Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I'm sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere and I missed it, I did not see such a thread. If I have, please point me there. I'm wondering why light AA is fixed in place and cannot be moved. Is a 20mm AAgun that much less mobile than a 50mm ATG? Also, the encyclopedia lists a setup and limber time for these weapons. Is that purely for curiosity sake because it then clearly says they cannot be limbered or set up in game. I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to understand, that's all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Its in the manual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Manuals are for girls. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Manuals are for girls. You have a dirty mind. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I'm wondering why light AA is fixed in place and cannot be moved. Is a 20mm AAgun that much less mobile than a 50mm ATG? A fair question; was wondering the same thing. It certainly states that AA guns cannot be moved, in the manual but there is no explanation as to the logic underpinning that decision, especially for the smaller pieces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 You have a dirty mind. Michael Well, since I didn't have any sexual connotations until your posting, it must be you that has the dirty mind. (And me, of course, be it a bit slower.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Because this is not something you simply pick up and move during combat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 No, you attach the trailer, which was part of the equipment and either push it a short distance or hitch it to a towing vehicle. Not hugely different from operating an AT gun; particularly the 20mm Flak 38 which was considerable lighter than most AT guns. I have seen, at a military show, a similar piece transported out to the display area and set up fairly quickly and equally quickly packed up and transported out. Certainly doable well within the time frame of an average CM scenario. That would, I suppose, require another 3D model, showing the piece mounted on the trailer which, perhaps, BFC deemed too much additional work for not enough 'return'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fizou Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Cant remember how it was back in Cmx1.. could we move AA guns back then? The 88 for sure but what about smaller 20 and 37 mm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 Its in the manual. What is in the manual is that they don't move. What is in the manual are deployment and packing up times. Permanently immobile and packing up and deployment times are contradictory. That is what is in the manual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 What is in the manual are deployment and packing up times. Permanently immobile and packing up and deployment times are contradictory. That is what is in the manual. The screen grabs in the manual's encyclopedia probably came from a beta build before changes to the UI were made so that static guns would not show pack-up/deploy times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 A fair question; was wondering the same thing. It certainly states that AA guns cannot be moved, in the manual but there is no explanation as to the logic underpinning that decision, especially for the smaller pieces. Andf I don't mind that there are some engine constraints. Just say it's so, or why it was decided that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 The screen grabs in the manual's encyclopedia probably came from a beta build before changes to the UI were made so that static guns would not show pack-up/deploy times. Ok, that makes sense to me. Thank you. Still leaves the one question: is this because these weapons are really that much more static than an ATG, or is there some other consideration? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Because this is not something you simply pick up and move during combat. Au contraire. This particular gun was a favourite with the Fallschirmjaeger, as it could be easily transported. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 It was obviously a choice to make them immovable. If I had to guess it would be that the additional 'stuff' like the detachable wheels and the extra crew movements required for making them movable was not worth the effort to make them movable. Fortunately if you want a FLAK gun that moves you can always use the various models of SdKfz with the FLAK mountings. Those vehicles were specifically designed as mobile FLAK, unlike the guns that are being asked about. In anticipation of the next obvious response of 'In spite of the decision to make them immovable we want them to move like AT guns even if we can't see the wheels detach etc' this is probably not something that is going to be changed or altered in any way in a patch. Perhaps it might be revisited in the distant future some day, but in the mean time you will probably have to deal with it as is and stick to the SdKfz versions of FLAK if you want to move them around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 It was obviously a choice to make them immovable. If I had to guess it would be that the additional 'stuff' like the detachable wheels and the extra crew movements required for making them movable was not worth the effort to make them movable. Fortunately if you want a FLAK gun that moves you can always use the various models of SdKfz with the FLAK mountings. Those vehicles were specifically designed as mobile FLAK, unlike the guns that are being asked about. In anticipation of the next obvious response of 'In spite of the decision to make them immovable we want them to move like AT guns even if we can't see the wheels detach etc' this is probably not something that is going to be changed or altered in any way in a patch. Perhaps it might be revisited in the distant future some day, but in the mean time you will probably have to deal with it as is and stick to the SdKfz versions of FLAK if you want to move them around. LOL I wasn't going to ask that "next obvious question" actually. Indeed, if I need a *mobile* light AA unit I will indeed buy one of those spiffy SdKfz's so equipped. Thank you for the info, it confirmed what I suspected but it's nice when someone in the know can support my assumption. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Bud_B, I suspect you're thinking of the SPR 2cm Geb Flak 38, as seen here. We watched that 2cm being trundled through the Normandy streets, so I can well understand why you'd have a mobility gripe, but as you can see, there's a world of difference in the weapon configurations. The one in the streets weighs a whole 825 lbs. on its trailer and 690 off it. http://www.warhistoryonline.(usual)/war-articles/2-cm-flak-38.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-301-1953-24,_Seine-et-Oise,_Soldaten_mit_Flak-Geschütz.jpg The beast in the big color pic is heavy and isn't designed for movement other than towing. Rather, it's trailered in, set up and fights from there. This vid shows the very real mobility differences between the two weapons. Note that the only way to quickly move the deployed gun in the color pic is to have it on rails! The same vid shows how fast the Geb model can be brought into fully deployed action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEItGE0SqCE BLSTK, Au contraire to your au contraire! You've confused two separate versions of the weapon in question. The one you're thinking of is shown in the Wiki pic above. Compare that with the big color pic. The second isn't at all mobile. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 Hi John, Thanks for the info. Yes, that is more or less what I had in mind. No question, it's not a lightweight little toy, but it still significantly less than say, the Pak40, which weighs some 1425 kg (3100+ lbs). I think as pointed out previously the issue here is not truly weight or deployment times; we see in-game mobile ATGS slower to set up and of greater weight. It was a design decision. I wish it were otherwise, but at least we have them in the game at all. Perhaps eventually they will be mobile too, and I'd pay for the upgrade to see it happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Just to confim, the reasons they aren't mobile is they have a detachable wheel carriage. We'd have to write some pretty extensive coding to have the game know what to do with that. Not to mention the animations for them. In CMx1 we could get away with the wheels disappearing/appearing in thin air when needed because EVERYTHING in CMx1 was extremely abstracted. Having magical teleportation properties in CMx2 is not something we think will work, so we aren't planning on doing anything about it. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 @John Kettler, Triple "au contraire" to you, sir. The two guns are one and the same. My example is merely shown dismounted. If you look carefully at the picture, you'll see its wheel carriage. For more on this, see Jean-Denis LePage's "Illustrated Handbook of FLAK (1935-1945)". @Steve, Thank you for confirming this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 I suppose the same conditions may apply to the British 2 pdr ATG when we get to an era where its use was common, given that emplaced, its wheels also were removed. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 Just to confim, the reasons they aren't mobile is they have a detachable wheel carriage. We'd have to write some pretty extensive coding to have the game know what to do with that. Not to mention the animations for them. In CMx1 we could get away with the wheels disappearing/appearing in thin air when needed because EVERYTHING in CMx1 was extremely abstracted. Having magical teleportation properties in CMx2 is not something we think will work, so we aren't planning on doing anything about it. Steve Thanks for the explanation, Steve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 A shame when the simulation is deliberately sacrificed on the altar of graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 BLSTK, The picture in the Wiki is of the lightweight 2cm Geb Flak 38, used by GJ and others. It is indeed on its trailer and can be used, for ground fire at least to some degree, from that trailer. The gun in the color pic may be the same ballistically, but the Wiki pic clearly shows the weapon lacks the succession of weighty armor plates plainly seen in the color pic. This is how the weapon could be rapidly rolled through Carentan(?) in SPR. What may appear to be armor plate under the canvas shroud really consists of the gunsight mount and gunsight assembly. The whole point of the Geb model was to make mobile a fairly heavy weapon which otherwise required a proper towing vehicle. This was vital for mountain ops and in other situations, such as for the FJ you cite, in which weight and size were major considerations. The book sounds worthwhile. When will I be receiving my copy?! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLSTK Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Point, Monsieur Kettler. The distinction you make is a valid one. The 2cm Gebirgsflak 38, aka Geraet 239, was a lightweight version used by paras and mountain units. The weapon suffered an inherent design flaw, however, as its tubular tripod mount proved to be TOO light for the gun. Accuracy suffered as a result. As for the book, you're welcome to borrow my copy which I clearly have yet to read in its entirety. Patience, my good man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.