM   
Ketza


Posts: 2214
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Columbia, Maryland
Status: offline
In the old Avalon Hill Tobruk I used the 88mm on the offensive. They were downright nasty.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 12
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 1:26:39 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Try doing it in ASL or where the defender has some terrain to hide in. You won't get your limbered/towed guns anywhere near the firing line. They will get shot up ASAP.

One of THE main advantages of the AT is it lies hidden and waiting to ambush the enemy. Driving a halftrack towing an 88 up to a position where it can even be of remote assistance against a well organized defence is suicide. To be honest I can't believe I even need to explain this to people.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Ketza)
Post #: 13
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 3:37:17 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Do you know how difficult it is to get an 88mm (assuming it is an AT capable type) gun in to a firing position when attacking? FYI they were primarily a DEFENSIVE weapon


So whats your fairytale for the 335 20 mm's?



_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 14
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 3:38:58 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The game does not have 'idiot proof' rules. It will allow people to do stuff that will have no appreciable effect. I think this is one of those situations.

I say again, do a test with 88's that are AT types or AA types trained in an AT role. AND use them defensivley. If the result is weird report it.

I think these results shown so far are perfectly acceptable.




Idoit proof by which you mean using air fields as fuel dumps or some of your other exploits, ammo exploits ect ect or some of the others?




< Message edited by Pelton -- 3/12/2013 3:39:35 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 15
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 3:56:52 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Try doing it in ASL or where the defender has some terrain to hide in. You won't get your limbered/towed guns anywhere near the firing line. They will get shot up ASAP.

One of THE main advantages of the AT is it lies hidden and waiting to ambush the enemy. Driving a halftrack towing an 88 up to a position where it can even be of remote assistance against a well organized defence is suicide. To be honest I can't believe I even need to explain this to people.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39c0-3AEpY0

1. 88's were on wheels and could be fired from the wheels position.
2. It took 2 mins to set them up.

So in a AA role they should be firing and even in a offensive AT role they should fire some.

Also 88's were used as artillery the game does not reflex that aspect at all.
They are not doing anything.

The 20 mm AA guns were used effectivly in a ground support role and vs low fling air craft so again none were firing.

If you read any first hand accounts of German units fighting oon the eastern front it was common for both sides to use AA and artillary in a direct fire role and yes I can't beleive I am explaining this to you.

Most infantry weapons range is 300 yards tops. I am guessing 88's 20 mm's and allot of russian weapons range was more then that.

So again 500+ AA guns should be doing something other then looking good. The combat engine should be more about mordern warfare and not retreat losses.

Tanks/guns/AA need to have some impact on combat, at present they have very very little.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_Flak_30/38/Flakvierling


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88mm


< Message edited by Pelton -- 3/12/2013 4:07:19 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 16
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 4:43:58 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
So you think the enemy is just going to sit idle while you roll up with your 88 and set it up?

One battery of 82mm mortars will have smashed your 88, ammo and transport long before you got in to position.

Find me one example where a Regiment of City AA 88mm guns were sent to the front line as AT guns and had success and I will stand corrected.

BTW when are you going to erase all the wins on your scorecard from your own expolits? OOPS that would leave none at all

And while you are at it add in all loses that you weaseled your way out of



_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 17
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 10:34:14 AM   
elmo3

 

Posts: 4875
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline
Please confine the personal attacks to PM's or the thread will be locked.

_____________________________

We don't stop playing games because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing games - Anon.

WitE Alpha/Beta Tester

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 18
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 11:07:15 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

So you think the enemy is just going to sit idle while you roll up with your 88 and set it up?

One battery of 82mm mortars will have smashed your 88, ammo and transport long before you got in to position.

Find me one example where a Regiment of City AA 88mm guns were sent to the front line as AT guns and had success and I will stand corrected.




Based on war footage yes. It was comman practise to use these weopons in the front lines, all crews were trained in AA,AT and artillery roles.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39c0-3AEpY0

In this 1 example there are many cases in which the 88 is being used in the direct firing role.

Simply because you say something does not make everyone bow down and beleive you. 88 mm and 20 mm gun crews were trained in AA,AT and artillery gunnery. This is comman knowledge.

In the war footage the Germans are attacking, the 88 is firing from a bridge into the city. Then the tanks advance.

Infantry weopons have a very short range unlike 88's or even 20 mm's as you should know.

Lets stick to the historical facts and not what we want everyone to beleive.

Currently the combat engine is based 90% on infantry weapons (WW1) and does not reflex the impact of mordern weopons(WW2)

This again is comman knowledge, simply take the time and watch a battle on 6-8 lvls of Combat Resolution.

