88's worth it for defense?

[Southernrebel]

Reason I ask this because I played a mission last night where I had 4 88's defending a city high on a ridge. While they fired clear across the map getting decent kills they also took rounds from the tanks which knocked out 3 of them. So what would you say if they are worth having if you happen to be on defense?

My game against Joe I have not decided yet what I am going to take into the field, I have my normal strategy but I am trying to branch out and try new tatics.

Later guys

Southern

P.S. I am trying to get forum back into some interesting topics

[Sergei]

No ATG position, if attacked appropriately and with enough forces, can last for long. The tall FlaK 88's are easy to spot once they open fire. Then all it takes is one shell to land on the target.

When planning your defence, be prepared for things to go wrong. Have guns share fields of vision so they can assist each other (if necessary, let the enemy closer). Use smoke to separate overwatching tanks from the vanguard - ie. bring the fire of many guns on a few tanks.

[MikeyD]

I've found the Flak 88s in the game to have a weirdly low hit rate, no matter what the range. I don't know if they're really that bad, maybe its just that they don't match my inflated expectations for the legendary weapon. For the most part it seems the lower-profile 75mm PaK or captured 7.62mm gun can do most of the same the jobs as the 88, including holing US-2s, for fewer purchase points. Plus you're able to move them around on the map!

[YankeeDog]

Usually not. 75mm PaK40s are usually sufficient to knock out most Russian Armor at likely engagment distances, and they're cheaper. PaK40s are also more mobile. Even PaK38s do pretty well against T-34s, so long as terrain allows you to situate them to ambush at closer range, and/or with flank shots.

Exception might be late war, in very open terrain -- IS-2 frontal armor will usually bounce 75mm AP at longer ranges.

In general, against a competent human opponent, any ATG's lifespan is very short once it starts firing. So IMHO, you want the cheapest ATG that can reliably penetrate the enemy's armor at likely engagement distances. The tighter the terrain (lots of woods, etc.), the cheaper ATG you can use, because you'll probably be opening fire at shorter range, and are more likely to be able to arrange flank shots.

It depends a bit on the exact matchup, but against a good human opponent, I usually set a goal of trying to get two medium or heavy tanks per ATG. If I succeed at this, my opponent usually runs out of tanks, before I run out of AT assets.

Playing against the computer, you're pretty much only limited by the ATG's ammo supply -- a single ATG in a good keyhole firing position across the line of advance will slaughter any computer armor attack.

But the computer especially sucks at attacking.

Cheers,

YD

[realest]

Well rebel, i can tell you i have been taught a quick lesson in mobility. Got stupid i did. LOL. If part of your defense is going to be artillery based or anything that can't move fast then you will need to find a way to keep that lone sharpshooter from altering your finely laid plans.

P.S. If you play the russians, you will at least have peace knowing that whomever he doesn't shoot, your Police units will "ensure" the survivors that are cowering from their abandoned post of defense of the beloved mother russia will not do it again.

"We're Green, We're mean...... Grrrrrr" Respectfully signed, The Enemy.

[Southernrebel]

so basiclly everyone says NOT WORTH it. I am not talking about anything I am doing it was just posted for some discussion. Something for us to talk about and think about. I personally like stated above like Pak 40s they are NORMALLY plenty enough to handle the job if postioned right. Even 1 placed in a correct spot and not done a lick of damage can be enough to slow the advance enough to get a victory out of slowing them down enough.

I brought it up cause last night was first time i used them and was not impressed and wanted to hear others thoughts.

I also had high standards for the VERY well known FLAK 88.

later guys

Southern

[Southernrebel]

I also agree with you mikey on the hit rate, I mean it was across the whole map but still hit rates were LOW but not nearly as low as what the 88s took. They took out like 9 34's out and 2 KV's so in all the handled PLENTY enough of what normally any human player would throw at you. But the cost of them seems I would rather go Half track with Pak 40s and move them around.

[MikeyD]

Some people play with 88s just for the nostalgia

All depends on if you select units to field the most efficient force for a battle or one that most 'looks' like what you imagine a classic German defense would have been. That's the reason why I'm always playing Czech light tanks when better armor is available.

[Sergei]

As a lover of historical scenarios, I don't see things from "is it worth getting" POV but from "this is what I've been given, now how do I utilize it?" point of view.

[Southernrebel]

I agree to a extent sergei, but you have to think about what your enemy will throw at ya and have decent counters

[jBrereton]

The 88s are very powerful, and will pretty much make certain that every hit is a kill. At longer ranges, the same cannot be said of 75mm guns, although it's generally good enough.

