AA Guns.Multiple Questions,Discussion

[weapon2010]

Questions

What was the thought process by BF introducing aa guns into the mix but not being able to use them against planes?Isn't it a bit odd that if your opponent buys planes, the aa will not shoot at them?.I know that capability is scheduled to come in the future.So why not wait and release aa gun usage with the ability to shoot at planes?

These questions lead to more about how commanders used these weapons in reality.

Were aa guns commonly used against infantry and soft targets? (and this is why BF decided to add them prior to their ability to shoot at planes?)or was it the exception?

If I were a commander(especially german) I would use my aa guns sparingly or in emergency situations only.Saving them for defense against air attack.

But since you cant even fire at planes,it changes the way we would realisticly use these weapons in the game.

[Michael Emrys]

Were aa guns commonly used against infantry and soft targets? (and this is why BF decided to add them prior to their ability to shoot at planes?)...

Yes. By the middle of the war, most armies were lavishly supplied with AAA. The Germans were not shy about using theirs, especially the 20 mm variety, against ground targets. Similarly, the US used their quad .50s in the same way. I know the Brits used their 40 mm Bofors in integrated fire plans as part of their artillery prep bombardment in several of their set piece attacks during the last year of the war. The Germans used the 88 for just about everything except cooking rations (and for all I know they may have even done that).

If I were a commander(especially german) I would use my aa guns sparingly or in emergency situations only.Saving them for defense against air attack.

I daresay that if you were a commander, you would use whatever weapons you had available to achieve your mission objectives at the lowest cost in casualties of your own men possible. AA weapons were apparently generously supplied with ammunition and don't seem to have run out. The standard practice was that if they or the troops they were with came under air attack, their priority would immediately shift to their primary mission of defense against air attack. SFAIK there was little or no reason to use them sparingly.

Michael

[JonS]

AA guns generally aren't found near the font lines. They are used for key-point protection, route protection, and key installation protection. As a rule of thumb AA defends logistics and headquarters. Not combat elements. Despite what the grunts might think, they just aren't important enough to bother protecting.

Weapons capable of dual roles that in were the front line - right in the front line - were generally configured to be either arthur or martha, but not both at the same time. In the desert there was a reasonably long period where the British found that the 25-pr was their "best" anti-tank gun. At times they consciously positioned those guns in a direct-fire anti-tank role, and dispensed with their ability to engage indirectly.

Similarly with AA weapons. When they were consciously positioned in the front line, they were there in an anti-personnel role (or anti-light-armour) not an AA role. Apart from the fact that positioning AA weapons to fulfill an AA role takes careful positioning and placement (overlapping sectors, 360° arcs of engagement, along likely flight routes, defending high value targets, etc), having an AA gun that lit up every time one of the brylcreem boys swanned past is a sure fire way to really piss off the other occupants of the front line. As Murphy's Rule #3 states Don't be conspicuous: it draws fire, while #6 is Don't draw fire, it irritates the people around you.

Now, it is beyond doubt that at times weapons that were positioned to fulfill their primary role (be it AA or indirect fire) found themselves in a tactically embarrassing situation, and had to fire directly in defence of the position and themselves. But even in this situation, weapons generally did not switch back and forth, back and forth between primary and secondary roles. Artillery pieces (such as, eg, the 25-pr) were given local alternate positions to be used in case of ground attack. This alternate position would be close enough for the crew would manhandle the gun there, and would optimise the kind of local terrain you really want when staring down a tank - maybe a little berm, or a better field of fire, or some cover or concealment. This is different to the kind of terrain you want for firing indirectly - flat, spacious, and preferably at the bottom of a little bowl to make flash spotting more difficult. Given any kind of decent warning - and despite what CM briefings might have you believe, generally units do have some warning that trouble is headed their way - the guns would be moved from their primary-role position to their secondary role position.

That's the reality. What about CM?

Well, in the context of CM, the above precis means it is very very rare - but still possible and plausible - that weapons in the time and space of a CM battle would fire in both their primary and secondary roles. They'd most often only be doing one or the other, and it's up to the designer to decide which role they're doing, and design the scenario with that in mind.

Secondly, planes in CM are waaaaaaay over-represented and over-modelled. Planes just should not be appearing in CM battles, and the single best way for CM to make the modelling of close air support more realistic would be to remove it altogether. BFC have stated that although they know that's true, they've chosen to include the planes anyway. But still; planes should only seldom be appearing, which means the probability of actually needing AA in any given scenario is low.

