AA efficiency

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 4:15 AM, Panzer_Freak said:

They seem not to throw them of target and not a single aircraft has been shot down by my AA so far. I usually have a minimum of two AA-pieces per game (usually playing large, and a few time huge games). I usally use 20mm Flakvierling, 37mm Flak 36, 40mm Bofors, and the soviets 40mm as well. I have so far never used the 88 or the soviets 90mm AA piece. Do I have had bad luck or are AA useless vs aircraft?

I once built a test scenario in which a 12 plane squadron was attacking a literal fortress ringed with three layers of anti-aircraft defense consisting of 36 guns of three different types.

Over the course of fifteen minutes, seven aircraft were shot down, but the fortress was effectively destroyed, and many AA guns were knocked out.

Even if the aircraft is shot down, if it manages to release it's ordinance, the target will likely be hit anyway. In one example, the incoming aircraft was destroyed as soon as it started it's attack run, but the two 500lb bombs hit right on the money, knocking out three AA guns. I think bringing only two guns is hardly effective. It seems to me you'd want to have a ratio of four guns per attacking plane to get some reliable protection. I.E. bring a full battery of guns if you are going to bring any.

Every time an AA gun shoots at a plane, there seems to be a die roll that determines the outcome. It's not like the old system where aircraft were an invisible box with an amount of 'structure points' that could be degraded over time until it's destroyed like a building. The new system seems to roll a die for each gun firing at the aircraft, and upon a successful roll, the aircraft aborts it's attack, and on a 'critical hit' the aircraft is destroyed.

So what you need to protect yourself is a few more guns to get a few more 'die rolls'.

 

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 4:45 AM, Hapless said:

I take planes as often as its sensible (strafe-only P-47s are 30pts in CMFB- so basically the only good reason not to take a handful is the weather) and I can tell you that while AA isn't hugely effective, neither are the planes.

This is a very good point. When you have airplanes that are cheap enough to use in large quantities, they are often not very effective, but quantity has a quality all it's own.

That one P-47 carrying bombs can ruin your day if it makes just one good attack, but that P-47 is also quite expensive. Or, you can simply buy a bunch of strafers, and use the psychological edge it gives you over your opponent.

Hearing the 'aircraft' sound effect is often the only thing needed to give your opponent a bit of a fright.

 

19 hours ago, Placebo said:

You also need to consider AA effectiveness not just on planes shot down but also aborted attacks and more chance of the plane missing the target. From what I understand, in ww2 they realized a lot of the AA was relatively ineffective, but to throw the pilots aim off it was a better response than just ducking and hoping for the best

I do recall reading somewhere a call was put out to increase the amount of tracer rounds used by AA units, because the tracers themselves were more effective at scaring off planes than the guns themselves were at killing them.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

There is also the psychological aspect. Think about it: It is more satisfying to feel like one is fighting back, even if it just means futilely throwing stones, than just to be cowering passively.

Michael

LOL very true. My dad used to call infantry AT weapons placebo weapons - because they made you feel better but were not really very effective. Note: he served as a line officer in the 60s so he had no access to the cool new toys of today.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

My dad used to call infantry AT weapons placebo weapons - because they made you feel better but were not really very effective.

Depended on how they were used—and just plain luck. But they do seem to have ameliorated tank fright in the larger armies.

Michael

[MikeyD]

I recall reports from Vietnam that M72 LAW failed to penetrate T55 (or more likely Chinese type 69). That's why the US army fielded their much heftier disposable Carl Gustav, the AT4. US squad level AT assets were marginal at best.

About AA and aircraft. I think Steve once said (words to the effect) that he wouldn't be unhappy if WWII air assets were to disappear completely. They have no place in 'tip-of-the-spear' company level tactical encounters, at least not until late into the war when dedicated FOs were used. Aircraft were included merely as a gift to players. I think the high chance of fratricide incidents from aircraft is BFC's revenge on us for daring to use aircraft at all along the front at all!

[Sgt.Squarehead]

However once those dedicated FOs were available, some units got pretty damned good at delivering precisely that sort of close support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Second_Tactical_Air_Force

 

[Wicky]

Also the RAF could provide quick turn around photo reccie (for the next day) that could be fed to front line commanders - Possible for campaign games with a certain % of enemy disposition revealed at set up ? I know that can be done with normal scenarios with a variable setting.