And having four 88s lined up in a row on a ridge is asking for trouble. Any ATG position will get knocked out quickly if it's too open.

Hence you hide some of the guns, or keep them more spread out and hence reduce "accidental" knockouts from tank shells that miss, but because they're all lined up, will hit something anyway.

[GhostRider3/3]

Not sure what scenerio you play, but try putting them not on TOP....

But on the "REVERSE slope" This will better protect your ATG's. also try setting them up so that they make Killing fields of fire and overlap each other's sector a little, this will help out if one gun is engaged, the other if not engaged, so that they support each other.

Or try putting them in defilades, Divits in the ground, low points, and at angles that mass amounts of fire cannot be directed at them, but they can deliver lethal firepower to the oncoming vehicles. Keep them out of sight, so that spotters have a hard time finding your postion, they will need infantry support.

Juergen.

[Soddball]

Beyond about 1.5km the accuracy on the 88 is very poor - far poorer than one reads about in accounts of its use in Africa, for example.

As has been said here, use MGs or sharpshooters to button tanks, use covered arcs and hide commands for the AT guns, and use the reverse slope of hills to protect you from HE blasts.

[realest]

I found the same thing out about the Nashorns last night. The Nashorns mount an 88 don't they?

I'd hate to be in a tank and serve under me, it's a sure death sentence. LOL

[GhostRider3/3]

Yeah the Nashorn has such a large Silohette that it really needs to be positioned from an ambush area or from extreme distance. I think it only had 2-5mm of armor protection, so the slightest HE hit or Ap hit will surely destroy it.

Make a scenerio using the long 88mm Pak. not the famed 88' Oh.. not sure if they have that AT gun for CMBB. Ill have to check It was a PAK that used the 88mm that was fitted to the King Tiger. Pz VIb.

[DavidFields]

Some of the "legends" about the 88mm could be because they might have been previously bore-sighted (the equivalent of having TRPs). Also, there was, perhaps, the habit of calling any incoming fire, murderous, fire an "88". I have had WW-2 vets mention them like it was almost a generic term (I can't remember anyone talking about a "75") Since they did not have "Borg spotting", it may have been exceedingly difficult to know what was actually shooting at them.

Similar to "Tiger Tank". Makes a better story.

And, no, I don't think they are "worth" it, except in certain circumstances. Too easy to spot in CM.

[realest]

Thanks folks. But since i've only been playing roughly a week and a few days i'm finding this game engine is so far removed from anything i've ever done that nothing i "know" seems to work right.

Except infantry, I can raise hell with those fellows, but armor. The few i've played yet seem to end badly. The Nashorns i thought would be an easy one, but all 3 were KOA in 2 turns being hit by t34s 1.5 clicks out. :confused:

[Der Kuenstler]

Put a crack 88 in a trench just over the other side of a far ridge with a +2 stealth, +2 combat commander, away from trees (avoiding treebursts) and you'll have some great fun.

[DavidFields]

Honestly, realest, I hope you stike with the game. It is marvelous. I don't know what you are used to: I was pushing little pieces of cardboard with tank pictures on them in the early 1970s, and there was much for me to learn, particularly with regard to LOS and concealment. The Nashorn/T-34 match-up may not go well unless the Nashorn was initially hidden in some way--such as back in scattered woods, and struck first. It is a defensive weapon, as you likely know. Not great armor. No turret. For the fun of it, consider taking the same situation, with you as the T-34s. (Ah...looks from the previous post you are practicing defensive stances: try the cross-covering, almost inward pointing AT gun defense (less than 88s)--screened by infantry or morters (to strip off any attacking infantry, or to "blind" (button) those T-34s.)

And browse through all the old posts. (Although, is you start reading too much, you might enjoy the forum so much that it will distract you from actually playing the game.)

[realest]

Rank, like you i'm a long time gamer. Squad Leader, Blitzkrieg, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, all the way up to computer versions like Steel Panthers, SSI games (late 70's early 80's with cardboard pcs etc. for me. "The Longest Day" we played alot, and it took the longest day to play too, LOL). Yes, the cover and concealment here works as i think it should with regards to infantry. However, the vehicle part of this i'm confounded by. Part of it is the way the woods etc. work. The game engine doesn't seem to "pin down" points of concealment that i can currently identify. Some woods seem to block LOS while others don't seem to matter, or varied depths of concealment. Then theres buildings, although this seems straight forward, it doesn't seem to be to me. The other thing is i'm used to having control of those units. Here, you say "go there" and it's possible (probable in my case) that tank commander gives me the finger and plots his own course LOL, or even fires when i'd prefer they stayed quiet and hidden. "Dam their eagerness" as i say.