Despite all that, though, there are definitely cases where AA was used in a ground role, either by design or by accident. With so many other major issues now getting cleared from BFC's TODO list, I guess they found they had the time to add them. With the Market Garden and Bulge titles moving ever closer, two battles where AA-in-a-ground-role featured quite prominently, I suppose it seemed like a good idea to get AA-in-a-ground-role in sooner rather than later.

But AA-in-an-AA-role remains unaddressed, so far. Which I think is fine, for all the reasons outlined above.

Jon

[MikeyD]

BFC planned to hold back on AA guns until coding was implemented for the AA use. But the delay would've been reeeeeal long. So in a 'what the heck' move they decided to be nice guys and provide the guns for you to play with regardless. They had already stuck their toe in the water with the basegame Breda 20mm AA and nobody made any objections. CM is a 'tactical sim', now you get to simulate just how difficult AA guns are to utilize in ground combat! Consider it a learning experience. Not everything on the WWII battlefield was an 'ideal' weapon on the front line.

[Childress]

Theses new units are cool- and look cool- but, on the German side, should they be present in an anti-infantry role when the skies are clear and the jabos are presumably circling?

[Killkess]

What was the reason to make even the tiny 20mm flak immobile? I cant move it, i cant pack it up?

[John Kettler]

Here is some excellent visual grist for this discussion. The vid shows the Flak guns under discussion here in both AA and ground roles. The VO quite clearly states the latter role was quite normal and has the footage to back the claim. And, yes, the 2 cm Flak 30 was very mobile, as is shown in the vid. We don't have to take imagery from SPR to make the case. The historical evidence stands on its own.

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

The historical record for German use of AA in the ground attack role is quite deep. As is that of the Allies.

Ken

[MikeyD]

Quad 20mm firing down on allied units from hillsides brings back memories of the old "World at War" documentary series. Holy crap, I just checked - that was a full 40 years ago! :eek:

[Lt Belenko]

Quad 20mm firing down on allied units from hillsides brings back memories of the old "World at War" documentary series. Holy crap, I just checked - that was a full 40 years ago! :eek:

"World at War" is still the top WWII documentary. I really like the interviews with the assistants to the top generals and politicians. Some of the generals were still alive and also did interviews.

[Killkess]

Can anybody please confirm that the Flak 38 is immobile ingame? Looking at the manuel they have a packup time, within the game i cant even give a move order. Am i the only one with this issue?

[MikeyD]

I believe the gun were mobile briefly but the plug got pulled before release. Currently no deploy or undeploy, no movement orders. That also includes the M51 and Bofors so it was a deliberate 'command decision' from above.

[Killkess]

MikeyD, do you know what lead to this decission? Some much more heavier equipment is towable and moveable i dont see the logic to restrict the lightest guns in this matter.

[MikeyD]

I dunno, I'd only be speculating.

I don't think they considered AAA true 'mobile tactical elements'. They're 'gun emplacements' however mobile they may have originally been to haul them to their destinations. M51 for example is raised off its wheels on four leveling legs. Bofors would have anchor spades pounded into the ground. That little flak 38 did weight a thousand pounds, y'know.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Surely the weight has nothing to do with it. The Flak 38 weighed about the same as the Pak 36, which http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yecemugWo.

[pord]

Surely the weight has nothing to do with it. The Flak 38 weighed about the same as the Pak 36, which http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yecemugWo.

Nice little video. They really did move the smaller guns around quickly on flat ground didn't they. It would be nice to be able to move them that fast in CM. It would add a lot more versatility to small ATG's.

[ASL Veteran]

Apparently the little wheels attach and detach from the gun, so the gun and the trailer are separate elements. No doubt showing all that would require more new animations than BFC was either willing or able to create.

[Killkess]

That doesnt sound like a feasible reason to me. The movement-animation off all guns are pretty bad, the packup/buildup animations are missing completely. So why BFC simply declined to make new animations and just make it mobile without the wheel attachment?

[sburke]

That doesnt sound like a feasible reason to me. The movement-animation off all guns are pretty bad, the packup/buildup animations are missing completely. So why BFC simply declined to make new animations and just make it mobile without the wheel attachment?

That's easy for you to say. I can only imagine the anguished cries of foul as everyone leapt onto their chairs decrying the lack of realism and the ensuing firestorm.

[MikeyD]

Remember these AA guns are "We'll give them to 'em now 'cause we're nice guys" weapons without their full capabilities coded yet. One of these days they'll be able to direct their guns skyward, and one assumes one of these day they'll code-in some limited mobility too. I doubt anyone would've wanted to wait til August for the module just in order to move a Flak 38 a couple feet.