Charles22
Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
|
Nikademus: Were you the one wanting the adjustment? I don't doubt what you say, however, I recall a thread where the very subject of it's supposed inability to switch roles within a reasonable timeframe was the gist of a complaint against the DP role in the game. If the switch was made to accomodate what you're talking about, though I doubt they thought of this, perhaps op fire should be implemented against aircraft as well.
As a campaigner, myself, I don't see the AI reacting to their having seen it by aircraft forays, and bombarding in response and I understand how head-to-head would be different. Even so, I think instead of chopping the 88 up (and other heavy AAs) the player should recognise that when it fires against aircraft, that they should be prepared to move the piece immediately. Just get the prime mover adjacent to it from the start. I'm always buying prime movers to the tune of at least half of the 88s for transport, even in defense, just due to the fact that the past proved that once it opened up any, not necessarily the AA role, that they met with counterfire in various forms. Playing as Gerry, campaigning, at least early on, the player doesn't have to worry too much about aircraft being the means of spotting the gun, thereby forcing it's movement. A gun that never fires is worthless, and considering it's impact, it's pretty close to foolish not to expect that when it fires, the enemy will do all to nail it. Mobility is the answer.
Actually, if you idea is the reason there's been a splitting of the roles, then we should be given the choice of having a dual- purpose model, a AA model, and a At model. So, if you don't mind it firing and being spotted by a/c, to keep the advantage of how it was actually used, you can. You'll notice that as things stand the 88 AA unit has no AT ammo, while the AT model has both HE and AT. Is it possible that the AT model can actually fire at a/c as well because it has HE ammo. My guess is that it's being classified as an AT gun, has removed the possibility of the HE being used against a/c. Don't you remember that someone was also complaining about how lame it was to allow the 88 to fire in the AA role, because supposedly all these a/c are fighting below 1,000 ft. (not the level bombers I would assume)?
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
88 Flak Revisited - 
I'll check it out tonight!
- 
- 
To add my 2 cents, I am currently reading Ian Hogg's "Tank Killing" and, while he doesn't spend a lot of space on any issue, he does say that the first use of the 88 FlaK 18 AA gun against armour was by the Condor Legion in Spain (for the same reasons as Rommel - Arras, 21 may, 1940). To quote the author - "In that affair they fired high-explosive shells, since that was what AA guns always fired. But the incident was reported home and considered, and as a result the 88mm gun was allocated a secondary anti-tank tasking which resulted in the introduction of proper direct fire sights and an AP shell. It was this ammo that came out of the lockers on 21 May 1940 and stopped the Matildas."
Of course, in early 1942, due to shortages of tungsten, Germany reserved this metal for making machine tools. Pretty much all the AP shot made henceforth was conventional (ie heat treated steel or perhaps capped shot) and penetration performance was reduced.
I have read a number of Mr Hogg's books, and find that while the do not go into as great of depth as many other sources, they are a good read, generally cover a broad topic and contain a fair number of "nuggets".
Bonzo
------------------
Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Coordinator
28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters
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