Simbelmude took the time and watched a battle unfold as you should before making bold statements and disreguarding what he said.

As he saw


quote:

The div has 95 7.92mm ATR rifles and they massacred the T-26 at range 50: something like 95% of 80+ tank losses (that's not far from a1:1 ratio, a bit exagerated IMO)

The 60 88mm guns did not fire once. Zero casualties. Yet, they were there, and close enough to the action, as one even got destroyed by a ... Soviet MMG.


Again take the time and watch the combat engine in action, atr's rifles and mortar's do far more damage then they should.

While 75mm+ artillary, 57mm + AT guns and tanks do very little damage during combat.

Its basicly a WW1 infantry battle even when there is 1000+ guns, 400+ tanks, high MM AT guns on both sides in open terrain.




< Message edited by Pelton -- 3/12/2013 11:22:44 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 19
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 11:37:02 AM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
"Please confine the personal attacks to PM's or the thread will be locked."

Good thought, well said.

(in reply to elmo3)
Post #: 20
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 11:59:52 AM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Pelton you are a master of misinformation. We are discussing City AA units aren't we? Do you really think city AA flak was trained as AT gunners? Get real. I am over it. Believe what you will then.







_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 21
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 12:07:20 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Dare I contribute to this discussion?

My readings suggest that the Wehrmacht's program for anti-tank defense depended on purpose designed weapons; an anti-tank weapon would be low to the ground, of sufficient caliber to pop a tank at a suitable range & furnished with anti-tank ammo (not suitable for artilliary fire.) The 88mm anti-tank weapon did not appear until late in the war, and was simply not produced in large quantity for that reason. (It may have been too awkward for effective usage.) The preponderance of tank kills are attributed by the Germans to the 75mm weapon and its predecessors. Also, generally conceded by most that Allies suffered from 88mm fever. (If the tank blew it had to be an 88mm shot.)

Of course, the 88mm was very effective in the arty role or deepest defense line for anti-tank role, but it must be articulated to that purpose in the combat engine. Having them is not the same as getting them to the point of need. Is it disappointing that we do not see it used in these roles when appropriate? Consider why they are in the Reich air defense role and ask yourselves what a game designer should do to respect that purpose. Appreciate that the game devs have tried to keep the "gamey" stuff in the background. There's a lot of arty & anti-tank action in the game. As well as air defense, at home & in the field.

BTW, I play at a very low combat resolution level and seldom evaluate situations at level 4. So, what could I know? To repeat my silly remark in another thread, how come camo paint isn't in the game? How about all those German tanks hastily committed in dunkel gelb vs. painted in the later years? Hmmm... serious gamers want to know.

< Message edited by rrbill -- 3/12/2013 12:11:24 PM >

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 22
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 12:33:47 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2341
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
To be perectly clear. Pelton is claiming that 88AA Flak Regiments that are City AA Defence units should when assigned to front line combat units be capable of shooting up tons of enemy armour when used as offensive AT units.

I strongly disagree. The game seems to be working ok in this regard. That is these City AA units when attached to combat units don't do much at all.

What I accept is that Army or Luftwaffe 88 Flak units trained as Front line troops in an AA/AT role were deadly AT units when used defensively. And sometimes in an offensive AT role under favourable circumstances. If the game does not model this then it should be looked at.

So a simple test. Have a German XX attacked with a City AA unit attached and note the results. Do identical attack with a combat 88 Flak unit attached. Do ten times or so. Compare. Show the data and base your complaint on those results if warranted.



_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to rrbill)
Post #: 23
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 1:53:22 PM   
turtlefang

 

Posts: 333
Joined: 7/18/2012
Status: offline
I don't know about what's happening in the game but there is a lot of mis-information on the use of the 88mm in combat.

1) In air defense, the 88mm averaged 16,000 rounds fired for every aircraft shoot down. Flak was used primarily to disrupt an air attack not knock down aircraft.

2) I don't have a breakdown for the 88mm batteries, but overall, the static defensive manning broke down as follows: approximately 10% regular air force personal, 50% women, 30% men too young to serve, 20% men either too old or not capable of serving in the front. Basically, not front line troops,

3) Defensively, 88mm was set up in the rear of the main line of resistence with machinguns, light artillery and foward defense positions in front of them. Typically, they deployed in four gun batteries split into 2 gun sections.

4) Offensively, the Germans used the sword and shield approach. The tanks would advance forward, encounter enemy tanks, retreat and draw the enemy tanks back, where the 88mm were sighted in and prepared to take them out. This was the favor tactic across all fronts, and worked virtually all the time. The exception would be if the Germans HAD to advance and didn't have the ability to tactically move backwards - such as Kursk. Or if the Russians, especially, overran the German armor and then rapidly over ran the 88mm line - expensive, but it worked.

