German 8.8 Flak - Not Good Enough?

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:

Just because a gun is bigger does not mean it is more accurate. What is your reasoning for this assumption?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume he meant 'longer'. A longer barrel gives more accuracy for some reasons.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Hence, hiding and foxholes were avoided and both sides put into the open, to ensure that both had the same chances to see each other, so that only pure accuracy would count.

Again, the issue raised here in this thread is accuracy as far as I am concerned, not hiding the AT guns etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it is very difficult to divide the issue of deployment in the field from the isue of accuracy. In a good defensive position, the Germans would have checked ranges on the field, fixed the gun to the ground and what have you, all affecting first-hit probability. But then they would also have the great equipment on the gun, e.g. really 'upper-class' dials, compared to the Pak40, and that is an inherent feature regardless of deployment - these dials are effective even when firing from the Sonderanhaenger. But on balance I would think that when it comes to vets talking about it, you can not take their quotes about how the gun was used in the field and divorce it from the field environment of digging in, pre-ranging etc.pp. So the question is, what does Cory base his assumption of the great accuracy on?

BTW - great sig.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian:

Ahh, I assumed that the American TDs had a crew of 4. But infact they had a crew of 5, so (correct me if I'm wrong) there were *4* men in the turret, 2 loaders, 1 gunner, and one TC.

--Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This one is tough, because I think the M10 is different than the M18 in that the different versions of the tank had a different interior arrangement, which I will have to look into. 2 men were given the designation of loader on the M18 but only one man rammed, the other handled.

[StellarRat]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

I assume he meant 'longer'. A longer barrel gives more accuracy for some reasons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, a longer barrel usually indicates more muzzle velocity and that will improve accuracy (all other factors being equal), but powder consistency, shell design, sights and other factors all make a difference. What stuns me is that tanks and AT guns in CM frequently miss at ranges that anyone with some shooting skill and a decent rifle wouldn't have any problem hitting at. I mean the targets are the size of small houses!

[c3k]

Gents,

I'm playing an operation and just got two 8.8cm Flak as reinforcements. Neither lasted more than 3 turns. One, at 400meter range, down a road filled with oncoming halftracks and M-4's, missed every shot. The other, at 980 meters vs. a stopped M4, missed 5 times. It selected another target, M4 stopped in a grain field (88 has significant elevation advantage) at 900 meters. 5 shots to hit.

Now, this probably says more about my command and planning abilities than anything else, but this was not what I'd expect of these weapons. Large crews, lots of ammo, great observation, reputation for accuracy, and...I think a Brown Bess could've done as well.

Ken McManamy

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Again, the issue raised here in this thread is accuracy as far as I am concerned, not hiding the AT guns etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, based on

this and this German guns are not any more inherantly accurate than allied guns. (And they say the search function doesn't work). In fact, IIRC, the only things that modify accuracy in CM battles are muzzel velocity, experience, range, and velocity (of shooter and target). So yes, we know that CM is not perfect.

The reason I asked about foxholes and cover is because the real question is whether the simulation gives accurate results despite its deficiencies. I would be interested in running your test with the 88s in good positions and with leaders (another modifier I forgot to ask about).

Unfortunately I won't have a chance until Friday night, but all others are welcome.

--Chris

(edited because I forgot some factors that affect acuracy.)

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Maastrictian ]

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

It does not really all come down to math. There is a difference between the 8,8cm gun in a tank and as an AA gun. The difference is the training of the crew, and the spotting, which AFAIK would be done through stereoscopic range-finders on the AA gun, while the tanks did not have that particular equipment.

...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germanboy, do you know how a computer or a program works? ALL comes down to math as long as we are talking about computers. Don't believe any longer that there are little electronic people like in the movie 'Tron' .

You are right about the 'realworld' effect of different optics. But as I said, we can discuss this forever and a day - it makes no sense. Do you know if this is is used in the calculation?

First - In a program is the probability for a hit ALWAYS calculated as a % chance. To know if this calculation is realistic (as good as possible) we would need to know the formulas and parameters used for it by CM. I don't think that CM uses very much factors in this calculation, I assume range, target speed, muzzel velocity and maybe as secondary factor the crew experience.

BTW, my own experience and different tests I've run in the last 12 month has shown this: a smaller gun with a high ROF has a higher chance to kill a tank then a bigger gun. Why? Math! The chance to hit something with two shots is smaller then the chance to hit with 10 shots in the same time. More hits means directly higher chances for a penetration. This is the reason why the 37mm AA is a deadly tankkiller in CM, while I can't remember that I have heart much about it in this role in the real world.

