can anti-air kill tanks
- Thread starter lordgreenace
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
AA equipment can have a decent Hard Attack value - it may not be in base game for balancing purposes, but we can mod it.
- 5
Well it would make it more historical . It did Happen ... It could be done that the Hard attack only works when defending or Hard Attack value is high but low penetration .
It worked reasonably effectively in HOI3. Depending on the specific AA gun, in HOI4 it might have high armor penetration but low HA for heavier AA (76-105mm) to reflect its relative scarcity, or high HA and low penetration to reflect the more prevalent small caliber (20-37mm) AA's ability to kill lighter armor, but fail to penetrate the heavier tanks.
- 2
- 1
Anti air have some hard and soft attack but their main purpose is to reduce the effects of enemy air superiority.
I assume AA is reasonably effective against ground units, but probably far outshadowed by the more specialized AT units when it comes to hunting tanks. Anti-air machine guns in are very good for shredding lightly armoured vehicles too.
I think it should be modeled as a high penetration with low HA. So it can pierce anything that is thrown at it, but won't do as much damage because it its primary function isn't to be AT.
- 1
Look at the flak 88 that was the best German at gun till the pak 40. It was so effective that they put it on the tiger tank. If you want a manual to see what I said I can get it to you.
PS it would be a better in this case to use them as both than 2 separate units. Now if you have to research an at 'ability' for the heavy aa guns now that is another story.
This ! Yes the flak 88 was good against tanks, but there were not that much of them relative to smaller caliber AT guns. And they were also needed as AA guns on the home front (I saw a figure like 80% for AA purposes).
If we can produce them as equipments and they are more expensive, then there would be a trade-off between quality and quantity.
- 1
Was not flak 88 a realtive rare anti aircraft gun and being so heavy would probably limit it usefulness against light aircrafts. I think the aa gun in game represent 20 mm to maybe 40 mm guns who could be used effectivly against light aircrafts as it is the light aircrafts in the game who contribute with air superiority.
Heavy anti air guns would be represented by state anti air.
Heavy anti air guns would be represented by state anti air.
- 1
The "88" was relatively rare compared to the 20mm and 37mm guns, but more common than the 105mm "heavy" AA guns, which were mostly entrenched in semi-permanent locations. Even heavier AA guns existed in small numbers, but lacked carriages for portability, unlike the 88 and 105. Tow vehicles were one of the main limitations. A Flak battery attached to a division would have a few 88s to protect the larger formation from high-altitude bombers, and a host of lighter AA to distribute among the various companies and battalions for more localized defense against strafing and dive bombing attacks.
The merits of the 88 as an AT gun were not helped by the giant rotating carriage and gun shield. The huge silhouette made it an obvious target for anything with the range to shoot at it, or to call in artillery against it. Late in the war, a gun carriage specifically for AT applications (with a PAK designation, rather than FLAK) was developed (besides the Tiger tank and heavy TDs), but only deployed in small numbers. Most of the 88s remained primarily as AA guns.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
- 1
So effective that they needed even more heavier tanks to lift it which was probably one of their dooms.
The British had an anti-aircraft gun that was their equivalent to the German 88 (the 3.7 inch I believe) with some saying it was better then the anti-aircraft 88mm but it wasn't used for anti-tank duties because British doctrine said that AA weapons should only be used for AA purposes (and the 3.7 inch gun was more used for air defence of rear area elements (like fuel and ammo dumps, HQs and so on) then the 88mm by the Germans).
I believe the Italians and Russians had something similar. The Hungarians had a 40mm Bofors derived duel use tank destroyer/SPAAG which is an interesting thing as well.
Possibly the thing to do is have doctrines/focuses that boost AA units hard attack if researched.
I believe the Italians and Russians had something similar. The Hungarians had a 40mm Bofors derived duel use tank destroyer/SPAAG which is an interesting thing as well.
Possibly the thing to do is have doctrines/focuses that boost AA units hard attack if researched.
Though I agree with you that the use they made of them as AT is related to doctrine, as the game is heavily focused on producing equipment it would be interesting if we could produce light/medium AA and heavy AA in separate lines of production (and assign them to corresponding battalions/companies).
Last edited:
- 1
The thing AA and AT guns have in common is a desire for high muzzle velocity. So if you have a successful AA gun, such as a Flak 88 or a Bofors 40, the conversion to AT is fairly easy. It would take a conversion though as the ammunition and sights are not the same. So you would not use an AA gun straight off to kill tanks unless it was a dual purpose gun in the first place.
Not only the German 88 but also the US 90mm, Russian 85mm and Italian 90mm were pressed into the anti-tank role either directly or indirectly by being built into tanks and tankdestroyers.
- 1
I think it will be about researched gun, at tank tree we could se u could researche AAtanks and other variations, so I think that artilery could have something similar
Are you talking about the PAK 43? Because that's a different gun. It's common for the PAK 43 and FLAK 36/41 (and other versions) to be conflated, since they were both 88mm guns and both were used in the AT role. The FLAK 36 was converted into the KWK 36 for the Tiger I, while the PAK 43 was converted into the KWK 43 for the Tiger II. The PAK 43 was longer and a significantly more powerful AT gun, but it did have a lower rate of fire than the FLAK gun (not surprising considering the main role of each gun). But as you say, it also had a gun carriage more suited for the AT role.
- 2