|
CEDeaton -> Re: Re: Japanese Flak is wimpy? (7/19/2003 12:55:05 AM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]You rabble rouser you ! ;)
The answer to your question is "yes" and "no"
Land based flak against large level bombers attacking at consistantly low altitudes is too ineffective. By this I dont mean that dozens of planes should go crashing down to earth when it is attempted, but rather, when attacking a strongly defended base, there should be a more tangible result of ignoring the defense than with what is usually seen. More 'hits' should result from such tactics as even a pop gun can contribute something if the bombers attack low enough, resulting in more damages, more kills but most importantly more disruption to the bombers and their resulting accuracy. If this were coupled with longer down times for damaged planes that come back after the mission i think we would find that balance of pros and cons that is missing and thus the need for more restrictive house rules would be lessened. So for example, i would expect Forts to remain very tough opponents, however even a Fort is going to have to spend some considerable down time if it's fuslage has been shot full of holes, some crew wounded and a bunch of parts/maintenance required to bring it back up to specs.
ship based flak is too effective all around (and so is early war USN for that matter) However a signifigant cavet again must be that, if the player employs ultra low level bombing attacks, there again should, like the land component still be a sig bonus to flak effects and resulting disruption assuming that the TF in question has signifigant AA to bring to play. Level bombers attacking at 100 - 1000 feet make big lumbering targets. Part of the same thing that makes torpedo bombers so vulnerable, they have to come in straight and low and that makes the gunners job easier. I expect Allied planes to be tougher but again even a tough plane shot full of holes is going to be unavail for some time in the future.
As Bergerud put it. Tactical bombers faced a serious threat from AA, less so medium bombers, and less again big strategic bombers however it was also pointed out that altitude was used as cushion to help enhance the increased DUR and redundant systems benefit of bigger bombers. the USAAF certainly did not go charging in from the get go at 6000 feet, during the daytime, regardless of enemy flak and fighter strength and just have at it.
Consistantly attacking at unsafe altitudes against heavy AA concentrations can and should reap a consequence from the player. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think you're really onto something here realtive to the target altitude vs flak effectiveness issue. I've also noticed that ship-based flak seems a bit harsh at times but haven't noticed the same issue with land-based flak either.
Until we started this discussion and I started to give it some thought, I was given to assuming that the Jap LB Flak was just of a lighter calibre and more poorly coordinated than what was used in Europe and thus, less effective than what we've come to expect. On reflection, I suppose there could also be some other historical justifications for this effectiveness gap. Flak on the ground is still tasked with doing maximum damage to the enemy, but it has to protect an entire base so it is likely to be more spread out both as a means of providing said defense and as a defense against any potential flak suppression missions that might head their way.
SIDEBAR THOUGHT - Since we don't have Flak Supression missions, does anyone have any idea whether Ground, Port or Airbase Bombing missions tend to result in more hits on flak guns?
On a more human level, LB flak wouldn't generally have to worry too much about being the target of the attack itself. There are more important things in the area to hit (as witnesed by the fact the bad guys bothered to put the flak there in the first place). Ship based flak, on the other hand, is very often all about self-preservation, so the gunners are certainly much more motivated to get the kill since a miss might very well mean going to Davy Jones' Locker.
Add to this the fact that SB Flak is, by definition, more concentrated, which make it more easy to control and mass fires on incoming targets, and I'd think we probably should be seeing better results coming from a like number and calibre of guns based on a ship than if they were based on land. Which leads me to yet another thought that takes me back in the other direction on this equation
(Holy Boy! This is like free-association brainstorming!).
Wouldn't it stand to reason that a ship that is tied up in port might actually be more effective than when it's underway because it is a more stable firing platform? AND LB Flak should have that advantage factored in all the time. I just have no clue how much of a difference that would actually make.
It's making my head hurt just thinking about all this stuff. I'll tell ya' what. 2by3 can make whatever design decisions they darn well please and I'll nod my head, learn to deal with it, and play it anyway! Just give me a more user-friendly editor this time, with the ability to add additional plane types so I can do a 1937-38 scenario start date with accurate plane types, and I'll give them the wargamer's equivalent of a Papal Indulgence and forgive just about any sin I think is in the finished product. I think I've bought just about every game Grigsby was ever involved in creating because they are, and have always been IMO, the best thing going for strategic/operational level wargamers. I'm sure not going to stop now!
BTW, thanks for your well-considered and rational answers, Nik. THIS is exactly what I was hoping for when I joined the forum!
|
|
|
|