I have also noticed that guns are very fast out once they are spotted. I can't say if the spotting is realistic (another unknown calculation), but what I have read (and my own eperience in tanksimulators) has shown - a buttoned tank is nearly blind. You have relativ good front view, but already the sides are problematic, and the rear can be ussually seen as dead angle. If someone fires on you, you often don't see it - you often even don't HEAR this roaring tank. Even an unbuttoned tank has only limited spotting abilitys. It appears to me that guns are spotted very easy in CM. Of course, they usually don't operate on this small range as in CM, and we also have this 'borg spotting' problem.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

Germanboy, do you know how a computer or a program works? ALL comes down to math as long as we are talking about computers. Don't believe any longer that there are little electronic people like in the movie 'Tron' .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is, of course, a boundary issue.

Regarding spotting of guns, it is down to the Borg problem. If you have a scenario where you need the German guns to survive for reasons of historical simulation, use dug-in Tigers and padlock them.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

That is, of course, a boundary issue.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. But we are not talking about experimental guns - all guns in CM were fired for thousands, even millions of times both on shooting ranges and in combat. Their accuracy is known history, also the side effects that influence the accuracy, like optics or ammo quality. All this can be implemented in the formula with an abstracted base factor for gun accuracy. Same for the general abilitys as AT weapon. If the 37mm AA was a better AT weapon then the 37mm AT, why did the 37mm AT exist? It would have been better to convert it into an AT gun.

Beside that, the factor of the crew experience has much more influence then it seem to has right now.

About the spotting - nice idea, but unavailable in QBs, and Tigers are a little bit more expensive then a gun.

[ 09-27-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Kingfish]

Just curious,

Has anyone done an accuracy test on the Pak 88s? Would 10 Pak43s against 50 Shermans 2000 meters away produce different numbers? Would they in real life?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish:

Just curious,

Has anyone done an accuracy test on the Pak 88s? Would 10 Pak43s against 50 Shermans 2000 meters away produce different numbers? Would they in real life?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I need to get my numbers, but:

At 2000 meters, a crack 88mm Pak 43 in CM was getting a hit rate of 2.1 shots per kill. A regular was getting a rate of 3.7 per kill. This was clear weather, hidden guns, moving M4A3(75), and open terrain for the tanks, dug in guns in the woods.

[Redwolf]

Just look at the hit change in the LOS display. Works even in the editor.

[Maastrictian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

Just look at the hit change in the LOS display. Works even in the editor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn't take into account crew exp, IIRC.

--Chris

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian:

That doesn't take into account crew exp, IIRC.

--Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does. You don't get weak spot hit chance or penetration chance, but for the Pak43 it usually doesn't matter :-P

[Fangorn]

Hey guys,

If I recall correctly, range in CMBO is only calculated untill a certain point (there was a BTS message specifing it, couldn't find it, though), after that the hit chances and such are the same. Do you remember the exact range?

Edit - found the post, it concerns the spoting ability, which is the same after 2km.

[ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Fangorn ]

[Richard Morgan]

Just to add my one pennyworth, My Father, who served in recce, (4th County of London Yeomanry) in Normandy told me the that the house (bingo) call at that time for the number 88 was: "88 driver reverse" :eek: :eek: :eek: He had an absolute dread of the bloody things!!!

Regards,

Richard.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

About the spotting - nice idea, but unavailable in QBs, and Tigers are a little bit more expensive then a gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't give a flying monkey's about QBs. Scenarios are the way to go

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

Just to add my one pennyworth, My Father, who served in recce, (4th County of London Yeomanry) in Normandy told me the that the house (bingo) call at that time for the number 88 was: "88 driver reverse" :eek: :eek: :eek: He had an absolute dread of the bloody things!!!

Regards,

Richard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Smart father you have. Stuart or AC? 4th CLY was in the 7th AD, right? Has he ever mentioned anything about the 'reputational' challenge the division faced in Normandy? I have a picture here of a Stuart of the South Alberta's that was just bowled over by an 8,8. Poor sods.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

Just to add my one pennyworth, My Father, who served in recce, (4th County of London Yeomanry) in Normandy told me the that the house (bingo) call at that time for the number 88 was: "88 driver reverse" :eek: :eek: :eek: He had an absolute dread of the bloody things!!!

