Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Comprehensive Wishlist

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/28/2010 10:12:33 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Fact 2: Even the few Flak-41 guns that were built were not sent to the front lines, despite their AT power and the frontline need for it.

The critical difference is the carriage. QED.


Weren't the Allies plastering German cities day and night? I'd say that would rank fairly highly in the list of priorities for using AA guns.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1081
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/28/2010 10:14:40 PM   
golden delicious


Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've noticed many WW2 artillery pieces that were used as AT guns have no AT value in the equipment database.


This gets back to what a weapon is usually going to be doing. Yes, a 150mm Howitzer can be used to knock out that menacing KV-I which has held up the division for the last 12 hours. But for the other three years of its service life, it is not going to be in a position to be used in an AT role.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1082
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/28/2010 11:09:15 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



They would already be unlimbered when protecting an attack or defense. What fixed targets are there in the Western Desert?


Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1083
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 5:21:28 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

The 41 actually was used in Tunisia. However, it's more complex than the earlier types and requires much more to maintain it. The troops in the field were not up to the task. It was pulled from ground forces and used only in Germany where proper service and maintanance facilities could keep them in good order.

It's carriage did provide a lower profile than the other types but still, servicing problems and a jamming problem made them impractile for use with the ground forces. Also, not many were made.


This all sounds like the typical teething problems any new weapon system has. If the concept (dual use Flak guns) had still been viable, they would have fixed it. It wasn't. And they opted for AT guns instead.

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1084
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 5:23:37 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

I've noticed many WW2 artillery pieces that were used as AT guns have no AT value in the equipment database.


As I've said before, 1/4 of their AP value is applied as AT if attacked (maybe even if attacking - I'm not sure).

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1085
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 5:26:16 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Fact 2: Even the few Flak-41 guns that were built were not sent to the front lines, despite their AT power and the frontline need for it.

The critical difference is the carriage. QED.


Weren't the Allies plastering German cities day and night? I'd say that would rank fairly highly in the list of priorities for using AA guns.


You're missing the point: Why build 88mm AT guns if an 88mm Flak gun can do both the AT and Flak tasks? Yes the cities were being bombed, but so were the front lines.

(in reply to golden delicious)
Post #: 1086
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 5:28:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.


I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1087
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 5:33:19 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

A limbered up 88 moving along with a column would be useless if some Tomahawks showed up.


I want to go back to this one. The Flak-41 could be fired with its wheels attached - just extend the side members. And we don't know how long it took to unlimber the others. Finally, there are plenty of low-altitude (small caliber) AAA guns that require unlimbering as well.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1088
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 6:38:30 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.


I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.


In North Africa, aircraft such as Wellingtons focused on bombing ports, airfields, and other fixed installations from altitude.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/29/2010 7:03:12 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1089
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 6:46:01 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

A limbered up 88 moving along with a column would be useless if some Tomahawks showed up.


I want to go back to this one. The Flak-41 could be fired with its wheels attached - just extend the side members.


Got any figures on actual time to deploy? An 88 is a big gun -- you're not swinging this thing into action in a few seconds. What's more, its rate of fire and traverse are going to make it close to useless against low-altitude targets.
quote:



And we don't know how long it took to unlimber the others. Finally, there are plenty of low-altitude (small caliber) AAA guns that require unlimbering as well.


How often did 88's defend mobile columns under attack? On the other hand, there was quite a bit of self-propelled light AA -- 2 cm guns on trucks, to be exact. These latter were obviously intended to provide AA protection while on the move.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/29/2010 7:04:07 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1090
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/29/2010 7:18:51 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		Flak 41 saw action in Tunisia. It did see the front lines.

LW 19th and 20th Flak Divisions (motorized) were sent to North Africa. Both ended up destroyed 1943.

It took about 20 seconds to get an 88 ready to fire from limber/towed position. About a minute to get it back to towed.

Did I mention it's rof was 15 - 20 rpm? 41 a bit faster but jamming was a problem.

< Message edited by Panama -- 6/29/2010 7:19:25 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1091
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 7:45:56 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Flak 41 saw action in Tunisia. It did see the front lines.

LW 19th and 20th Flak Divisions (motorized) were sent to North Africa. Both ended up destroyed 1943.

It took about 20 seconds to get an 88 ready to fire from limber/towed position. About a minute to get it back to towed.

Did I mention it's rof was 15 - 20 rpm? 41 a bit faster but jamming was a problem.


