The German '88' in CMBB - additional functionality??

[Little_Black_Devil]

I have been wondering lately, as to whether or not the German Flak18/36/37's will still be limited to just two single deployments as in CMBO.

I'm specifically making reference to the players choice (when using the Flak36/37 in CMBO) to either embark it upon its prime mover (the Sdkfz.7) and deploy it where its needed as a battle progresses (where it will then remain for the duration of the battle/scenario) - OR, to begin the scenario with the gun already deployed, and for all intents and purposes - static - in its position, as it can not be embarked and moved to a better position or pulled out of the line altogether.

So what I'am I getting at?

Well, two things really.

First of all;

I would like to see the Flak18/36/37 capeable of deploying and undeploying as many times as it wants (within it the time it takes during its limbering/unlimbering process).

It should be capeable of moving under its own power (manhandling) at extremely slow speeds, for extremely short durations (and therefore distances), further affected by the terrain.

It would be nice to have the ability to move the gun potentially multiple times during a scenario (if it actually needed to be), either under the power of its prime mover for more extensive distances, or under its own power - to move into that ideal position just below a crest (since field guns don't have a "move to hull down" command).

Secondly;

In addition - the Flak18/36's in particular - were used in the anti-tank role quite commonly, while still mounted ontop their wheel limbers. What I'm saying is, that the gun [in the game] should be capeable of firing while both fully deployed, and whilst still sitting on top the wheel limbers.

This would inevitably bring about more historical use of the Flak18/36/37, as it could be employed against tanks in particular, and also as part of a mobile formation accross vast stretches of terrain. Currently - the Flak36/37 in CMBO is an awkward tool to use in a fluid battle; particularly as wherever or however it is deployed, it is "permanent" stuck for the battle/scenario. I don't think this is either realistic or very representative of how the gun was used historically, 1941 onwards.

I just finished reading a book on the 21st Panzer Division (P.45,46,47 - "21st Panzer Division: Rommel's Afrika Korps Spearhead" by Chris Ellis, ISBN:0-7110-2853-2), which went into some detail, concerning the employment of the Flak18/36/37 in the anti-tank role from on top of its wheel limbers. Some of the main points being, that 21st Panzer had really pioneered and "perfected" this practice in North Africa (in '41) and that the gun was "more accurate" when fired this way. Currently, we are forced to fully deploy the weapon or leave it embarked, and then drop it off in a permenent position.

I simply want more options.

I would rather not see my 88's forced into one and ONLY one deployed position, and at that - a fully deployed position (as opposed to as hasty deployed position - with the gun still on top of its wheel limbers).

While enabeling the gun to be towed from both ends (in the Flak36/37 models) would be an additional bonus, I don't think its currently an absolute necessity.

So - 'am I the only one that wants to see this additional functionality, realism and historical accuracy insofar as the 88 is concerned? :confused:

I think I would likely be foolish to assume that this kind of functionality could make it into the full version which we are all soon to see in a few (hopefully short) weeks.

It would however, make a welcome addition to a patch though; assuming I'm not the only one who would like to see the Flak18/36/37 get a little extra attention.

Thoughts anyone??

[JonS]

Hmm. If you think that it is reasoanble to be able to push this:

around the battlefield, then I think you need to spend more time trying to push big heavy things around. Like stalled trucks. Or sumfink These are big guns. IMHO, having the guns fixed is an entirely resonable compromise between historical/realism and gameplay factors.

What I would like to see for these guns, though, is the option to direct-fire airbust or PD HE.

Regards

JonS

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well, you may have a point.

As one who has served in the Artillery (though never on '88's) , I know from experience that field pieces like these, can be and were moved around - though never far, never fast and NEVER with a minimal effort. The Flak36/37's usually had 10 man crews - thats alot of man power to roll the gun along on its wheel limbers. Of course - this assumes that a given gun always has a complete crew, which I suspect was less and less the case as the war progressed.

I do think, that if such a feature were made available - that it should be limited, so as to prevent the "gamey" use of 88's, moving about the battlefield and traversing any reasonable distance under the power of its crew alone. 5-10m might be a reasonable distance to expect the crew to move the gun before deploying it - especially if they are trying to push/pull it up even the most gentle of inclines.

Where I can certainly forsee such a human effort running into trouble, is up substantial inclines or in deep snow; where the speed at which the gun can be manouvered into position, would be severely limited, and the crew quite tuckered out after the effort. This might slow the unlimbering time even further, and perhaps even initially affect the rate of fire. Depending on the proximity of the prime mover, it might even determine the availability of ammunition.

However, I do believe that it was possible for the crews to manhandle these guns into position (within limited distances). Really, they are simply adjusting their position by a few metres for an optimal arc of fire. Hopefully, they would not betray the presence of either the prime mover or their gun to the enemy in such a manor at range - which unto its self might entail more options we as players can entertain within the game.

All of that being said, perhaps enabling the '88 to move under its own (limited) power, might prompt more problems that it solves. You've certainly given me a few things to think about.

I do think that being able to deploy the '88, in either its primary deployment role or its hasty (on wheels) role would add some flavour to the gun. It only took about 4 minutes to bring into action, off its prime mover, and about the same to bring out of action before the prime mover could start towing it again. Since many, if not most battles last longer than 8 turns within the game - I would at least like to have the option of fighting battles with an 88 that I can take with me.

Current '88's through the virtue of their immobility, can not be (in my opinion) an active part of a fighting withdrawl or a mechanized advance over any substantial distance. In some respects, its like a "Get out of Jail Free Card" - once you use it - its done.

I just think the Flak18/36/37 was more versatile than the current abstraction lets on.

On a different note;

The ability for the gun to fire an air-burst would be an interesting addition as well. I imagine such a feature to be quite the "broom" for "motivating" enemy Infantry out of wooded areas.

That could certainly lead to some interesting employment of this gun.

I wonder if giving it use of its anti-aircraft rounds (and applicable fuzes) to do that, effectively makes it "capeable" of taking on aircraft as well?

Perhaps that too is an option which needs to be looked at - though I find it hard to visualize the '88 being employed against fast moving low flying aircraft (which is what I'am assuming we will be limited to in the full version for air-support).

In any event, food for thought I guess.

Thanks for the input.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by JonS:

Hmm. If you think that it is reasoanble to be able to push this:

Well, this pic is actually a bit misleading because it shows the 8,8cm Flak before we (Lindan, Apex, Tools4fools, Mensch and me) pushed it to a nearby Biergarten to have a closer look in a more relaxed atmosphere without all these wanna-be-grogs around...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

...the gun was "more accurate" when fired this way [while limbered].

Could you please explain this statement? I'm not sure that I am reading it correctly. On the face of it, it seems to be saying that the gun was more accurate limbered than unlimbered, and that is counter-intuitive to say the least.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

Well, this pic is actually a bit misleading because it shows the 8,8cm Flak before we (Lindan, Apex, Tools4fools, Mensch and me) pushed it to a nearby Biergarten to have a closer look in a more relaxed atmosphere without all these wanna-be-grogs around...

Let me guess - uphill both ways, pouring with sleet, snow and rain, the sun in your eyes, and a huricane blowing. Meanwhile some little oik was taking pot shots at you with a BB gun. But, undaunted, you covered the 5000m course to the biergarten in under 5 minutes, barely breaking a sweat?

Or sumfink.

LBD, I'm a gunner too. I do know a bit about pushing guns. I fear that trying to code "this unit can only within 10m of the spot it started from OR from the spot it was dropped off by transport" might be a tad more work than its worth. Also, the engine doesn't appear to take gradients into account when calculating movement rates - set up a scen, and have some squads run uphill along side others running downhill and on the level. If my hunc is correct they will cover the same horizontal distance in any given time.

Another consideration, particular to the 88 (which you do allude to) is the need to lower it off its wheels once it arrives at its designated position. And conversly, the need to raise it back onto those wheels before it can be moved anywhere.

Regarding airburst: IIRC, the angular rate of change (and elevation I expect) for the 88 is far to slow to make it practical to engage FBs. Hence in CMBO ... it can't And most likely not in CMBB.

Regards

JonS

[ September 15, 2002, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by JonS:

Let me guess - uphill both ways, pouring with sleet, snow and rain, the sun in your eyes, and a huricane blowing. Meanwhile some little oik was taking pot shots at you with a BB gun. But, undaunted, you covered the 5000m course to the biergarten in under 5 minutes, barely breaking a sweat?

Or sumfink.

*nodding empathically*

Exactly.

