Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

88 Flak in an anti-tank role

 
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 >> The War Room >> 88 Flak in an anti-tank role Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 10:20:14 AM   
TomaszPudlo

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
If I assign an 88 flak regiment from a city to a corps HQs, will it be used in an anti-tank capacity? Is there *any* point in spending 50 administrative points on re-assigning those flak regiments?
Post #: 1
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 10:43:48 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
As long as they are dispatched to help in battle, then yes, they should. Just like 88mm guns in smaller AA support units.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 2
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 1:13:50 PM   
TomaszPudlo

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
So the issues raised in this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3284657

have been resolved?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 3
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 1:23:05 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I just said they will work like 88mm in other support units. Not that they will be efficient as dedicated AT guns.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 4
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 1:25:12 PM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1237
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
Trying to figure out how efficient are anti tank support units is one of my holy grail in this game.
I have completely no clue.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 5
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 2:03:22 PM   
TomaszPudlo

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I just said they will work like 88mm in other support units. Not that they will be efficient as dedicated AT guns.


Pelton's point -- from more than three-and-a-half years ago -- was that anti-aircraft guns don't work at all, not even in their primary capacity, much less in their anti-tank rôle. So my question is, has this been resolved? If so, could someone please direct me to the relevant patch notes?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 6
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 3:11:30 PM   
821Bobo


Posts: 1759
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: online
There actually can be some issue with AA. In my current Soviet game Axis is bombing Osinovets(which is infested by Soviet FlaK) for 5 turns in row. Axis recon is usually massacred over Osinovets. So far so good. But the port strikes are untouched by AA fire. Either it is only display issue or AA is not shooting at all.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by 821Bobo -- 11/25/2016 3:12:05 PM >

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 7
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 4:18:16 PM   
Pionpion

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 10/23/2016
Status: offline
Do you mean that it is useless to put some AA units into frontline units to inflict losses on attacking planes ?
BTW, if I want to protect my air bases with AA units, does allocating AA support units to Air HQ work ?

(in reply to 821Bobo)
Post #: 8
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 4:33:48 PM   
821Bobo


Posts: 1759
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: online
Yes the AA normally works. Just when bombing ports it looks like there is some problem.

(in reply to Pionpion)
Post #: 9
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 6:22:23 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomaszPudlo


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I just said they will work like 88mm in other support units. Not that they will be efficient as dedicated AT guns.


Pelton's point -- from more than three-and-a-half years ago -- was that anti-aircraft guns don't work at all, not even in their primary capacity, much less in their anti-tank rôle. So my question is, has this been resolved? If so, could someone please direct me to the relevant patch notes?


AA units attached to cities participate in combat when city is attacked. I think this was one of the problems listed.

I also created dual AT/Flak ground element type to make sure 88mm work as normal AT guns in combat but I think Denniss didn't change their type. Maybe they were too good then. AA guns are generally shielded from combat and that causes them to make little damage in return.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 10
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 6:23:56 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

Yes the AA normally works. Just when bombing ports it looks like there is some problem.


Interesting, will have to check that. Port bombing is part of one big bombing routine, and if flak works there, it should work here too.

(in reply to 821Bobo)
Post #: 11
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/25/2016 6:35:38 PM   
821Bobo


Posts: 1759
Joined: 2/8/2011
From: Slovakia
Status: online
Maybe it is just not displaying in the combat resolution. Many LW planes have been shotdown over Osinovets but now it is looking like all the work is doing CAP.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 12
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/26/2016 9:44:17 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I checked flak and it's working, even if it's not listed properly on battle report.
In your examples 2 recon were most likely downed by fighters, not by flak. On the other hand the bombing run was well protected by fighters.
I think flak is more effective against GS attacks, than city bombing. It's done at higher altitude and flak becomes less effective.

(in reply to 821Bobo)
Post #: 13
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/26/2016 1:42:42 PM   
Dinglir


Posts: 591
Joined: 3/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

I checked flak and it's working, even if it's not listed properly on battle report.
In your examples 2 recon were most likely downed by fighters, not by flak. On the other hand the bombing run was well protected by fighters.
I think flak is more effective against GS attacks, than city bombing. It's done at higher altitude and flak becomes less effective.



I don't actually KNOW, but every level bomber has a maximum altitude and every gun has a Ceiling. It is reasonable to assume that a level bomber flying at a higher altitude than an opposing guns ceiling is immune to fire from said gun.

Even the German 88mm flak gun has a ceiling of 26.000 feet and some level bombers fly higher than this (eg the SB-2 flying at 29.530 feet). If I am right in my assumption, some Soviet bombers should be virtually immune to flak fire from the Germans.

< Message edited by Dinglir -- 11/26/2016 1:50:29 PM >


_____________________________

To be is to do -- Socrates
To do is to be -- Jean-Paul Sartre
Do be do be do -- Frank Sinatra

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 14
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/26/2016 7:05:42 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Offline battle report seems to be bugged and has problems listing flak in various circumstances. But when you run battle at high message level you can see flak is there.
Also, there is problem with accounting flak when there is more than one flight (group of planes) during a single mission. Each flight is attacked separately and you see only the flak attacking the last flight.

(in reply to Dinglir)
Post #: 15
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/26/2016 7:52:38 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TomaszPudlo

So the issues raised in this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3284657

have been resolved?



In one battle where I had a LW Flak Regiment participating, 127 88mm AA guns damaged 1 tank, destroyed 1 rifle squad and 1 machine gun.

When I changed the element type to dual flak/at they were a bit better. They fired many more times (up to 30 shots at various tanks), sometimes even using AP rounds. But the effects were still poor. 1 tank was damaged and 1 rifle squad destroyed by the guns, while 1 rifle squad and 1 machine gun were destroyed by the Mausers of the crew.

But you can't say they were not used completely in AT capacity.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 16
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/26/2016 7:59:48 PM   
Stelteck

 

Posts: 1237
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
It would be marvelous to have details logs of combat (who fire at who and miss/hit) in a special combat.log in WITE directory each turn, ready to be analyzed offline and without opening the game. It would be a great help to figure what is happening and what is effective.

For example i just took the decision to add a AA batallion at each of my tanks corps in my grand campaign, as AA were rumoured to shoot at tank too and i wanted a cheap batallion size way to increase the anti tank capability of my tank corps.

But you just ruined my strategy by suggesting they are nearly useless

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 17
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/26/2016 8:45:49 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I add AA to my tank corps to protect them from aircraft, not tanks
I add SU (SP guns) and heavy tanks to fight other tanks

:)

I too would like to know which parameter(s) decide that AA guns are bad in AT role.

(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 18
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/27/2016 8:30:43 AM   
No idea

 

Posts: 482
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael


quote:

ORIGINAL: TomaszPudlo

So the issues raised in this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3284657

have been resolved?



In one battle where I had a LW Flak Regiment participating, 127 88mm AA guns damaged 1 tank, destroyed 1 rifle squad and 1 machine gun.

When I changed the element type to dual flak/at they were a bit better. They fired many more times (up to 30 shots at various tanks), sometimes even using AP rounds. But the effects were still poor. 1 tank was damaged and 1 rifle squad destroyed by the guns, while 1 rifle squad and 1 machine gun were destroyed by the Mausers of the crew.

But you can't say they were not used completely in AT capacity.


It seems something doesnt work well when all those 88s can just kill that number of enemies.

Irl the 88s were the only real check the germans had against T34s and KV 1s during 1941. And the 88 was a superb all around gun through the whole war. Vulnerable, when not well entrenched due to its high profile and big mover, but a killer nonetheless.

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 19
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/28/2016 7:23:17 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2414
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
I posted about this a while ago - and it was suggested it would be fixed that is allow heavy flak ( LW) to be SU in corps and be committed in the normal way- I hope so ...

(in reply to No idea)
Post #: 20
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/28/2016 7:25:00 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
With scenario editor I attached it directly to unit. And the effects were not impressive (as can be seen above, this was against 750+ AFV).

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 21
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/30/2016 3:11:08 PM   
No idea

 

Posts: 482
Joined: 6/24/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

With scenario editor I attached it directly to unit. And the effects were not impressive (as can be seen above, this was against 750+ AFV).


And nothing can be done to fix it? Giving them a real use in the at role cant be so unbalancing, and would make AA units equipped with 88s useful

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 22
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 11/30/2016 4:06:32 PM   
TheOne

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 10/26/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Trying to figure out how efficient are anti tank support units is one of my holy grail in this game.
I have completely no clue.



They work much better defending then attacking.

So as a player why not simply disband them if they are sucking up ammo/supplies/AP points?

Seem almost completely useless in the long run when you figure in cost and effect.

Hope this is just a 1.0 issue and not a 2.0 issue.




< Message edited by TheOne -- 11/30/2016 4:15:03 PM >

(in reply to Stelteck)
Post #: 23
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/13/2016 10:11:50 AM   
TomaszPudlo

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: No idea
Irl the 88s were the only real check the germans had against T34s and KV 1s during 1941.



Exactly.

By the way, I've tried using an 88 flak regiment as a garrison. It had zero effect. I realise that these units were not intended for garrison duty, but we're talking about 4000+ men. They should have *some* effect.

(in reply to No idea)
Post #: 24
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/13/2016 11:52:06 AM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
Unfortunately support units attached to cities do not count as garrison, only on map units do.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 25
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/13/2016 1:36:30 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1826
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
The standard army AA units should help in the battle with their guns, but using city air defense units is a little bit exploitive and should should not be rewarded.
The city AA units had second class (young, old, or not fully fit for front duty) personal and I suppose they also lacked motorization and training.

Were there on top of this differences among the city air defence 88mm AA gun and the one used on the fronline? Like a different mounting, making the city version more immobile?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 26
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/13/2016 1:41:47 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
I only know they (static AA guns) were feared by the infantry on approach to German cities, as described by Charles B. MacDonald in his "Company Commander: The Classic Infantry Memoir of WWII".

(in reply to EwaldvonKleist)
Post #: 27
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/21/2016 5:47:54 PM   
TomaszPudlo

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
I just discovered a weird thing. An 88mm flak regiment has 19 points construction value, which is just one point below a pioneer battalion. Is this intentional? If so, can I use them to build fortifications? If I assign a couple of them to a corps HQ, will they assist infantry in fort construction?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 28
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/21/2016 6:03:16 PM   
morvael


Posts: 11420
Joined: 9/8/2006
From: Poland
Status: offline
1) Construction value is high because there is a lot of men in such regiment, whereas pioneers get theirs construction value from extra multipliers for the engineers
2) No, they will not assist, only construction and engineer units may be lent by HQs to assist. But if you attach any support unit to a combat unit, it will assist.

(in reply to TomaszPudlo)
Post #: 29
RE: 88 Flak in an anti-tank role - 12/21/2016 6:26:10 PM   
TomaszPudlo

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline
What if I assign them directly to a front-line city? Will they assist in fort construction, assuming there's a combat unit in the city?

(in reply to morvael)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> 88 Flak in an anti-tank role 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

0.164