Those figures are impressive, but this is about as close as you're going to get to the horse's mouth. It's a US Army summary written at the end of the 1943 discussing German employment of flak, based on both actual observations and captured manuals.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/flak-field-army.html

It makes it fairly clear that mobile flak protection is furnished by light flak. In particular:

"...Protection against high-level attack by heavy Flak is required only at assembly, entrucking and detrucking areas, halts and especially dangerous points the route such as bridges, defiles or intersections.

Protection against low-flying and diving attacks must be assured by the light Flak units allotted to the motorized formations. These should be allotted to columns by platoons or even by individual guns..."

I think I'll keep my money on heavy AA such as 88's being intended for static deployment covering fixed and vulnerable points whilst mobile coverage is furnished by the 2 cms and the 3.7's.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/30/2010 7:55:12 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1092
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 7:55:18 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline 		This passage is also of interest:

"...The 88-mm gun can be brought into action very rapidly, possibly in about two minutes; it can, if necessary, fire from its trailer, though only against ground targets..."

The inference here is that the 88 would be virtually useless for providing mobile AA protection. It can come into action quickly, but not in an AA role.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1093
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 1:53:14 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline 		lmao, and here I thought we were talking about it's usefullness in the AT role. Silly me.

_____________________________


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1094
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:18:24 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.


I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.


In North Africa, aircraft such as Wellingtons focused on bombing ports, airfields, and other fixed installations from altitude.


But not from 20,000 feet. These were precision targets that required low-altitude strikes. And they were also subject to fighter-bomber attack. Anything appropriate for defense of those targets would be just as appropriate for defense of troops.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1095
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:25:26 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

lmao, and here I thought we were talking about it's usefullness in the AT role. Silly me.


Well, we did move on to the roles an 88 could fulfill and why it would or wouldn't be with a combat formation as opposed to back protecting bridge y or fuel dump x.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Panama)
Post #: 1096
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:27:48 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Got any figures on actual time to deploy? An 88 is a big gun -- you're not swinging this thing into action in a few seconds. What's more, its rate of fire and traverse are going to make it close to useless against low-altitude targets.


Seems like we do. Seconds. And a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute - firing shrapnel bursts instead of bullets. And more than twice the ranges of light AA. Bad news for bombers at any altitude.

quote:

How often did 88's defend mobile columns under attack? On the other hand, there was quite a bit of self-propelled light AA -- 2 cm guns on trucks, to be exact. These latter were obviously intended to provide AA protection while on the move.


There was quite a bit of towed light AA as well. By your line of reasoning, they should have been kept in the rear as well. They weren't.

Clearly, getting intercepted while moving is bad news for the movers. That's why forces that face enemy air supremacy usually have to move at night. Flak protection is required for more than just moving. As I said, when defending or attacking, the Flak would be already deployed unlimbered.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1097
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:28:12 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Do you seriously require an answer to that?

Okay...ammo dumps, repair workshops, airfields, ports -- in fact most of the fixed targets there are anywhere.

But go ahead -- argue the point.


I meant that there were no factories or population centers to defend. The targets you listed are more often attacked by low-altitude air.


In North Africa, aircraft such as Wellingtons focused on bombing ports, airfields, and other fixed installations from altitude.


But not from 20,000 feet. These were precision targets that required low-altitude strikes. And they were also subject to fighter-bomber attack. Anything appropriate for defense of those targets would be just as appropriate for defense of troops.


I'm afraid you're making things up as you go along. I don't know what altitude Wellingtons bombed from, but it was considerable, and more to the point, defending against such strikes was the AA role 88's were intended to fulfill. For defense against low-level strikes light AA would have been both cheaper and considerably more effective.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/30/2010 5:31:39 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1098
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:30:11 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

"...Protection against high-level attack by heavy Flak is required only at assembly, entrucking and detrucking areas, halts and especially dangerous points the route such as bridges, defiles or intersections.

Protection against low-flying and diving attacks must be assured by the light Flak units allotted to the motorized formations. These should be allotted to columns by platoons or even by individual guns..."


On the contrary, my reading of that is that mobile forces did have heavy Flak with them - for use in the first case.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1099
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:32:17 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

"...Protection against high-level attack by heavy Flak is required only at assembly, entrucking and detrucking areas, halts and especially dangerous points the route such as bridges, defiles or intersections.

Protection against low-flying and diving attacks must be assured by the light Flak units allotted to the motorized formations. These should be allotted to columns by platoons or even by individual guns..."


On the contrary, my reading of that is that mobile forces did have heavy Flak with them - for use in the first case.