This reminds me somewhat of Squad Leader come to life.

I'll be on this game for quite a long time. A fellow named Joe has a small PBEM going with me. More of a trainer for me to see how the PBEM works. At current, i've lots of training to do. I play the scenarios to get a feel for things, as they stay consistant. I can replay the same one over and over trying new things and finding out what works and why. Not all are meant to be won, but it gives a consistency.

[McIvan]

I often think that the real problem is spotting.....AT guns are noticed in the game too easily. Result being they get muderous counterfire way out of proportion to real life. I've read an account where a company of Shermans in Italy spent hours trying to figure out where incoming AT fire originated from, finally giving up and laying smoke in the general direction to cover their tanks getting past the exposed piece of road. Have read other accounts of a simlar nature...the big problem being simply to see where the fire is coming from, even with something as big as a Tiger tank.

The other thing about accounts of 88mm in the desert is that tanks and AT guns quite routinely shot off their full ammo loads, sometimes several times in a day. I get the feel that a lot of shooting occurred at very long range. There was a heck of a lot of ammo flying about the place hitting nary a thing. You have to read accounts of uber-88mm in that context....ie they're hitting once in twenty shots type of thing, if that. Which, over the course of a full ammo load, multiplied by the life of the AT gun, is extremely effective. That simply doesn't happen in CM....if anything they are more accurate in CM than real life. It's just that the counter-measures latch on so quickly that the life expectancy of AT guns is low.

[John Kettler]

The combination of Borg spotting, zero modeling of German smokeless/flashless powder and German muzzle blast dust suppression measures (watering the ground, oiling the ground, tarps, etc.) really, IMO, hurts German ATGs and the big ones worst of all. This is why 88s tend to do poorly relative to what people think they should and what the records indicate they did. It's too easy to locate the gun once it fires, thus radically truncating the detect ATG firing to killing ATG cycle. Also, the game doesn't permit an 88 to fire from its wheels, and there's no way to move an 88 once it's deployed. The Germans didn't operate that way, especially in mobile warfare.

Regards,

John Kettler

[DavidFields]

Well realest, we then speak the same language: if anything I write helps you, great. I have a feeling you will figure thinks out anyway....

Yes, the main shift, I think, that one has to go through is with the variable effects of terrain, depending on how far you are into it. Thus one is not "in" the woods, or "out" of it, or "in" an building or "out" of it--but variably protected by the terrain/building depending on how far you are from the edge.

I still make the mistake of reflexively putting my squads at the edge of the building, thinking they are behind of wall, instead of placing them deeper in (in large buildings). When you start to see when putting a unit in the back corner of a building can be useful--that may be an "Aha" moment for you.

The same with woods terrain, I tend to put my units on the edge, when sometimes a bit back would be better.

Scattered woods tends to be the most complex for me, because of the issue of AFVs, and how far one can place them in that terrain for what protection.

[bTW, I think it is an excellent system--though people can rip holes in it as far as reflecting reality. But I think it beats most of the alternatives.]

I see, on this board, two approaches to the terrain/building situation. Some people seem to know the exact number of meters to place something for complete concealment--and I mean down to the meter. (Same people know exactly how much firepower for how long will pin or break an enemy unit) I....try to get the feel for it.

As to pathing issues, I think that is the burden any of us have with any computer game. Can't think of one which has solved this problem. As to units moving, firing on their own--the beauty/frustration of this is part of the CM charm. Gives some sense that there are humans down there. (But this is at least familiar, from the CloseCombat series) And sometimes the units were right and I was wrong!

Oh, and I suggest that you start, as you seem to be doing, with a small number of units: a platoon or two of infantry, a couple of AFVs, and a gun/morter or two. Otherwise, when just learning the system, the tedium level rises in plotting each turn.

[ October 27, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

[realest]

I do understand what you say, the see through walls concept isn't something us older farts grasp to fast. LOL

However, it's a super enjoyable platform. Yes, i'm trying to avoid the 60 squads and 400 tanks at the moment. Somehow, that would really really irratate me into boredom.

Taking the Train scenario and a couple of others i've continually played trying to pin down uses for equipment.

At the very back of the battles menu, i found a kursk armor engagement with a heap of panthers vs a mix of russian. That was fun for a "They don't stand a chance scenario." But isn't one that i find replayable. It's a you german, they russian, they die map.

[Wicky]

Try finding and playing a fiendish Andreas CMAK scenario 'Tally Ho!' (Best played British v AI or 2 player) only 17 turns.

I won't spoil it by saying any more...

Not sure where I got it from so here it is :

Tally Ho! for CMAK

[ October 27, 2006, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]