The Laughable 8.8cm FlaK

[flamingknives]

The 88s are probably a bigger target than the cruisers, and not much smaller than the M3s. When there is an effective HE chucker about, an 88 on open terrain is in serious trouble. I've read accounts of allied tankers figuring to be able to KO dug in ATGs at 2000m using 75mm HE - provided they could see where they are. Borg spotting is probably a major problem here.

From what I read, these 88s are in open ground? Try setting them up in Brush or rocky ground?

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by c3k:

Then, when I do everything I can to stop them from shooting, those trigger-happy FlaK gunners can't stop themselves.

Thanks,

Ken

Sounds like you tried to hide them after the shooting started, which is just too late. Hiding them after the shooting starts is next to near impossible. Guns of that size need to be kept in good cover, never in open ground, brush, or even rocky/rough, so they can be kept hidden. Then open up when closer range is achieved.

[flamingknives]

AIUI, the guns in question are towed onto the map, so are limited to terrain that the tractor can get into.

[JonS]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

... When there is an effective HE chucker about, an 88 on open terrain is in serious trouble. I've read accounts of allied tankers figuring to be able to KO dug in ATGs at 2000m using 75mm HE - provided they could see where they are. ...

That's a good point. The 88s were always deperately vulnerable to artillery and HE. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your POV), for the longest time the British couldn't figure out how to co-ordinate their artillery and tanks, and as discussed elsewhere the tanks didn't have any HE of their own. When both those things changed - starting from about mid-'42 - the 88 began to lose it's potency, although the myth has lingered on. Sure, after that time 88s could still KO any given tank on any given day until the end of the war, but they could no longer expect to destroy whole squadrons by themselves, and live to tell the tale.

Regards

JonS

[Bonxa]

To repeat what others have said. The 88 needs to score a direct hit, the 75 does not. There's the relativ difference.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

... When there is an effective HE chucker about, an 88 on open terrain is in serious trouble. I've read accounts of allied tankers figuring to be able to KO dug in ATGs at 2000m using 75mm HE - provided they could see where they are. ...

That's a good point. The 88s were always deperately vulnerable to artillery and HE. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your POV), for the longest time the British couldn't figure out how to co-ordinate their artillery and tanks, and as discussed elsewhere the tanks didn't have any HE of their own. When both those things changed - starting from about mid-'42 - the 88 began to lose it's potency, although the myth has lingered on. Sure, after that time 88s could still KO any given tank on any given day until the end of the war, but they could no longer expect to destroy whole squadrons by themselves, and live to tell the tale.

Regards

JonS </font>

[tar]

That, plus the relatively short lines of sight in Normandy, which negates one of the 88's greatest relative advantages: much better long-range performance. If you give that up and have to use it at short range, then it would be expected to do poorly.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by tar:

That, plus the relatively short lines of sight in Normandy, which negates one of the 88's greatest relative advantages: much better long-range performance. If you give that up and have to use it at short range, then it would be expected to do poorly.

Not really true as The British sector was "good tank" country with 1000metre plus kills being achieved by Panzer/StuG units during Goodwood. The Tank killing detachments of the FlaK corp on the other hand did very poorly =35 8,8cm and 70 light FlaK guns lost in exchange for 20 allied tanks.

It also ignores the fact that even in the desert most 8,8cm kills were achieved at sub 1000metres.

[ April 19, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[c3k]

Gents,

Since it was my tactical ineptness, shown by opening fire at 1800 meters, followed by weak leadership and topped with a total lack of technical abilities which started this thread, I shall attempt to redeem myself.

I'll restart the scenario in question (something I'm alway loathe to do, the blind playing of a situation is what I enjoy), and I will withhold the fire of my 88's until sub-1000 meter range is achieved. Perhaps they'll get more hits...

Meantime, I still hold that the accuracy is under-modelled. We shall see.

Thanks,

Ken

[Redwolf]

The accuracy is undermodeled if you count in a pre-ranged defense or, as I explained above, the limits of dynamic zeroing in in CM.

Try an 88 pillbox just for comparision of the accuracy. Gun pillboxes in CM are assumed to be pre-ranged and have a much higher hit probability.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by c3k:

I'll restart the scenario in question (something I'm alway loathe to do, the blind playing of a situation is what I enjoy), and I will withhold the fire of my 88's until sub-1000 meter range is achieved. Perhaps they'll get more hits...

You're setting yourself up for another disappointment. The 88s will ignore your covered arc / hide command if they feel they are threatened. Add to that the long setup time, and borg spotting of the tanks, and you will end up with the same results as before.

My suggestion: deploy behind each ridge in a reverse slope defense with guns trained out to cover the flanks. Place a few HQs atop each ridge to keep an eye on the approaching tanks. The terrain will mask the guns from the majority of tanks, allowing them to concentrate on 1-2 tanks at a a time as each comes into LOS.

[WWB]

Originally posted by c3k:

I'll restart the scenario in question (something I'm alway loathe to do, the blind playing of a situation is what I enjoy), and I will withhold the fire of my 88's until sub-1000 meter range is achieved. Perhaps they'll get more hits...

Overall, I do think the 88s accuracy is a bit low without TRPs. Combined with dust breaking LOS to targets, borg spotting, and some funky behavios, it can lead to unrealisic results. Especailly on open maps with lots of targets. I dont think there is much that can be done save the engine rewrite, as alot of the flaws go back to fundamental mechanics, not anything that can be tweaked in the unit modeling.

That said:

As the designer of the scenario in question that is pretty much how it worked out historically. Wolz held fire until they were inside 1200m at least--I suspect 800m. When the full fusillade opened, it was something akin to the end of the Charge of the Light Brigade, with tracks.

It should be noted that original version of the scenario started with the 88s emplaced. They were bloody slaughters. Very bloody slaughters.

WWB

[c3k]

Kingfish,

Umm, that's pretty much what I did the first time through. I used terrain features to mask the guns until the vile Tommies entired the designated kill sack. Sure, I was tempted by a few long range shots, just to satisfy my curiosity. Because of that, only a couple of tanks can see my line of guns at a time.

If it were a matter of one on one duels, with some hits and lots of misses, I wouldn't have been so stumped. As it ended up, I used 6 to 8 to 12 88's against 1-3 tanks at a time. My 88's did score the rare hit. Usually they missed by 100's of meters. 100's. Meanwhile the Grants/Lees (?) were dropping 75 HE's on top of the gunshields.

The crux of my mystification is that all things being equal, the worst I'd expect would be similar accuracies. As it is, the 88's are out of the ballpark most of the time while the M3's seem to be using laser-guided munitions.

Let's assume the optics and aiming systems (two different issues) are equal between M3's and the FlaK 88. Let's assume round to round and gun accuracy levels are the same. So, the ability to put a round where you want is identical. Now, put one in a moving metal box with limited view, moving and pivoting so there is a constantly changing ballistic solution, against a stationary weapon. It would seem the advantage would be with the stationary weapon with wide open fields of view with the ability to judge impact adjustments.

I fear if I can't use these 88's properly I may be sent to Stalingrad by my commander.

Thanks,

Ken

[c3k]

WWB,

A cross-post.

Thanks for sharing your design experience with this scenario. (At the risk of sounding like a sycophant, your scenarios are always a great ride - lots of action and fun.)

As many of the posters stated, and I realized when I did it, opening up at extreme ranges was not the best thing I could've done.

When I restart I'll withhold fire. My new plan involves massing the 88's on the LEFT side of the M3's. Hah! Put a gun in a sponson on the RIGHT side of your tank? This'll show you.....

Regards,

Ken

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by WWB:

When the full fusillade opened, it was something akin to the end of the Charge of the Light Brigade, with tracks.

WWB

Err, so the onrushing tanks, despite suffering heavy casualties still overran the guns before being forced back by a counter-attack and retreating under fire?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by c3k:

My 88's did score the rare hit. Usually they missed by 100's of meters.

The crux of my mystification is that all things being equal, the worst I'd expect would be similar accuracies. As it is, the 88's are out of the ballpark most of the time while the M3's seem to be using laser-guided munitions.

But you're comparing two different things. I doubt your 88's really were missing by hundreds of meters. Maybe your shells landed 100's of meters away from their target, but the purpose is to hit the tank, not the ground beneath it. If you are hunting ducks and your shotgun's pellets land a km away from the bird, you don't say that you missed by a kilometer, now do you?

Their relative accuracy would be better tested by having them fire at similar targets, either at ground and comparing which hit the targetted point more, or having them shoot at AFV's of the same size.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by c3k:

My 88's did score the rare hit. Usually they missed by 100's of meters. 100's.

That is an oddity of the CM system that doesn't affect the basic probability to hit the tank.

The probability to hit the tank is computed normally as given by the display in the engine.

However, when the random number generator draws a miss, then the computation where the shell lands is off. The wide fall radius of missed shots is not in line with the basic hit probability for something as small as a tank. In other words: more misses should land closer to the tank than CM shows it.

However, as I said, this is just a graphical oddity, as an AP shell missing the target doesn't really do anything no matter where it lands. It has no impact on your chances to destory the target tank in first place.

Did you try the pillboxes to gain an impression what pre-ranged defenders do in CM?

[c3k]

Gents,

Okay, just finished re-playing the scenario. Successfully hid the barn-door sized 88's until the range was 800-1,000 meters. Results were closer to what I'd expected: lots of burning tanks, some destroyed guns.