Regards,

Richard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When you interview WW2 vets, they will often refer to cannon fire as 88 fire, for the good reason that they did not bother to get out of their tank and measure the barrel sticking out of the grass shooting at them. Gantner for example refers several times about being shelled by 88s in situations he was facing indirect artillery fire.

[rexford]

The 88L56 Flak had a greater constant aim dispersion pattern than the Tiger 88L56, which may be due to differences between tank mounted gun and that shaky thing the Flak used.

There is a German account of a battle with T34's (and maybe some KV-I) at 2000m or so, where the kills and shots were added up after the battle. We figured 3, maybe 4 shots per T34/KV-I kill.

TEN SHOTS PER KILL!

Germans on defensive where they should have known the approximate ranges based on map studies, and maybe 88 had range finders to get closer on first shot and hit faster.

Odd things happen in real life that don't occur in calculations, as we have been shown many times.

Statistics also permit lots of misses at 300m to 500m that shouldn't occur if trajectory equations held true.

Last week I measured the distance to a tree from a runway end with another fellow, and this week it turns out we were wrong. People think they have measured correctly, or aimed at the center of the Sherman, and they aren't even close. Fatigue can cloud men's minds.

Fellows in England who served in tanker units have seen misses that defy logic during practice shoots. In fact, with an enemy at 300m you are staring down their barrel, so to speak, which introduces the expectation of return fire. Maybe the shot is hurried before the gun has really centered on the target, or one sets the range for 1500m instead of 500m. It happens.

Myth in Nord Afrika was that if the first 88 shot missed, the second wouldn't, and Matilda tankers reportedly (?) would sometimes bail after the first miss. Sounds a bit like hype to me.

Jentz' books have a report where French tanks in ambush didn't even fire at advancing panzers, and the Germans swept the French tanks away. Lower per shot accuracy can also model higher accuracy but fewer shots per minute, which can occur if the gun crew chief freezes at the wrong moment.

[JonS]

I think you missed the point of the story Slap. Besides, I would hardly call chatting to ones father as "interviewing a vet".

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

I think you missed the point of the story Slap. Besides, I would hardly call chatting to ones father as "interviewing a vet".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon I think you missed the point of my comment. Servicemen were so afraid of the 88 that any heavy fire directed at them became 88s. I also have reread my comment several times and failed to see were I assumed that an oral history equaled a chat with one's father. I think you are reading someone elses post here.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat:

Just because a gun is bigger does not mean it is more accurate. What is your reasoning for this assumption?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what he may be refering to is the fact that larger rounds bleed speed at a slower rate than larger rounds, giving them a flatter trajectory at long ranges.

This does seem to be modeled in CM somewhat. I lined up a JPz IV/70 2319m from a Stuart, a M10 and a Jackson. I let the 3 US tanks fire for a full round to max out their hit probabilities.

Stuart

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>MV: 884

Hit: 8%

Jackson<UL TYPE=SQUARE>MV: 810

Hit: 10%

M10<UL TYPE=SQUARE>MV: 793

Hit: 10%

So the Stuart has the lowest hit % even though it has the highest MV. Should there be even more of a difference? I don't know.

One thing that has alway bugged me a bit is how guns max out their hit % after firing 5-6 rounds at the same target. It seems to me that a Jackson that has fired 10 rounds at a stationary enemy tank at 2319m should have a higher than 10% chance to hit on the 11th shot.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:

The 88L56 Flak had a greater constant aim dispersion pattern than the Tiger 88L56, which may be due to differences between tank mounted gun and that shaky thing the Flak used.

There is a German account of a battle with T34's (and maybe some KV-I) at 2000m or so, where the kills and shots were added up after the battle. We figured 3, maybe 4 shots per T34/KV-I kill.

TEN SHOTS PER KILL!

Germans on defensive where they should have known the approximate ranges based on map studies, and maybe 88 had range finders to get closer on first shot and hit faster.

Odd things happen in real life that don't occur in calculations, as we have been shown many times.

Statistics also permit lots of misses at 300m to 500m that shouldn't occur if trajectory equations held true.

Last week I measured the distance to a tree from a runway end with another fellow, and this week it turns out we were wrong. People think they have measured correctly, or aimed at the center of the Sherman, and they aren't even close. Fatigue can cloud men's minds.

Fellows in England who served in tanker units have seen misses that defy logic during practice shoots. In fact, with an enemy at 300m you are staring down their barrel, so to speak, which introduces the expectation of return fire. Maybe the shot is hurried before the gun has really centered on the target, or one sets the range for 1500m instead of 500m. It happens.

