PDA

View Full Version : AAA accuracy



Grey_Mouser67
03-25-2006, 12:34 PM
I was watching the History channel last night and there was a good bit on proximity fuses used in AAA munitions in 1944 and beyond.

Statistic they stated....this was in the context of the battle for the Philippines so it may be relative to ship borne AAA, but the show stated that prior to proximity fuses, it took approximately 2,400 shells to bring down 1 enemy aircraft. After proximity fuses, it took about 400 shells!

Do you think that it takes 2400 rounds of AAA fire to bring down a plane in FB?

In addition, they showed how the shells were tuned to explode and it really makes the current modelling of the flak variety of AAA ridiculous. It is obvious why fields of flak had to be thrown up in front of aircraft as any other method would be totally impractical.

I won't even start on gunnery of AI. Sure would like to see Oleg tune it down a bit prior to abandoning this game to BoB.

First time, I've seen a statistic on AAA accuracy. Anyone else have any perspective to offer?

Grey_Mouser67
03-25-2006, 12:34 PM
I was watching the History channel last night and there was a good bit on proximity fuses used in AAA munitions in 1944 and beyond.

Statistic they stated....this was in the context of the battle for the Philippines so it may be relative to ship borne AAA, but the show stated that prior to proximity fuses, it took approximately 2,400 shells to bring down 1 enemy aircraft. After proximity fuses, it took about 400 shells!

Do you think that it takes 2400 rounds of AAA fire to bring down a plane in FB?

In addition, they showed how the shells were tuned to explode and it really makes the current modelling of the flak variety of AAA ridiculous. It is obvious why fields of flak had to be thrown up in front of aircraft as any other method would be totally impractical.

I won't even start on gunnery of AI. Sure would like to see Oleg tune it down a bit prior to abandoning this game to BoB.

First time, I've seen a statistic on AAA accuracy. Anyone else have any perspective to offer?

FritzGryphon
03-25-2006, 12:38 PM
Before this thread descends into hell, I'd remind all to compare apples and apples.

Getting hit by flak while flying your TB-3 at 500m is not the same as hitting US bomber at 8000m.

Because game players are so suicidally careless in their response to air defenses, it is natural that the loss rates would be higher.

JtD
03-25-2006, 01:53 PM
The figure for the 8.8 in FB is about 400 shots / kill (vs. a formation of bombers at 6000m, 400kph).

CD_kp84yb
03-25-2006, 02:16 PM
What is wrong with the AAA in FB???? it looks good to me.
If you want to have the ammount of small (rifle calibre guns) , medium (12 - 55mm) and heavy (all above ) that was set up to protect a city or an airfield in this game, the fastest mainframe could not handle it, think slideshow.

here is a link how the Flak worked,( yup i know im too lazy to type from the books and docs i have )

http://www.ww2guide.com/flak.shtml

this are the flak units

http://www.ww2.dk/ground/flak.html

the small flak in the role of defending is not to good in FB, its the **** tactics people use when attacking (they dont have to think about to loose their life like in real).

Now for the german 20mm AAA you need to set the max range at 2200 meters, in real the shell had selfdestruction after 2200m (only the HE shell, dont worry they didnt fire Minegeschoss ) but the AP didnt had selfdestruction and some later type of HE either.

If you want i can scan the docs for the ammo for all 20mm AAA (german) and the rest of the other guns too ( lol that is a lot of work so i prefer you use internet)
regards

Grey_Mouser67
03-25-2006, 05:40 PM
I don't see why this thread has to decend into flames....

It is really about how accurately AAA is modelled. The particular show I was watching was showing footage and talking about the Pacific war in 1944 and I thought that 2400 rounds was a much larger number than in FB....of course, I really don't know how many rounds are fired for each kill in FB.

Anyways, they showed footage and described 88's setting their fuse, which was on a timer prior to firing.

In game, I think there is a proximity model used so flying at any angle towards or away from the gun would litterally put you inside or outside the shell every microsecond....hence the setting up of fields of fire.

In game, the flak follows you around no matter what altitude or what speed you are going or if you change altitude....obviously, based on the way the fuses were set in non-proximity switch munitions, this would not be possible or feasable.

Too late for this game, so lets hope BoB has more accurate flak

zoinks_
03-25-2006, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
I don't see why this thread has to decend into flames....

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

was that post #666? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

LEXX_Luthor
03-25-2006, 07:24 PM
hehe good catch zoinks !!!

Grey_Mouser67:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I don't see why this thread has to decend into flames....
:
:
etc...
:
:
Posts: 666 | Registered: Sun June 12 2005 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm taking a screenshot of this (Mouser and zoinks posts), if you want it for future history, I can photobucket it for you to copy.