Perhaps. You can always check OOB's for various operations. However, the point is that the 88 was neither designed for, nor used to provide mobile battlefield AA protection. When it appeared in such a setting, it was there to serve as a ground combat weapon.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1100
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:34:12 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This passage is also of interest:

"...The 88-mm gun can be brought into action very rapidly, possibly in about two minutes; it can, if necessary, fire from its trailer, though only against ground targets..."

The inference here is that the 88 would be virtually useless for providing mobile AA protection. It can come into action quickly, but not in an AA role.


Again, you've misread the passage. "Firing from its trailer" would be without any deployment action at all - immediately. Given two minutes, it's ready to go against anything.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1101
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:38:49 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

This passage is also of interest:

"...The 88-mm gun can be brought into action very rapidly, possibly in about two minutes; it can, if necessary, fire from its trailer, though only against ground targets..."

The inference here is that the 88 would be virtually useless for providing mobile AA protection. It can come into action quickly, but not in an AA role.


Again, you've misread the passage. "Firing from its trailer" would be without any deployment action at all - immediately. Given two minutes, it's ready to go against anything.


I thought the point was obvious, but I guess it wasn't; two minutes is far too long a prep time to provide mobile AA defense.

A ground-strafing fighter will cover 8 miles in two minutes and exhaust its ammunition in ten seconds. By the time the 88 is set up, the attack will be over.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/30/2010 5:39:34 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1102
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:42:40 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I'm afraid you're making things up as you go along. I don't know what altitude Wellingtons bombed from, but it was considerable, and more to the point, defending against such strikes was the AA role 88's were intended to fulfill.


I'm not making up that those are precision targets that require low altitiudes to target them. Nor that they were targeted by fighter-bombers. Just because the Wellington was a level bomber doesn't mean it only operated at 20,000 feet. Anything that could target such things could also target troop concentrations in the same manner. Therefore, anything that could defend them could defend troop concentrations in the same manner as well.

quote:

For defense against low-level strikes light AA would have been both cheaper and considerably more effective.


Maybe cheaper but not more effective.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1103
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 5:47:16 PM   
Curtis Lemay


Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I thought the point was obvious, but I guess it wasn't; two minutes is far too long a prep time to provide mobile AA defense.

A ground-strafing fighter will cover 8 miles in two minutes and exhaust its ammunition in ten seconds. By the time the 88 is set up, the attack will be over.


They can be spotted much further out than that. And take longer to coordinate their attack route. And may consist of several planes and passes. And two minutes is just one estimate. There's also an estimate of seconds.

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1104
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 7:11:21 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I thought the point was obvious, but I guess it wasn't; two minutes is far too long a prep time to provide mobile AA defense.

A ground-strafing fighter will cover 8 miles in two minutes and exhaust its ammunition in ten seconds. By the time the 88 is set up, the attack will be over.


They can be spotted much further out than that. And take longer to coordinate their attack route. And may consist of several planes and passes. And two minutes is just one estimate. There's also an estimate of seconds.


This really is like arguing with my fifteen year old. It's just like it.

Look: your arguments never hold up to examination -- for the excellent example that they rarely have any foundation in reality.

Ever hear of the 'Africa squint,' or whatever it was? In Africa, tactical aircraft would be on you within seconds -- not minutes. You had about enough time to fling yourself out of your vehicle and hit the dirt -- not two minutes to set up the 88. Now, you could start banging away with the portee-mounted 2 cm -- which was what it was for.

Take it another way. Go to ten random locations in your day. Look around and see over what percentage of the horizon you could see a low flying aircraft eight miles away. Even if you could see it, could you identify it as hostile?

It's random, but I looked around my place. I have visibility along ground level eight miles out over about 10% of the 360 degree circle around my house. Even in that case, I doubt if I could distinguish a small aircraft eight miles out. I certainly couldn't tell whose it was or what its intentions were.

Offhand, and on average -- and going by what accounts I can recall, I'd guess fifteen seconds warning of an incoming strafing attack is average. Certainly not two minutes.

But this is what you do. You never consider historical or even everyday reality in your arguments. It's all about attempting to carry the day with whatever silly claim you've made. One will usually have two minutes warning of a strafing attack. 88's make fine mobile flak. Wadis are trenches. Your TOAW scenario of Waterloo is a perfectly good simulation. The supply system is just fine. It never ends -- and the worst of it is that you're in a position to impose your views on the game we all play.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 6/30/2010 8:09:45 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1105
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 7:13:41 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay



Maybe cheaper but not more effective.