Myth in Nord Afrika was that if the first 88 shot missed, the second wouldn't, and Matilda tankers reportedly (?) would sometimes bail after the first miss. Sounds a bit like hype to me.

Jentz' books have a report where French tanks in ambush didn't even fire at advancing panzers, and the Germans swept the French tanks away. Lower per shot accuracy can also model higher accuracy but fewer shots per minute, which can occur if the gun crew chief freezes at the wrong moment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Human factors are one of the things that piss off players the most but are extremely important for reliability. You can see this misconception when someone starts a thread, "my squad never fired its panzer faust" or some other complaint about the perfection of there units.

In the faust example, the squad is not a perfect set of robots responding in sync who see a tank, immediately select a faust from their inventory, then let fly from the perfect position. They may cower. A sergeant may need to kick some ass to get the faust up. A hero type may rush to the guy carrying the faust and grab it. Two men may spend several minutes crawling into position for a shot. There are just so many factors that cannot be precisely modelled that I prefer the ambiguity of the faust going off. Will it get fired, or wont it? If they never fire, well I am sure some squads muffed up things in the war at least once, and it just so happens my squad in this game was the one that muffed.

The same with tanks. Maybe the tank commander wipes his forhead of sweat and trigeers the round without his eye well centered in the sight. Perhaps the driver engages the clutch and rocks the tank. Perhaps the commander screwed up the range. Lots and lots of reasons to miss. A hit only happens when all those mess ups cancel out.

[JasonC]

I did a Goodwood style test, with 4 88 FLAK, 3 vet and 1 regular (400 points) against 16 British Shermans, 4 Regular Firefly, 7 Regular 75mm, and 5 Green 75mm (2000 points). That is 5:1 point odds. The terrain was flat open farmland, with a map half a mile wide by 2 1/2 kilometers long. The 88s had foxholes and were sighted mostly in scattered trees, with one of them in a small patch of tall pines. They were well seperated from each other. I started all the 88s on "hide" and chose when to open up and picked their targets; the AI got to command the Sherman horde.

The forward 88 opened up alone, in a target rich environment. It was hot, and bagged 3 Shermans, with its 1st, 2nd, and 4th shots. In reply, 34 HE shells plastered its tree cover. Looked like the pattern of an off map artillery barrage. The gun was KOed, but it had done its damage, and only 2 men of the crew were lost. The rest managed to hide at the backside of the woods, routed at first. They recovered and made it to safety in the rear, later on.

The next round saw 3 88s open up at once, still at long range. They were much less successful with early hits this time, but between all the shells they put out they bagged 2 more Shermans. However, two of the 88s were KOed in reply. One went down quickly to only a half-dozen shots - it was the closest. The second drew a mini-barrage again, perhaps 25 shells. They didn't spot the 3rd 88, which was the farthest to the rear. It hid immediately, start of the next turn.

As they closed the range, the last 88 picked a time when many were crawling behind buildings etc, and opened up again on the few it could see. It was hot this time, and bagged 2 Shermans by itself. It was again unspotted, and hid again the next turn. By this point it was down to 4 AP shells remaining (still had plenty of HE though).

It waited for the next opening at a range of around 650 yards, when only a few tanks had crawled back into LOS from behind an obstacle. As it happened, there were 3 tanks in view near one another, 1 more just leaving view farther away, and 2 more about to crawl into view, though I didn't know it. It KOed the first tank with its opening shot. Then it switched to the rear one, missed it, and that one then passed out of view. It switched to one of the front ones and killed it - by now it was under fire itself. Its last AP round missed. But it got off a few HE rounds, and one of them luckily found the lower hull of one last Sherman and KOed it. (88mm HE will penetrate ~70mm). Then it was knocked out in turn.

The net result was 10 dead Shermans - 2 of them Fireflies - for 4 dead 88s. With 5:1 odds in points and 4:1 in number of items, initially, in favor of the tanks. The Sherman crews lost 20 men, the 88 crews just 10. The minute by minute duels went 3 vs 1, 2 vs 2, 2 vs 0, 3 vs 1.

Notice that the main reason the 88s were relatively so effective is most of the dead ones were overkilled, while others went upspotted. The 34 rounds that KOed the first 88 might well have sufficed to KO 4 of them, thus leaving the kill score even for that minute of dueling. But only one was available as a target; it was just KOed 4 times over. When 3 fired at once, 1 was killed cheaply and 1 wasn't spotted; the "middle" target was overkilled. The last gun was overkilled (though less so) in the final duel, after running out of AP ammo.