Getting AAA to fire

Imp · #1 February 1st, 2009, 10:08 PM

Intresting read Ray, about what I would have expected though Fw-190 surprised me a bit.
Never buy that gun so it must be a low quality AA Gun.
As in poor accuracy & fire control.
From memory & varies by nation can get accuracy around low 20s & RF of 4 or 5 for a few points more. These will I think engage at longer range

iCaMpWiThAWP · #2 February 1st, 2009, 10:26 PM

So according to RERomine's tests, i should pick the fastest and smallest possible A/C for attack runs?

RERomine · #3 February 1st, 2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

So according to RERomine's tests, i should pick the fastest and smallest possible A/C for attack runs?

Well, based on the tests, I would pick a Fw190 over a Ju88. Beyond that, I don't want to draw too many conclusions.

Andy mentioned that AA guns won't fire unless they have a minimum percentage chance to hit. Both the size and the speed of the target influence that ability. Specifically, higher speed and smaller size targets should be more difficult to hit.

RERomine · #4 February 1st, 2009, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imp

Intresting read Ray, about what I would have expected though Fw-190 surprised me a bit.
Never buy that gun so it must be a low quality AA Gun.
As in poor accuracy & fire control.
From memory & varies by nation can get accuracy around low 20s & RF of 4 or 5 for a few points more. These will I think engage at longer range

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 did run some more abbreviated tests using the US 50 Quad and the German 2cm and 3.7cm guns. They weren't as extensive as the the testing with US 40mm AA gun, but those guns still did not engage beyond 20 hexes. With all of these guns, range isn't any more than 46 hexes. I should test the Russian 37mm as it has a range of 55 hexes. What I expected was maximum engagement range to be somewhere around half of the maximum range of the gun and not a wall of 20 hexes. If the Russian 37mm gun doesn't get past 20 hexes, I would conclude there is a code limitation that prevents engagements beyond that.

Imp · #5 February 1st, 2009, 11:18 PM

Quote:

So according to RERomine's tests, i should pick the fastest and smallest possible A/C for attack runs?

Thought that was a given, choose the weapons you want then small fast planes for survivability.
As I said if it works for ground units it works for air to including spotters.
Diffrence is if you want real survivability in WW2 go for level bombers as need big AA guns to engage. Long call time though.

RERomine · #6 February 2nd, 2009, 01:33 AM

Additional testing, using a Russian 37mm AA gun at experience 120, doubling rate of fire and doubling the warhead size would not permit the gun to engage targets beyond 20 hexes. I suspect fire control plays a factor in engagement range when used in AA mode and light guns during WW2 were limited in this area.

RERomine · #7 February 2nd, 2009, 02:10 AM

The basic answer is engagement range is effected by the obvious: fire control and range finder. During WW2, light AA guns were controlled manually and aimed generally through open type sights. Don't expect a lot out of light AA guns. At least they are cheap

PanzerBob · #8 February 2nd, 2009, 02:51 AM

Food for thought.

If there is a limitation, it maybe due the MAX Ranges for any of the AAA only takes into account range across the ground as a surface weapon.

Airstrikes and AAA firing at them are using the limited part of the programming which very simply simulates airpower in the game. We don't really know what the aircraft is doing on its strike run except its ingress and egress routes. Again for AAA the same applies, it is shooting into the sky, I wouldn't expect a piece with 3000 meter range over ground to be able to reach out to 3000 meters in the sky over ground. Remember one reason 88's and other Heavy AA Pieces made great and good ATG's was their design to be able to push their FLAK loads high into the sky over their positions, I dare say those guns didn't range too far from their positions in their Flak Roles either. Just another reason even the big guns tended to be mobile, as their locations would be easy to hit otherwise.

Personally the game does a fair job of simulating CAS and Level Airstrikes and the defence against them. Nothing more annoying than an airstrike against the US when everybody and their brother has AA 50cal's and fill the sky with lead. The more metal in the air the more likely you will hit the JABO SOB or convince him this is not a healthy place to be.

Bottom-line if you expect airstrikes recruit as much AAA as you can practically include and keep them close to likely targets.

Gotta love this game!!

Bob out

Ironfist · #9 February 5th, 2009, 02:12 AM

[quote=RERomine;671394]

Quote:

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 · #10 February 5th, 2009, 03:54 AM

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