Come on, Bob! You have no frigging idea, and in any case, it's unlikely. You just make whatever statements the rhetorical needs of your argument require, without any regard for what the facts might be whatsoever.


_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to Curtis Lemay)
Post #: 1106
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 7:20:50 PM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

I thought the point was obvious, but I guess it wasn't; two minutes is far too long a prep time to provide mobile AA defense.

A ground-strafing fighter will cover 8 miles in two minutes and exhaust its ammunition in ten seconds. By the time the 88 is set up, the attack will be over.


They can be spotted much further out than that. And take longer to coordinate their attack route. And may consist of several planes and passes. And two minutes is just one estimate. There's also an estimate of seconds.


This really is like arguing with my fifteen year old. It's just like it.


Actually, and on reflection, to be fair it's not like arguing with my fifteen year old -- not really.

On occasion -- and particularly if I don't blow up -- he will eventually get this sheepish grin and admit I'm right.

That'll never happen with Bob. No fear.

You ever get suspicious about just how good your batting average is, Bob? Ever think maybe that doesn't mean quite what you would like it to mean?

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1107
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 10:27:02 PM   
madner

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/21/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

quote:

The biggest reason why the 8.8 wasn't practical versus tactical bomber was that it wasn't until 1945 that the time fuse was replaced by a proximity one (which tripled the efficiency versus strategic bombers).


And heat-seeking and radar-guidance weren't developed till much later still.

What does that have to do with anything? No German AAA had proximity fuses.


Give credit where credit is due. It would appear Curtis is substantially right on this one. The closest I got to evidence that the Germans had proximity fuses is this:

"...Little known however is that the Germans independently developed and
successfully test fired almost 1000 rounds of a similar proximity fuse
near the wars end that if introduced into service would have had a
dramatic effect. The allies estimated that the availability of the
proximity fuse would force them to abandon use of the B-24 Liberator
due to its lower flying altitude compared to the B-17..."

One thousand rounds of AA fire isn't very much. I'd say the Germans had proximity fuses like they had rocket fighters.



That is even worse for the argument that 8.8 was good versus tactical bombers. The time fuse needed accurate measurement of altitude and speed to be effective, if that isn't possible it isn't firing shrapnel.


(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1108
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 6/30/2010 10:36:02 PM   
madner

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 6/21/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright



quote:

ORIGINAL: madner


Now, true enough the Wehrmacht could have asked for a dual purpose AA/AT gun from Krupp, but there is point 1.



On reflection, a dual purpose AA/AT gun the size of an 88 sounds unlikely.

The original 88 was built as an AA gun -- and look at that! It's just dandy against bunkers and tanks. However, that wasn't the original idea.

I believe later variants were purpose-built as AT guns -- and I doubt very much if any were intended to fulfill both roles well. If one thinks about it, an AA gun is going to have elevating gear and stuff that's going to give it a high profile, whilst an AT gun should have as low a profile as possible, and the barrel doesn't need to be elevated much. As an intentional design, a 'dual purpose AA/AT gun' makes about as much sense as an assault scout car.



That is true, but as a pure AA gun it was inferior to almost any other nation gun, for precisely the reasons it was such a good ground gun. Also, it wasn't by chance it was employed versus ground targets, but proper ammo, optics and crew training was in place prior to meeting heavy tanks.




(in reply to ColinWright)
Post #: 1109
RE: Comprehensive Wishlist - 7/1/2010 12:36:02 AM   
ColinWright

 

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: madner



That is true, but as a pure AA gun it was inferior to almost any other nation gun, for precisely the reasons it was such a good ground gun. Also, it wasn't by chance it was employed versus ground targets, but proper ammo, optics and crew training was in place prior to meeting heavy tanks.






Yeah -- and all of these reasons plus doctrine and historical use are reasons why players should think twice before including unmodified AA guns in their units' OOB's. The German 88 -- as an AA piece commonly used against ground targets -- was more an exception to the rule than the rule itself. My own impression -- which I am happy to have supplemented -- is that routine use of flak for ground combat was confined to the German army throughout the war plus the British army late in the war.

AA guns may have been in units, but if they didn't commonly play an effective role in ground combat, they should be omitted. All the more so since the mechanism TOAW has for simulating the effect of AA as AA is almost absurdly bad. In three cases out of four, you're including a weapon which will behave contrary to history.


< Message edited by ColinWright -- 7/1/2010 1:27:41 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to madner)
Post #: 1110
Page:   <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> RE: Comprehensive Wishlist Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   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

1.859