Doug Beman Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 This post is a mix of considered observation and simple sour grapes, which I am writing because I think it deserves discussion as well as simply to vent my spleen. In short, I am in an unexpectedly foul mood because I have to go back to work tomorrow and because I just am. I've played Riesberg as Germans, oh, about a zillion times now (in reality, maybe 12) and in none of my playings has an 88mm gun even managed to hit, let alone kill, more than one tank. They are then dispatched by the 2nd or 3rd HE shell from the US armor. I have always been under the impression that the 88 was a remarkably accurate weapon. Considering that it was designed as a high-altitude antiaircraft gun, it would HAVE to be damn accurate. At the ranges involved in Riesberg, which are between 350m (first shot) and 200 (last shot before being stomped by the Amis) shouldn't these guns perform fearsomely? Yet time and time again I watch a gun begin tracking a Sherman as the tank enters the ambush zone, and then fire 3 shots in a row that whizz over the enemy tank's turret. Am I using too small a sample here? What has been the experience of others? Am I just a frustrated mid-20s armchair general who wants everything to go his way all the time? DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heibis Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Doug, I agree with you that the 88s some times are off-mark, but IMO the range is just to short for the 88s to pull its punches vs the M4 in the Riesberg scenario. I'll have a try right now to see it you are right. Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 88's got their badass rep from being able to kill anything at "long" range. In close they're a big static target, I believe the demo's aren't the environment in which the 88's can shine. Bigger maps will be where they come into there own..That and CM2 Ost Front Man the waiting is tough, checking the board everyday, looking over at CMHQ.....THAT's what gives me sour grapes - but in that petulant I want it now kinda way. Really looking forward to getting my hands on CM soon. Reg's Fen Edit - can't speel for crap ;p [This message has been edited by Fenris (edited 01-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 10, 2000 Author Share Posted January 10, 2000 Yeah, the badass rep was earned by killing tough customers at long ranges. But shouldn't that indicate very high accuracy at ridiculously short ranges? BTW (forgot to mention this above) the observed inaccuracy of the 88s came about in all crew conditions; from "in-command-first-shot" to "4 crew dead and out of command." Therefor I don't think it's because the crews were rattled; they seem to miss just as much when they're fresh as when they're half dead. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 To get very high accuracy at very long ranges, the elevating and traversing gears on the gun need to be very finely toothed. This makes it tough to do large swings quickly, which are what is required for short range engagements (Bullethead can probably confirm this from his experience ... ). The same effect is one of the contributors to the slow traverse of German tank turrets. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 01-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 10, 2000 Author Share Posted January 10, 2000 Point taken Jon. However, I am not discussing gun-traverse speed, although this explains the length of time needed for the gun to take its first shot (and was something I had not considered) However, it doesn't do much to explain missing shot after shot at targets that, within a 1-minute turn, move only a dozen meters cross-country. From my reading of Forty's book, the slow turret traverse of German tanks was due mainly to the fact that the traverse mechanism ran off the main engine, so engine RPMs determined the amount of power available to move the thing. On the Tiger (if I remember the book correctly) the turret could be traversed 360 degrees in 20-odd seconds if the driver was revving the engine correctly; at low revs it took something like 78 seconds to go all way 'round. Didn't the PzIV have electric traverse, powered by a separate engine, so that the turret would traverse at the same relatively high rate regardless of what the driver was doing? Also, if the driver of a Tiger were killed, but the rest of the tank undamaged (i.e. engine still running at idle) wouldn't that almost force the turret crew to traverse manually? Damn, that would suck. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Mmm, but if you're tracking a moving target then you will need to traverse/elevate/depress. Maybe the longer traverse times are a factor there. Also, I've noticed that the TacAI isn't the greatest at 'leading' a moving target. I see your point about the RPM vs Traverse speed trade off, but still feel that if the Panzers gearing was as coarse as on the Allied tanks the traverse times would have been noticeably quicker. MAnual traverse ugh That's why trail-apes usually have strong backs and weak minds Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stabsfeldwebel Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 take a look on CombatHQ for fionn's example of effective AT gun placement, the AT guns he's setup are 88's and they are firing at medium range. there are additional photos of very large maps, which is a key point, also remember at the reisberg range simple heavy MG fire could probably shake up if not outright kill a few members of one of those 88's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Um, DjB was talking about the 88mm AA guns in Reisburg, which had a very different carriage to the 88mm AT guns in that article. Also, 400m = 'medium range'?!? That's about the same as the ranges in Reisburg. Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 I have been able to nail M4's with my Flak 88's in my limited play of Riesberg. But if opening up while sighted by 3-4 of those tanks, then the return fire would usually do in the 88. I have to say that if, indeed, gun traverse is playing a factor here (due to the relatively close engagement range), that is altogether appropriate in my view. But only if the Flak 88 can compensate better for aiming in its preferable "stand-off" ranges. It would've been nice if a 75mm Pak40 was thrown in with the demo's units to give some comparative feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunnerdream Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Doug, I hate to refute anyone, but I just finished my umpteenth AI game of Riesberg and completely wasted all Allied tanks within four turns, all of them, by the way, moving targets. I think maybe you're just experiencing a string of bad luck. I know I have played this particular scenario and had my 88's go belly up pretty fast with nothing to show for it. Sometimes it just comes down to Lady Luck being a downright fickle bitch. Gunnerdream...floating down through the clouds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von shrad Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Doug, I too usually nail all sherms early. Maybe it is a luck thing.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 What I dislike in Risenburg with the 88's is that you cannot position them to complement eachother. I have occasionally managed to set up positons where they both can see through to the road (where the AI usually comes down to), but, the fact that each of these guns has to usually engage all on it's own results in it being destroyed. I perfer tanks and Assault tanks to AT guns purely on their mobility. Although they are easy to hide, once they are found out they are usually toast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Hehe... Doug, I've said this a few times before, but the first time I played against the AI as the US in Riesberg (a scenario I made) the bastards smoked all of my tanks within the first 4 turns. I took out one 88 with mortar fire and another by close assault after it laid waste the better part of a platoon (that 88 HE SUCKS!!). But the points made about the 88 are right on the mark. This was a weapon that was designed for fairly long range shooting against non threatening targets, not sub 500m engagements against armored vehicles. The Another thing that people have to keep in mind is that accuracy was not necessarily measured by a hit on the first shot. It took generally 2-4 shots to get something on the move, anything less than that could be attributed to good luck or excelent crews. Problem with the Riesberg scenario is that if the Germans DON'T get in some good shots right away, other factors come into play that doom the guns quite regullarly... The real bugger in this scenario is what the 88s are up against. Shermans with the short 75 have a fantastic HE capability. While the 88 has to hit with precision in order to score a kill, the Shermans only have to get close to do damage. See the difference? An 88's near miss counts for NOTHING, but a near miss by the Sherman can take out a couple of crew members and/or damage the gun. Since there are generally at least 2 Shermans capable of shooting back at each 88 on any given turn, the odds are generally in favor of the Shermans. Add to that the fact that mortar and MG fire can do damage to the 88. Yup, this is certainly one of those scenarios where the 88 does not shine as brightly as its reputation gained in the desert and the stepps of Russia. Instead, the 88 here is a decent tank killer and dead meat if it misses. War has a nasty habit of putting units into situations where they rather not be Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hehe... Doug, I've said this a few times before, but the first time I played against the AI as the US in Riesberg (a scenario I made) the bastards smoked all of my tanks within the first 4 turns. I took out one 88 with mortar fire and another by close assault after it laid waste the better part of a platoon (that 88 HE SUCKS!!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree! So many times has the AI 88s put my Sherman into Dead Books (oops, must have played Planescape too much) if I leave them stopped within their LOS! My darling Shermans to sneak around through the woods, valleys, ditches like rats! I tried several times trying to kill them with motars but in vain. Finally, one was caught by a pop-out Sherman at 500m and the other is by frontal assualts by 2 squads which suffer heavy casualties. Will there be scenario(es) where the dreaded 88 can shine? OT: IIRC, in SPR, Tom Hanks mentioned his team had taken out an 88 during his report to HQ. It would be interesting if more details were given. Griffin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Well, Firstly the 88s in Riesberg are really set up in poor terrain for their particular type of tank killing. If you set up a Pak 88 with good LOS to its front and sides for 1 km the only thing the Allies can do to it is hit it with arty or put a company of tanks on the line and simply trade HE with the 88. Casualties for the US will be extremely high if they choose to duke it out though. 2. The 88s in Riesberg are also very large targets so you have a combination of the fact that the 88s are engaging at a much shorter range than they'd like AND the fact that these are FlaK 88s and thus are big targets. It isn't all that surprising that they are immensely vulnerable IMO. OTOH I've killed all the US tanks in a couple of turns using 88s and also had games in which all my 88s were killed for no US losses. S**t happens ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Well last night I played Last Defense as the Axis, and for the first time, left the tiger where it was for the setup. I sat it there until turn 10, when it proceeded to smoke two Kittens in turn 10, and the next in turn 11, while watching at least 8-10 ricochets and broken up shells hit the front hull and turret. Fearsome weapon at that range! And it's not even the long barreled version! Gimme my Konigstiger!!! CrapGame out... (and in the doghouse again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts