Getting AAA to fire

[chuckfourth]

Hi Don
AAA firing at any range is your idea not mine. But after further reading and some testing I now think the current modeling of AAA limited shots is OK. Sorry to have wasted you time on that. At least you dont have to worry about the game slowing to a crawl.

However for me and anyone who thinks the game should reflect reality the rocket and bomb accurracies remain a problem.
Can I just say according to the link below in-game you have modeled the typhoon rockets as 50 times as accurate as they were in reality, not twice, 50 times.

Your other concern is that accurate modeling of the weapons (in)accuracy will lead to complaints that air attacks are a waste of time and points
But if you pursue 'Chuckies way' the solution to the problem is this,
Make air assets a lot cheaper so no worries about the points.
Typhoon rockets -were- a waste of time against a panther on a hill, you cant hit it, However they were devestating against an area target (road convoy, form up area, routed ememy, bottleneck etc) So you should save your rockets for a bunched target. Dont forget the 20mm guns remain effective and accurate against soft and lightly armoured vehicles. And of course the recon bonus.

The book goes on to say that the distance between the typhoons rockets mean point of impact and the aiming point is 62m or 43m according to the sight type. So to model this there should be an equal chance of the rocket landing in the aimed at hex or any of the 6 adjacent hexes. As the adjacent hexes represent the mean error half the rockets should fall one hex further again. Seems similar to a nebelwerfers fall of shot.
As the rockets blast zone is one hex out from the hex hit firing a salvo still has a very high chance of destroying a single soft vehicle type point target, it should be in the blast zone of at least half the rockets.
According to the book bombs are about half as accurate as rockets.

Some other interesting facts from the book

RAAF considered that fighter bomber attacks were ineffective at visibilities below 2000yds (40 hexes). Your game is happy to allocate fighter-bombers at well below this visibility.

THe article also has this to say,
3000ft (20 hexes) was the safe distance to keep away from German flak below 20mm calibre
However
6000ft (40 hexes ) was the safe distance to keep away from German flak of 20mm and 37mm calibre.
Single 20mm german flak came with a 1m rangefinder, its safe to assume that the quads and 37s also had one. An increase of the rangefinder values of these weapons to 8 might bring the effective engagement range out to somewhere nearer the real distance of 40 hexes rather than the current in-game 20 hexes.

The germans didnt see the jabbo threat as insignificant because when your sitting in the lee of your tank having a cup of tea and out of nowhere 8 60lb rockets arrive followed by a hail of 20mm shells, you think this isnt the glory days.

For people who complain about air attacks being useless tell them the game is trying to represent WWII realsticly not fancifully.

http://books.google.com.au
/books?id=0Eb_uqFyWBgC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=20mm+flak+engagement+range&so
urce=web&ots=npFMCP3UIH&sig=xYvnMPkqVmToEymc7T2icEujtts&hl=en&sa=
X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPA75,M1

Best Regards Chuck

[Ironfist]

[quote=RERomine;671394]

Originally Posted by Imp

Statistically, it is identical to the Bofors, even if it isn't called one. Guns with higher accuracy, such as the 50 Quad, should expect better hit results, but having a smaller warhead less will come from each hit.

I know the the warhead size is counted in AP capability for AP rounds. Is it also counted in HE kill for HE ammo?

Quad 50 has a bigger HE kill (19) than that of twin Bofors (18) or single one (15) of the U.S. version. So maybe the damage of the two can be comparable.

I wonder which one is better, the quad 50 or the twin 40mm.
Quad 50: higher acc & HE kill
twin 40mm: larger WH, longer range.
From my test it seems that twin 40mm is a little bit better but the difference is very small.

In my game I use 40mm AA (stationary) to cover arty and SPAA (currently m15, looking for m16 when it's available) for tank & inf.

BTW, I am not sure about this:
In OOB12 (US army), unit 026 M19 duster. I think "duster" is actually M42, as in the WBT. Did M19 also get that nickname?

[PanzerBob]

Good day,

Ref: the "Duster" as the offical name of the M19, according to the AFV Database no, only the M42 carries that name.

However, it is possble the name arose as the nickname for the M19, due the dust kicked up when the guns were in action. Once the M42 was created the name became offical. One thing is certain many places do refer to the M19 as the Duster as well. I'd say as far as our OOB's go M19 Duster is likely not wrong as far as nicknames go, and an awful lot of military equipment has nicknames that has over time became their known names, even if the factory or armies never changed the designations.

Good Question

Don't even start me on the Tiger II!!

Bob out

[Imp]

Don't even start me on the Tiger II!!

Aw come on you can't post something like that & not expand on it.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Ironfist

I know the the warhead size is counted in AP capability for AP rounds. Is it also counted in HE kill for HE ammo?

Quad 50 has a bigger HE kill (19) than that of twin Bofors (18) or single one (15) of the U.S. version. So maybe the damage of the two can be comparable.

You are more than likely correct. I was attempting to test when AAA units would engage, not whether or not they hit and what damage the hit caused. Some AAA units are multi-barrelled, others have a very high rate of fire and still others are a combination of both, so HE value is probably used instead of WH value. I was thinking along the lines of normal guns (not AAA and machine guns) when I made the comment about warhead size. For those guns, the HE value and WH value are usually directly proportional.