And that was even before Lindan close-assaulted a Flammpanzer III with nothing but iron will, a brave heart and an empty beer bottle...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

set up a scen, and have some squads run uphill along side others running downhill and on the level. If my hunc is correct they will cover the same horizontal distance in any given time.

Hmm, I'm not so sure of that. What I do know is that troops running uphill get tired a lot faster than troops running on the level.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

I would like to see use of the gun while limbered; SL and ASL allowed it, and there are neat photos of a GD crew engaging a target while limbered. It WAS done.

I'll defer the pushing question and think it relatively unimportant - but the firing while limbered would be a "nice to have" feature. Especially if it can be proven to have been reasonably common.

Sorta like firing from a tripod....

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I would like to see use of the gun while limbered; SL and ASL allowed it, and there are neat photos of a GD crew engaging a target while limbered. It WAS done.

Agreed. Great feature in ASL.

Regarding movement during the game, I dont think that pushing an 88 is realistic, but being able to load and unload onto a prime mover as often as is liked is very reasonable. Could you not do so in CMBO?

Chad

[Little_Black_Devil]

Ya, you may well be right Jons.

My motivation for voicing this, is that it is difficult to "properly" sight in the heavier guns, within CMBO. (perhaps this will be different in CMBB?)

Unlike the smaller anti-tank guns, or the tanks (now with the move to hull down command) the heavier guns are forced to be deployed in the open (when dropped off of their prime mover in mid-scenario). They can't adjust themselves into position, and also have no means of knowing (or directly moving) into a field guns equivilent of a hull down position. Thus, if you want to see your gun in action, then you overcompensate (to make sure its not trapped in dead ground), and put it in the open.

Despite all of that - as has been pointed out, perhaps it is indeed just too much work for so little in return. It is after all - a minor point, just a thought.

Michael emrys, what I had said above, was based off of the book "21st Panzer Division: Rommel's Afrika Korps Spearhead".

I'll try and give you a few excerpts, so you can see for yourself what I was getting at;

Pp.45 - caption to a picture of an '88 firing from on top of its wheel limbers;

"The 88 was at its most effecive when fired direct from its wheeled chassis, a technique developed by 21st Panzer Division in the desert fighting."

Pp.46;

"During the summer months Rommel moved both 21st and 15th Panzer Divisions to the area between Tobruk and the frontier, and ordered extensive excersises to perfect tank attack, support and anti-tank techniques. Most important of these was the idea of firing the 88 direct from its cruciform towing platform without stopping to emplace it. At Halfaya and other defence points, the 88's had been emplaced conventionally, on the ground and off their mobile towing trolleys, though well concealed in sangars. One battery had remained with the tank battalions, however, for possible deployment elsewhere. But in the famous running firefight with 7th Armoured Division in the Sidi Omar area on 16 June, these mobile 88's had been fired straight from their wheeled towing trailers without being conventionally emplaced. This was done as an extemporised act in the heat of battle, simply because there just wasn't time to emplace the gun first in a running fight. The idea worked, however, and now it became the normal operational technique for using the 88 in the anti-tank role. It gave immense extra firepower and flexability to the armoured units, particularly at the time when the most powerful tank-mounted gun with DAK was the 50mm in the PzKpfw III.

With its ability to fire straight from its trailer safely proven, the 88 batteries could now move mixed in among the tanks, a facility made posible by the reliable Sdkfz.7 semi-track tractor, which also carried the crew and ammunition. The excersises tried various ways of deploying the towed 88 with tanks. They could travel inside the group and move to the front, sides or rear as requierd of a moving formation. If the tanks stopped to exchange fire, the 88's could be moved out to protect the flanks, or they could move out to the front of the formation take well aimed long range shots at the enemy and swiftly retire again into the heart of the formation."

My guess is - that firing the 88 with the gun perpendicular to the wheel limbers - while still mounted on them, somehow helped alleviate some of the shock from the recoil.

Thats a guess, and also assumes that firing the gun broadside while still mounted would not be as effective. Again - its a guess, so as to explain why it would be more "accurate" still mounted on its wheel limbers as opposed to its conventional deployment which saw it pegged into the ground.

Anyone else care to speculate?

What I see as to the two most important features needed for the gun, is the ability to deploy and re-deploy AND for the gun to chose to deploy either into its "hasty" role, or its "sustained" role, each with their own respective strengths and weaknesses - which I believe need further confirmation and elaboration.

The crew having the ability to manhandle the gun - while a nice feature, isn't exactly a "need" feature at the moment.

Thanks again for all of the feedback guys.

[JunoReactor]

excuse my ignorant meddling, but would not the gun, once fired, recoil some distance when it is limbered and on its wheels?

edit: when it is fired towards front or rear, that is.

[ September 16, 2002, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: JunoReactor ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

excuse my ignorant meddling, but would not the gun, once fired, recoil some distance when it is limbered and on its wheels?

There were probably handbrakes, though I'm far from an expert. As pointed out, it was a pretty heavy gun, too...

You don't think those crafty Germans would have thought of everything?

[Guest Mike]

I believe the cruciform or at least jacks were lowered to stop teh gun recoiling!!

Note that Black's quotes talk about het gun being more effective due to the extra mobility it had - not anything about it being more accurate!!

The key here is percisely what black was complaining about in his first post - the extra time taken to properly dismount the 88 made it ineffective in a fast moving engagement in real life, just like in CM!!

By firing from its wheels it could e bought into and out of action fast enough to become useful.

I reckon if you had something like that in CNBO you'd lose a lot of 88's - the gun is HUGE, and impossible to conceal unless emplaced, and the ranges are short enough so it's likely to cop a lot of return fire even in the minute it might take to get ready like this.

However in the desert or steppes it'll have a lot more available range, so it would be a more viable tactic (IMO)

[ARRPEEGEE]

In addition - the Flak18/36's in particular - were used in the anti-tank role quite commonly, while still mounted ontop their wheel limbers. What I'm saying is, that the gun [in the game] should be capeable of firing while both fully deployed, and whilst still sitting on top the wheel limbers.

That's a pretty old chestnut to crack on, round there heeer parts.

I'd really like to have the wheel mounted-tow capable model.

[Little_Black_Devil]

It might have moved back a little, but not a great deal, as both of its boggie wheels were equipt with both foot-pedal brakes (located blow a seat on top of each wheel limber respectively) and hand-brakes (which operated the same braking mechanism as the foot-pedal brakes).

With these brakes applied - they would obviously impede the recoil of the gun, while it was mounted on the wheel limbers. Of course - this is specifically in reference to the Flak36/37.

The Flak18, had a different wheel limber system which also had brakes, though to be honest I'am not exactly sure what kind they were, but would bet that there were no foot pedals on the Flak18, just hand-brakes. I could be wrong.

Hope that helped

[Andreas]

Sorry, but there is no way on earth the gun is more accurate when fired while limbered. Unpossible. In the desert, it was still more effective, because there was little cover around, and it was a way to do 'shoot & scoot' with an AT gun (you see quite a few pictures with the gunner sitting on the gun, instead of in the prime mover, to be ready to go into action immediately. Effective in the sense that it had a better chance to survive. That should not be confused.

Regarding fighting against FBs. I understand a tactic used by the Germans was to point the guns into the likely direction of approach of enemy planes, and open up putting a wall of steel in the air. That of course only works if:

a) you have a few guns to do it with

you have a good idea where they are coming from

Neither of which is likely in CM.

Regarding airburst in general - it is a well and proven fact that the 8,8cm Flak could (and did) do airbursts on ground targets very effectively, and I even have some info on it skipping HE rounds (no, that is not a joke). We have been over this ground before though. An action that maybe known to Jon where this happened was the destruction of some destroyers of Tobruk in 1942, where a battery of 88s fired airbursts over the deck of the destroyers.

Regarding limbering - yes it is a nice to have, but the problem is that in the game it would turn out that all 88s fire while limbered all the time. In order to prevent that you would have to make them so inaccurate that it is pointless to do it.

One thing that people in CM have not got to be concerned about is that the trailer also probably does not like the abuse a lot. I am quite sure the Wehrmacht had Dienstvorschriften dealing with it. I'll have a dig tonight and see if I can find something.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Regarding limbering - yes it is a nice to have, but the problem is that in the game it would turn out that all 88s fire while limbered all the time. In order to prevent that you would have to make them so inaccurate that it is pointless to do it.

One thing that people in CM have not got to be concerned about is that the trailer also probably does not like the abuse a lot. I am quite sure the Wehrmacht had Dienstvorschriften dealing with it. I'll have a dig tonight and see if I can find something.

The Heer also had strict regulations against strapping the gasplane to the gas mask carrier, but thousands if not millions of troops did it anyway. They eventually changed the regulations, but you know soldiers and regs - especially if they are doing something that will increase their lifespan, in their eyes...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Regarding limbering - yes it is a nice to have, but the problem is that in the game it would turn out that all 88s fire while limbered all the time. In order to prevent that you would have to make them so inaccurate that it is pointless to do it.

One thing that people in CM have not got to be concerned about is that the trailer also probably does not like the abuse a lot. I am quite sure the Wehrmacht had Dienstvorschriften dealing with it. I'll have a dig tonight and see if I can find something.

The Heer also had strict regulations against strapping the gasplane to the gas mask carrier, but thousands if not millions of troops did it anyway. They eventually changed the regulations, but you know soldiers and regs - especially if they are doing something that will increase their lifespan, in their eyes...</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Regarding limbering - yes it is a nice to have, but the problem is that in the game it would turn out that all 88s fire while limbered all the time. In order to prevent that you would have to make them so inaccurate that it is pointless to do it.

One thing that people in CM have not got to be concerned about is that the trailer also probably does not like the abuse a lot. I am quite sure the Wehrmacht had Dienstvorschriften dealing with it. I'll have a dig tonight and see if I can find something.

The Heer also had strict regulations against strapping the gasplane to the gas mask carrier, but thousands if not millions of troops did it anyway. They eventually changed the regulations, but you know soldiers and regs - especially if they are doing something that will increase their lifespan, in their eyes...</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

They don't, obviously. We were discussing your faulty logic....

My faulty logic in that it is a playability issue? I look forward to your comment. The other issue was raised as an after-thought. Sorry if you are not able to recognise that.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Little_Black_Devil:

...firing the gun broadside while still mounted would not be as effective.

It was not done at all as it would have tipped the gun over.

To hopefully clear matters up, the drill (as I have had it described to me) was that the gun and tractor would drive towards the area where there were targets. When a good firing position had been reached, the tractor would turn a to the side to avoid being directly under the muzzle blast of the gun. The gun was not detached from the tractor. In this configuration the gun could only be aimed a few degrees on either side of its center line (I don't actually know how many, but at a guess based on photographs I'd have to say 5 or 10). So it would have a very narrow field of fire, but that wouldn't matter too much given its long range. Fire outside that arc would require some maneuvering by the tractor, but that shouldn't have taken much time.

As Adreas pointed out, there is no way that it could have been more accurate in this configuration, but obviously it would have been handier in a running fight.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

They don't, obviously. We were discussing your faulty logic....

My faulty logic in that it is a playability issue? I look forward to your comment. The other issue was raised as an after-thought. Sorry if you are not able to recognise that.</font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're unusually dense today! And frisky!

Your comment that since German regulations may have prohibited a practice, it follows that German soldiers never did such a thing, ever. That was the inference I drew, anyway.

Was it really now? It must have been, since that I never made such a comment.

How about this - if I don't say it outright, maybe I don't say it at all? Especially when I say that I will do a bit of research on the matter.

I am still keen to find the link to gas straps.

[Doug Beman]

It was always my understanding that the use of 88 (and other heavy guns) on the attack was not a case of "drive them pellmell along, then stop suddenly and pop off a shot, then drive along again." While that certainly happened, as we have examples, I believe the overwhelming use of these guns was more like "find good positions to give cover fire to the advancing forces and/or set up an ambush to hit a counter attack from an unexpected direction." This latter was something the Germans perfected (Macksey directly mentions it several times, and I think Brazen Chariots describes it as well) in that they would hide some 88s just behind the FEBA, go forward and lure the Brits back onto the emplaced guns, and destroy them wholesale. The Brits fell for this again and again, and it wasn't until Monty arrived and gave specific instructions against unsupported "tanks as cavalry" charges that the practice ended.

I usually try to have some light/fast infantry unit (ideally an HQ, but a high-quality sharpshooter or PS team will work) to have them scout fire positions before I give orders to debark the gun. I'm of the impression that it was SOP to do the utmost to scout fire positions before starting the process of unlimbering the gun.

DjB