The exception, BTW, is the Rumanian oil fields. These defenses were manned full stenght by air force personnel.

As far as city defenses activation, this would require moving the equipment out, providing permanent moving tractors, manning them up, and deploying them. And these units were the "first generation" 88mm which were mounted on high profile carriages - meaning that they were more open to damage by both direct fire and indirect fire than the latter low carriage versions.

Could it be done? Yes, but it should cost both manpower and arm pts to fully activated them. The high AP may already do this, but these units would definitely not be the "best" AT killers, especially later in the war when the Soviets had more indirect fire avaliable.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 24
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 2:18:08 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 1599
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline

This supports the use of 'Field' AA in the AT role and is worth scan for interest.

Battle of Arras 1940

During the afternoon of 21 May, the attack by the 50th Division and the 1st Tank Brigade was progressing south from Arras. This was to be the only large scale attack mounted by the BEF during the campaign. The attack was executed by 6th and 8th Battalions Durham Light Infantry supporting the 4th and 7th Royal Tank Regiment. The infantry battalions were split into two columns for the attack. The right column initially made rapid progress, taking a number of German prisoners, but they soon ran into German infantry and SS, backed by air support, and took heavy losses. The left column also enjoyed early success before running into opposition from the infantry units of Rommel's 7th Pz Div. The defending forces—elements of motorized SS regiment "Totenkopf" were overrun, their standard 37 mm (1.46 in) PaK 36/37 anti-tank guns proving ineffective against the heavily-armoured British Matilda tank. Rommel committed some of his armour to local counterattacks, only to find the guns of the Panzer II and Panzer 38(t) tanks could not penetrate the Matildas' armour. Desperate to prevent a British breakthrough, Rommel ordered the division's 88 mm (3.46 in) FlaK 18 anti-aircraft guns and 105 mm (4.1 in) field guns be formed into a defensive line and fire anti-tank and HE rounds in a last-ditch effort to stop the Matildas. The BEF's advance was halted with heavy losses. Then, with Luftwaffe support, Rommel launched a counter-attack, driving the British back.

Operation Goodwood 1944

Luck set out for the front, and to his dismay saw a large contingent of British tanks rolling over what had been the dug in positions of I Battalion/125th Panzer Grenadier Regiment, in the direction of Cagny. Spotting a Luftwaffe Flak battery of 88mm guns, Luck ordered the commander to open fire on the flank of the British tanks. The battery commander, a young captain, refused to do so, as he was under orders to engage enemy aircraft. At this refusal Luck drew his service pistol, leveled it at the man and said "Either you're a dead man or you can earn yourself a medal." The battery thus engaging the enemy, Luck spent the remainder of the day furiously trying to plug the gaps in his line. Most of the Kampfgruppes armour had been destroyed in the heavy barrages earlier in the day, so it was left to a few scattered antitank and assault gun batteries to take on the advancing British tanks. In recent years the truth of this portrayal of Luck's guns has been questioned by academics such as Ian Daglish who have studied the aerial photographs of Cagny taken hours after the battle; these show no sign of an 88mm battery or even that one had been positioned in the village. However, no suitable alternative seems to explain the heavy destruction wrought on 11th Armoured.






_____________________________

John
WitW Test Co-ordinator
WitE & WitW Scenario Designer

(in reply to turtlefang)
Post #: 25
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 5:13:14 PM   
rrbill

 

Posts: 572
Joined: 10/5/2009
Status: offline
Confirms 88s used in AA role and ad hoc AT roles-and speculatively, rarely in bombardment roles. German divs had enough organic artillery to not depend on the 88s. The 105s, 150s, & larger calibers served well. And AA role became evermore important as war progressed.

Developers have made a game that reflects the general effects of artilliary, AA, and AT (IMO) very well. Sorry that there is bullet-by-bullet simulation that would seem to make it important that each and every weapon be accurately included in the combat. Thus, watching the combat workout is not my cup of tea.

< Message edited by rrbill -- 3/12/2013 5:14:36 PM >

(in reply to Red Lancer)
Post #: 26
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/12/2013 9:30:24 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5822
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Believe what you will then.



The pot calling the kettle black again




_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 27
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/13/2013 6:01:09 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
The notion of AA units participating in ground attacks is always cloudy to me. Having designed some scenarios for other games in the past, it was always a struggle to figure out how to include AA units (even when organic to front-line divisions) in a primarily ground based combat system. For example, the anti-personnel value (in many games) of a British Commonwealth 40mm Bofors Regiment (x48 guns) in the 43-45 period is generally insane. You'd think that the Allies should just have equipped their entire armies with nothing but 40mm AA gun battalions, and the war would've been over by July 1944.