Did the Dogfight Channel cover how long it takes to place "realistic" AAA in Full Mission Builder maps? Ace FMB mission sculptors will Flame you if they need to place 500 AA guns to get "realistic" AA fire. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

horseback
03-25-2006, 09:02 PM
Grey_Mouser has a point: ship-based AAA was considered (especially after the arrival of the proximity fused shells) to be the most accurate of all the AAA in WWII. There are no trees, hills or buildings for an aircraft to hide behind at sea, and radar was in full use by the Allied navies almost from the start.

Land based AAA had to make up for this with sheer volume, and since the need was underappreciated at the beginning of the war, it took some time for effective land-based AAA systems to be designed and built. Some armies trained their ground troops to seek cover under air attack, but the Soviets and the Japanese would have had their men throwing rocks at attacking aircraft if that were all they had, and this 'helped' their AAA effectiveness early on.

After all is said and one, however,

'Realistic' AAA would be vastly less accurate in early-war scenarios, gradually improving in accuracy and intensity as you get 'later' into the war.

'Realistic' AAA would not be instantly aware of you (and lined up on you) as you crossed over it at treetop level, balls-out.

'Realistic' AAA wouldn't be able to consistantly whack you while you are engaged in a twisting turning dogfight with it's friendlies, and not whack the friendlies in equal proportion.

'Realistic' AAA would lose track of you as you left its line of sight.

'Realistic' AAA wouldn't waste rounds on a single flight of fighters at medium to high altitude or extreme ranges, and it sure as hell took a lot more than 400 shells each to hit one under those conditions.

'Realistic' AAA wouldn't have proximity fusing modeled at all, because it was the exclusive property of the USA and Commonwealth navies during the last year or so of the war, initially limited to AAA specialists like 'picket' destroyers, or AAA cruisers like the USS San Diego, besides the carriers themselves.

cheers

horseback

Grey_Mouser67
03-25-2006, 10:11 PM
Now thats funny, lord forgive me (in Larry the cable guy's voice)

666 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Not any more...onto 667 and beyond!

Jaws2002
03-25-2006, 11:32 PM
Quote:

""""Statistic they stated....this was in the context of the battle for the Philippines so it may be relative to ship borne AAA, but the show stated that prior to proximity fuses, it took approximately 2,400 shells to bring down 1 enemy aircraft. After proximity fuses, it took about 400 shells!""""
Quote


How long does it take let's say two quadruple 20mm batteries to spit out 2400 shells in game?
With a ROF of something like 1100 rpm, in one minute you should get hit if in range. If at closer range faster.
I don't see nothing wrong with the AAA in game. And is fully controlable by the guy that makes the map.

JtD
03-26-2006, 12:52 AM
A couple of 1000 is a pretty common number for heavy AAA over Europe.

Light AAA is a completely different story. They wouldn't use proximity fuses in a 20 mm projectile.

And in game, static AAA should have skill ratings like ships AAA - and rookie should be expert setting. You get pretty good results setting ships AAA to rookie and RoF 2-3. Looks almost like the real thing - if you say it's radar guided aming as in 44.

CD_kp84yb
03-26-2006, 01:56 AM
The way to set the fuse time is quit easy and fast on the 88, 105 and 128 mm
Its twisting 3 rings ( im doing this from memory) to set the flighttime for the shell.
Now the guns had a fusesetter wich set the timin automaticly . the ammo handler just put in the shell nosedown in one of the holes, and the loader took one shell out and loaded the gun.
So they could change the time fast. now the 88 had a rof 7 to 12 shots per minute, aimed. now you can calculate how much time it takes to set a different timing.

quote:
Fuses of the German 88mm antiaircraft shells were time-fused. The time
of flight to the target was computed by the central control computer and
transmitted electrically to each gun. Each gun had, on the left side and
just below the breach end, a machine that set the fuses to the correc t
time of flight. The machine was a box, about 2 feet high, two feet wide
and one foot deep with two holes on the top, two because then there was
always one ready to grab by the K3 (loading gunner).

end of quote


This is the fuse setter on a twin 128.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f163/cd_kp84yb/128-flak-40_01215_3g.jpg

we are playing a game so we cant have 500 or more bombers and the ammount of AAA.
When a big formation of 20 bombers like in this game attacked a city called f.e. Berlin in real, you can bet they will be blasted from the sky by the AAA. its the sheer numbers of planes that give you protection. like the birds are save for the predator by numbers, the guns concetrated (battery's) on 1 target.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-26-2006, 01:59 AM
Sure, you are right. This could be modelled a lot more accurately. In reality there were dozens of batteries firing at a single formation at a time, each battery consisting of 4 to 10 and even more cannons, controlled by a single FlaK-Kommando.