Remaining questions: many, many misses at 800 meters. How large a target was an M3 at 800 meters? (Broadside on). What was the expected target accuracy of a FlaK gun crew?

If I design a scenario with on-board TRP's, then use towed guns, will the guns gain accuracy by using the TRP's after they're set-up?

Thanks for all the responses.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by c3k:

If I design a scenario with on-board TRP's, then use towed guns, will the guns gain accuracy by using the TRP's after they're set-up?

No. The TRPs only give an accuracy bonus to guns that have not yet moved. This represents their being ranged in from that point. In some cases this may be thought a bit arbitrary, Such as when a second gun move into close proximity to a ranged-in gun that has not moved, but mostly it makes sense.

Michael

[Leopard_2]

I think one of the major mistakes is judging from just a single scenario.

The 88 is vulnerable to HE fire: Huge target, poor protection for the gunners. If there's a whole bunch of tanks out there shelling me with HE, I couldn't stay calm to take good aim.

You might want to test some other scenarios. Or check out how well a Tiger performs (with a gun crew that's snugly protected by lots of armor) in place of the 88.

And it wasn't just the precision of the 88 that made for its good reputation... citing "Rommels Krieg in Afrika" from memory:

A General inspecting a 8.8 Pak addresses a private: 'Where do you aim at on an enemy tank?' - ''ere e's 'ickest, General.'

The General goes wild: 'Do you have any idea of what you're doing? Did you ever actually shoot at an enemy tank? Did you hit?'

At this point the commanding officer steps in: 'May I inform the General that the private has scored 32 tank kills and has been recommended for the Knight's Cross.'

End of transmission from the General.

[Moon]

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

Okay, just finished re-playing the scenario. Successfully hid the barn-door sized 88's until the range was 800-1,000 meters. Results were closer to what I'd expected: lots of burning tanks, some destroyed guns.

Remaining questions: many, many misses at 800 meters. How large a target was an M3 at 800 meters? (Broadside on). What was the expected target accuracy of a FlaK gun crew?

If I design a scenario with on-board TRP's, then use towed guns, will the guns gain accuracy by using the TRP's after they're set-up?

Thanks for all the responses.

Ken

Talks about accuracy always remind me of an anecdote that Steve, Charles, Matt, Dan and myself witnessed a few years ago. We visited an MG shootout near where Steve lives, and the guys there also had an anti-tank gun (I think it was US 57mm?) on display, and fired it a few times at some poor barrels and cars. I don't recall exactly what the range was, but it won't have been more than 200 meters and perhaps closer (we were firing at the same targets with MGs earlier).

The crew, including the owner of the gun, had all the time in the world to line up the shot (and took at least 5-10 minutes!), nobody was firing back at them, the distance was what most people here would regard knife-fighting distance - and yet the shot missed! IIRC, the first shot actually hit, and the second shot missed, but I might be wrong about that. Anyhoo - the point is that hit or miss isn't a binary thing. It always remains a "chance", no matter how sure it is in theory.

Martin

[tooz]

My two cents here...I have to agree with C3K, based ON MY OWN PLAYING EXPERIENCE (more than one scenario)and I have found the 88s to be disappointing. I don't care about figures, stats, weather, whatever, playing experience shows me that these thing rarely do the damage that they inflicted in real life.

No, I am not going to send screenshots (can't get it to work anyway) or cite statistics, or do experiments. When I have the 88 they suck, when the AI has the 88 they are snipers.

Just one gamer's observation. So, C3K, you are not a lone voice here. I am playing a battle now where my 88 has been firing at a staionary Sherman for two turns now. Still can't even come close. I know, dust, flies buzzing around my gunners eyes, perhaps. Who cares? I just would like to see my 88 hit something, let alone kill it. If you are experiencing better results, then good for you. All I know is what I see. My 88s scare no one.

[Leopard_2]

Originally posted by c3k:

What was the expected target accuracy of a FlaK gun crew?

Ah, I finally see something here... A FlaK crew would be trained to fire at planes flying at several thousand meters altitude at a given speed in a given direction, and not having to worry too much about being attacked themselves.

You might want to take note of the number of planes shot down by FlaK, compared to the number of shots fired at 'em, despite the given altitude / given direction. Still the 8.8 was considered to be a very good FlaK...

I don't know whether the game correctly models this, but I could perfectly picture a PaK crew doing a much better job.

You might also note that the 8.8 FlaK had even less protection to the gunners and a higher profile than later PaK versions.

(Still talking reality here instead of game mechanics as I admittedly lack the experience with CM yet.)

[Macphail]

i would really question how those tanks can see you at such ranges. there must be something else going on.

[Moon]

KG_Steiner, it's not the tanks, but one infantry unit with binoculars looking in the right direction when the enemy AT Gun is firing is enough...

Martin