can anti-air kill tanks

[alexchau]

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.

I thought the 88 can outrange any guns the allied can throw in. The 88 used to get destroyed by infantry closing up or in occasion they actually did get destroyed by allied tanks or other artillery and heavy weapons?

 

[Denkt]

Bofors M/48 is still used as a ground to ground weapon.

 

[shri]

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.

Flak 88 in its various versions was produced over 25000 units. So, not rare.

 

[shri]

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.

Only problem is the rest weren't so effective; it has a lot to do with depression angles, velocity and other technical data, the 88 was a truly unique weapon and moreover its anti-tank and even its potency against an infantry charge was proved and perfected in the SCW.

 

[Denkt]

But is the 88 a good anti air weapon against smal aircrafts?

 

[Kovax]

I thought the 88 can outrange any guns the allied can throw in. The 88 used to get destroyed by infantry closing up or in occasion they actually did get destroyed by allied tanks or other artillery and heavy weapons?

Yes and no. It could outrange most direct fire weapons, aside from other AA guns, but was vulnerable to artillery, and easily spotted. The few guns that could match it for range could lob HE rounds at it, not needing a flat trajectory for the shot.

As for an AA weapon, it's not capable of tracking a low-flying aircraft making ground attacks, it's primarily for use against high-flying level bombers, which the lighter 20mm and 37mm FLAK guns can't reach. A battery of 88s was generally included along with several other batteries of smaller-caliber AA, the later being mostly distributed among the formations which the AA was attached to.

The one post mentioned the Hungarian "Nimrod" self-propelled AA/AT gun (using a lengthened Swedish Landswerk chassis), armed with a modified 40mm BOFORS gun, which was only produced in small numbers, like just about all of the other Hungarian equipment. Its effectiveness against armor was limited at best, since the gun was already obsolete in an anti-tank role by the time the first units were constructed, but they served in their mobile AA role up until after the fall of Budapest.

 

[AzrailReyiz]

We can't know, because it is not FPS, we can't see them while fighting. They can hunt tanks with AA guns, or shoot planes with AT. We can't know..

 

[Nicolas I]

I saw in a WWW stream that you can choose which equipment the unit uses in a box directly on the unit. So it would technically be possible to decide if a AA battalion uses light/medium AA or heavy AA if the two equipments where buildable separately.

 

[Wyrm]

I saw in a WWW stream that you can choose which equipment the unit uses in a box directly on the unit. So it would technically be possible to decide if a AA battalion uses light/medium AA or heavy AA if the two equipments where buildable separately.

It will certainly be possible to mod

 

[Invader_Canuck]

AA should be quite effective if on the defensive. It should be just about useless on the offensive.

To balance this further, if Paradox wanted to get deeper, they could base the performance of the AA dynamically based on how the air war was going.

If the AA is actively engaging in anti-air duties it should have a greatly reduced statistic during ground combat. If you enjoy air superiority, then level those 88's at the enemy and pew pew away.

 

[Gort11]

We only have stats for 1934 self-propelled AA. It has only 1 hard attack, but 22 piercing. So a division that has 1934 SPAA can penetrate the armour of a 1934 heavy tank (20 armour) but it needs another source of hard attack (EG: 1934 tank destroyer with its 10 hard attack) to really start putting the hurt on.

 

[panzerzombie]

We only have stats for 1934 self-propelled AA. It has only 1 hard attack, but 22 piercing. So a division that has 1934 SPAA can penetrate the armour of a 1934 heavy tank (20 armour) but it needs another source of hard attack (EG: 1934 tank destroyer with its 10 hard attack) to really start putting the hurt on.

Erm, no...where do you get that 22 piercing ? In Daniels Japan#2 ( 45:50 ) it is shown that neither SPG nor SPAA has any piercing values ( and SPAA has ZERO HA too). Didn´t find the towed flak but I assume it has none too.

So ingame AA has no capacity whatsoever to kill tanks .... and it should.

Furthermore, piercing values are an average value of divison components iirc ( some early builds had fixed values, later builds had averages) , so a single ATG in a full Inf.Divison has not much impact on this.

edit: edited some values

 

[Gort11]

I can't find what you're talking about. Link?

 

[panzerzombie]

 

[Gort11]

Oh, I was looking on Twitch. Wonder where the wiki got it's figures from then.

 

[panzerzombie]

Oh, I was looking on Twitch. Wonder where the wiki got it's figures from then.

Now I´m really puzzled....wiki doesnt contain any figures about AA/SPAA values ?? You sure that you looked at HOI4 ?

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_units

 

[Gort11]

http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Research#Armor

 

[panzerzombie]

Ah, thank you....well it seems the editor was either drunk or he knew something we don´t know

 

[fellaz007]

I thought the 88 can outrange any guns the allied can throw in. The 88 used to get destroyed by infantry closing up or in occasion they actually did get destroyed by allied tanks or other artillery and heavy weapons?

Here is an interesting link about the 88 topic:
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-eighty-eight-anti-aircraft-anti-tank-and-anti-social/

To sum it up. The W-Allies and Russians had comparable guns, but the ingenuity of the German 88 FLAK was its dual purpose gun carriage (and optics) which made it so highly adaptable for both AA and AT. The Germans also cross trained their crew for both roles.

 

[Orlunu]

it is shown that neither SPG nor SPAA has any piercing values ( and SPAA has ZERO HA too). Didn´t find the towed flak but I assume it has none too.

So ingame AA has no capacity whatsoever to kill tanks .... and it should.

SPAA and towed flak were completely different. The SPAA of the time used MGs, pushing into 20mm cannon, and then up as far as about 40mm cannon. None of these were effective anti-tank weapons. You didn't find 1936 SPAA toting a high velocity high calibre gun.