The Allies did use many AA units in a ground support role later in the war (late 1944 onwards), usually taking one or two companies from a battalion (or batteries from a regiment, depending on the nationality/terminology) and attaching them to Regiment/Brigade HQs. The role played by such units seems to have been primarily in laying down suppressive fire, rather than direct engagement of enemy positions or vehicles. In other cases, AA Batteries/Companies were disbanded to provide replacements for the infantry. Still, the primary role of AA units are to provide AA support, and it's not quite so simple as to switch a unit's role/deployment from one to another in short periods of time. Training and experience in different roles, as well as all-arms co-operation isn't instantaneous, despite what movies might portray. Disbanded AA troops weren't simply plugged into infantry units. These were secondary (and generally lower quality) rear area troops that had never seen front-line combat, and often required the full circuit of basic and advanced training all over again before being sent to the front. Inevitably, complaints from the front emerged about lesser combat quality and/or rushed/half-hearted training of these men.

The tactical employment of such guns/units isn't black and white. These are direct fire weapons with little or no armoured protection and difficult to hide (and thus very vulnerable on the front line), and generally not self-propelled. They may often be truck mounted, but we're not talking fully integrated low-profile SPGs, so working them up to the front lines isn't always the easiest/smartest/quickest thing to do. Asking an 88mm gun crew to work out in the open attacking front line fortified positions in Russia is asking for open revolt. Come to think of it, perhaps the game IS portraying them properly in this case after all! This isn't the wide open dessert in a war of movement by relatively small forces, where weakly armoured British tanks are getting fired on before they can even reach the 88mm gun position.

88mm AA's being used in artillery roles were not well practiced tactics. It was situational and often a desperate measure. Just like other ranged artillery firing over open sights at enemy tanks. Sure it happened and the guns may have been capable of it, but it wasn't widespread doctrine. Nor does it mean that because some tanks were thusly knocked out that every artillery regiment suddenly has an effective AT capability. Additionally, 88's may have been multi-role weapons, but did a unit have the correct ammunition on hand? An 88mm AA unit may be capable of AT and artillery firing, but they may only have had a handful of rounds of each on hand. Basic military logistics of supply/demand.

An 88mm capable of firing from it's wheeled mount has little real combat value. Basically you get one shot. I believe technically most (if not all) towed guns/artillery are capable of being fired from their wheeled mounts (if the mount can even handle the shock), but as artillery ballistics depends on a stable platform (or fancy modern computers) to calculate targeting and follow-up shots, merely un-hitching from the truck to fire from wheeled mounts is a desperate and highly inefficient method. That's why dismounting the gun and setting it up is/was so important, and why artillery fire from wheeled mounts prior to WW2 was an in-exact science.

Further, the notion of stripping the homeland's AA defences and sending it all to the front line is on par with those wargamers (c'mon, we all know the types...) that think that it should be entirely within the realm of possibility and realism to be able to send the entire 8th Air Force and Bomber Command fleets in one giant air raid and destroy Germany's factories in one fell swoop on a single day. I mean really, they had all those bombers just sitting there. Why only send over a couple hundred at a time? Those generals back in the 1940's were idiots...

< Message edited by Schmart -- 3/13/2013 6:39:09 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 28
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/13/2013 7:08:17 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
quote:

Further, the notion of stripping the homeland's AA defences and sending it all to the front line is


gamey, because there is no consequence aside from the AP cost.
In WiR you at least had the Allies bombing German factories and resource facilities, and had to make the decision with respect to how many air units to commit to defending the skies of the Fatherland.

So far the historical examples cited are of AA being used as AT guns defensively.
Youtube clips of an 88 firing at a town don't tell us this was an offensive action. It could just as easily be a desperate defensive application against units that had broken the MLR. Keeping AA at a bridgehead to defend against air attack is the likeliest explanation for its presence.

As already stated, let's see if they're participating at all defensively. I haven't familiarized myself with the editor, so I'm not sure how difficult this would be to setup and sandbox.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 29
RE: 88 mm Bugged still or again? - 3/13/2013 7:24:11 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6329
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Modest proposal: make it impossible to remove these AA assets, period. This is right up there with strategic bombing as things that really shouldn't be in WITE at all and ought to be abstracted away from the game as much as possible. More is not always better.




_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Tech Support >> 88 mm Bugged still or again? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125