Now, let's only take take about 10 FlaKs around a target and set them up, even with the most dummy settings, to compensate for FBs FlaK-accuracity. Well, now try to fly this mission online and watch what happens.

You'll lag like hell.

Now try the same thing, with maybe 100 FlaKs, different calibers and types.

Trust me, after that you'll prefer the few accurate guns. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Grey_Mouser67
03-26-2006, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Quote:

""""Statistic they stated....this was in the context of the battle for the Philippines so it may be relative to ship borne AAA, but the show stated that prior to proximity fuses, it took approximately 2,400 shells to bring down 1 enemy aircraft. After proximity fuses, it took about 400 shells!""""
Quote


How long does it take let's say two quadruple 20mm batteries to spit out 2400 shells in game?
With a ROF of something like 1100 rpm, in one minute you should get hit if in range. If at closer range faster.
I don't see nothing wrong with the AAA in game. And is fully controlable by the guy that makes the map. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The quote was made in the context of a discussion of proximity fuses....I really don't think they were talking about 20mm batteries, but rather shells that had contact or timed fuses...but I really don't know and that is the point of the post.

Statistically, I like to understand the math and the assumptions or the statistic is much less meaningful. Based on the show, I am assuming at this time, they are talking about large caliber weapons like 40mm and up that require contact or timed fuses.

The AAA is definitely screwed up from the standpoint of it following you all over the sky as you change altitude and directions etc...not that I expect that to change, but maybe for BoB.

AAA was concentrated in fields of fire...typically close to the target so bombers had to fly through it....fighters would just fly over it or around it....in Europe that is. In the Pacific, it was different.

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2006, 12:21 AM
AAA accuracies were made better because the game will not support enough guns for real.
But I think that the planes being less in number was not considered in that... maybe.

Blutarski2004
03-29-2006, 12:24 PM
Proximity fuzed (VT) projectiles in AA service were used by the US in the Pacific theater from late 1943 and in UK from late 1944. VT fuzed could only be used in projectiles of 75mm caliber or greater during WW2 due to size (a VT fuze was big - about the size of a small 8 ounce Coca Cola bottle).

The VT was not an AA cure-all by itself. The VT shell still had to be delivered to within 50-70 ft of a target aircraft. The success of USN late-war AA was therefore the result of a combination of factors: (1) radar-ranging; (2) well designed fire control computer technology; (3) remote power control of 5-inch and 40mm mounts by director; (4) the VT fuze in the 5-inch/38 DP gun. Read Friedman's US NAVAL WEAPONS for a good discussion of the development and performance of the VT fuze in the Pacific.

The VT fuze was supplied to heavy AA (US 90mm for sure; unsure about UK 3.7-inch) in the UK in late 1944 to combat the V1 Flying Bombs.

Originally VT fuzed ammunition was restricted to use over the ocean, as there was great concern about a dud being acquired by the enemy and reverse-engineered. Around the time of the Battle of the Bulge, VT fuzed ammunition was finally issued to US Army artillery for use on land. This greatly improved the speed with which air-burst missions could be fired (no need to carefully compute time of flight) and was rather a bad surprise to the Germans.

No other nations fielded a VT fuze technology during the war.

luftluuver
03-29-2006, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
How long does it take let's say two quadruple 20mm batteries to spit out 2400 shells in game?
With a ROF of something like 1100 rpm, in one minute you should get hit if in range. If at closer range faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">theoretical</span> RoF. The <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">pratical</span> RoF for a Flak 30 was 120rpm and for the Flak 38 it was 180rpm. The Flak 18, 36, and 43 had a <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">practical</span> RoF of 80rpm.

The effective range of the 20mm was ~1100yds and for the 37mm it was ~1600yds.

Because of a lack of prediction equipement, only those a/c flying almost directly towards or away from the gun could be engaged effectively.

source: Alfred Price's Luftwaffe Handbook

markiz26
03-29-2006, 07:31 PM
I fly IL-2 mostly and as you all know, it's a difficult job to pound the ground targets at 100 meters in altitude, but nevetheless, I do it every time I go up. To make the story short, AAA are the most dangerous at those altitudes but the last 64 missions I managed to come back and land. I fly only on Hypperlobby with real pilots (humans). On certain ocassions I can hear a bang under my ship (an AAA round) but with no significant damage. I am in no position to judge the accuracy of flak/AAA guns but I thought I would give all of you an example of what I have had for the last 64 missions. Of course, I try to dodge the flak by using proper tactics and on a very rare ocassion I risk by flying straight toward the flak in order to destroy it.
When I first started out, I used to get hit more often and 50% of my ground attacks ended up with fatal resuts for my pilot.
If I was to give an advice from what I have experienced in combat, I would say fly with great caution and if it means for you to go around again and again in order to hit your ground target, you must do it, otherwise you risk a great danger. Everything I said is taken from my personal experience!

msalama
03-29-2006, 09:47 PM
S! Markiz. Another dedicated Sturmo jock here as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif What servers are you flying on mostly?

But yep, never EVER fly straight towards the flak when attacking! Strike from an angle and corkscrew every which way down, stabilize & aim & fire at the latest possible moment so there's no time for them to get a bead on you, and then extend away _really_ low and fast, at the same time throwing your ship around like crazy again... and who knows, maybe you'll live http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And remember: they're accurate, but they're not THAT accurate. It's only when there's too many of them that you have a _real_ problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

markiz26
03-29-2006, 10:06 PM
Hey msalama, I fly only on G1 server. We have a team that consist of 8-10 IL-2's and of course 4-5 fighters for cover.

msalama
03-29-2006, 10:50 PM
Check your PTs Markiz http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

telsono
03-30-2006, 04:57 PM
In "A Time For Trumpets" it mentions that the American artillery units in the Battle of the Bulge had no authority to use the VT shells. They were considered only allowed to be used in approved combat situations for advanced testing. Because of the tactical situation during the fighting it was best thought to use them against the Germans than allow the Germans to capture them. These shells proved to be quite effective of stripping advancing panzers of their infantry support.

polak5
04-02-2006, 06:35 PM
Most of u guys got to technical with this thread. instead look at what Loneranger is saying. I mean If Oleg was to make the AAA less acurate then we would need more static objects for AAA effects. That would lag out servers, and slow the game down. On the other hand I do believe people have better computers now and can handle such settings, for the most part.

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by polak5:
Most of u guys got to technical with this thread. instead look at what Loneranger is saying. I mean If Oleg was to make the AAA less acurate then we would need more static objects for AAA effects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

German airfields could have up to 200 barrels of AA (ie. jet fields), but convoys did not. A typical tank convoy had 3 AA positions, one at each end and one in the middle. So, it depends on the scenario.

Here are some numbers in service in Feb 45 for the Flak 38. 1032 singles and 250 zwillings. Spread those around the several thousands of sq. miles on the 3 fronts the Germans were fighting on.

JG53Hunter
04-03-2006, 12:31 AM
I think AAA should stay as it is. We could not bring up enouth bandwith for realistic AAA.

Some more numbers from:
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/flugabwehrwaffen-R.htm
In march 1945 the following numbers of AA guns remained with the German Wehrmacht: (those numbers dont include the guns under command of the Luftwaffe, wich had consideable more AA guns because it was considered the assignment of the Luftwaffe to defend the skys)

Guns given to the Wehrmacht from the Luftwaffe
6.265 peaces 2-cm-Flak 30 und 38
180 peaces 2-cm-Gebirgs-Flak
1.137 peaces 2-cm-Flakvierling 38
693 peaces 3,7-cm-Flak 18 and 36
670 peaces 3,7-cm-Flak 43
132 peaces 3,7-cm-Flakzwilling 43
598 peaces 8,8-cm-Flak 18 and 36


production numbers 1944
2-cm-Flak 30 and 38: 42688
3,7-cm-Flak 18 and 36: 3620
3,7-cm-Flak 43: 4684
8,8-cm-Flak 18, 36 and 38: 5933
10,5-cm-Flak 38 and 39: 1131
12,8-cm-Flak 40: 664

production numbers 1945
2-cm-Flak 30 and 38: 8339
3,7-cm-Flak 18 and 36: 158
3,7-cm-Flak 43: 1180
8,8-cm-Flak 18, 36 and 38: 715
10,5-cm-Flak 38 and 39: 92
12,8-cm-Flak 4: 98


Another site about the German Fliegerhorste (airfields in German) states that a Fliegerhorst close to where i live (called M√ľnster Handorf) was protected with up to 500 AA guns during the war. I won't post the link here because i know that sites traffic is limited. If you want the link PM me. (page in german)

Lets keep the AAA as it is. Maybee for BoB some improvements are possible. More bandwith could be used and mor CPU power given to those calculations. IMO

Greetings
Hunter

polak5
04-03-2006, 09:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Hunter:

Lets keep the AAA as it is. Maybee for BoB some improvements are possible. More bandwith could be used and mor CPU power given to those calculations. IMO

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ditto