Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Forgotten Hope 2 => Suggestions => Topic started by: Martinlegend on 20-06-2014, 16:06:29
-
the flakvierling
fire is very accurate which make it not Very effective against planes that flying right on your Position
damage is ok but the accurance could be lower to make it better against planes that attack the aa directily
and even if you see the enemy plane (which is alo difficult because of the protection shields+ the optics)
there are only 2-3 seconds left to aim on it and the low spread of the projectiles makes it even more dificult to aim a plane that only Shows you his front
planes that are flying by are easy targets but
if there is a 1on1 duel between the flakvierling and the plane the plane allways wins
and even the plane will get shot down the wreck still crashes into the aa gun and kills it
(only the 88 has a chance to win if the first shot hits )
the american quad 50 have the right bullet spread but the damage is much too low
the Chance to hit and kill the Pilot is much bigger than destroying the plane itself (and only if the plane is flying away)
-
and even if you see the enemy plane (which is alo difficult because of the protection shields+ the optics)
there are only 2-3 seconds left to aim on it and the low spread of the projectiles makes it even more dificult to aim a plane that only Shows you his front
Welcome to how it was IRL.
-
and even if you see the enemy plane (which is alo difficult because of the protection shields+ the optics)
there are only 2-3 seconds left to aim on it and the low spread of the projectiles makes it even more dificult to aim a plane that only Shows you his front
Welcome to how it was IRL.
I bet the projectiles didn't generate from the sights like a laserbeam IRL. If the rounds were exiting from the barrels it would increase the area of effect just right.
-
and even if you see the enemy plane (which is alo difficult because of the protection shields+ the optics)
there are only 2-3 seconds left to aim on it and the low spread of the projectiles makes it even more dificult to aim a plane that only Shows you his front
Welcome to how it was IRL.
I bet the projectiles didn't generate from the sights like a laserbeam IRL. If the rounds were exiting from the barrels it would increase the area of effect just right.
I was referring to his comment about the short window to shoot and the over-all low spread of the projectiles. Yes, I agree that rounds shouldn't emanate from the sights like laser beams. But any footage of AA guns firing from WW2 will show they do fly rather straight, especially at the ranges FH2 has.
-
I've always gotten the idea that anti-aircraft guns didn't make many kills. More about area prevention.
However, I got the idea from books and films, and I can understand why most media doesn't kill pilots of ingloriously with AA gunfire.
-
I've always gotten the idea that anti-aircraft guns didn't make many kills. More about area prevention.
However, I got the idea from books and films, and I can understand why most media doesn't kill pilots of ingloriously with AA gunfire.
AA guns were actually just as, if not more, deadly to aircraft than other planes. Sorta like how AT guns were far more deadly than enemy tanks to other tanks. For example, in the Winter War:
Finnish fighters shot down 240 confirmed Soviet aircraft, against the Finnish loss of 26. Finnish antiaircraft gunners shot down between 314 to 444 Soviet aircraft. [1]
-
Finnish fighters shot down 240 confirmed Soviet aircraft, against the Finnish loss of 26. Finnish antiaircraft gunners shot down between 314 to 444 Soviet aircraft. [1]
But what about the ratio of AA and planes?
-
Quite true, and in general full 4-6 gun batteries could be shooting at individual planes. Again though, this highlights how much more deadly they were. Also they were much harder for enemy planes to take out, as that would involve getting very low, very slow, and going headon at a gun that is probably equally or better armed than you, plus is much more stable and therefore, more accurate.
-
I've always gotten the idea that anti-aircraft guns didn't make many kills. More about area prevention.
However, I got the idea from books and films, and I can understand why most media doesn't kill pilots of ingloriously with AA gunfire.
AA guns were actually just as, if not more, deadly to aircraft than other planes. Sorta like how AT guns were far more deadly than enemy tanks to other tanks. For example, in the Winter War:
Finnish fighters shot down 240 confirmed Soviet aircraft, against the Finnish loss of 26. Finnish antiaircraft gunners shot down between 314 to 444 Soviet aircraft. [1]
And how many did they have planes and AA guns in total?
-
See my above comment.
Also, as further example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_automatic_air_defense_gun_M1939_%2861-K%29
Crews of the 37 mm AD guns shot down 14,657 Axis planes.
Also, out of 20,000 produced, that means that 1 plane was shot down for every 1.25 produced.
-
And how many did they have planes and AA guns in total?
AA guns at start of war:
38 x 76 mm guns (10 totally obsolete)
30 x 40 mm guns (plus another 23 for training and Navy)
30 x 20 mm guns (4 totally obsolete)
125 x 7,62 mm AAMG
December additions:
48 x 40 mm (Bofors)
20 x 20 mm (FlaK 30)
3 AAMG companies established as well
January additions:
48 x 20 mm (Breda)
February additions:
9 x 75 mm (Bofors)
March additions (did not see combat):
24 x 76 mm (Vickers anti-zeppelin guns from WW1)
12 x 76 mm (Breda anti-zeppelin guns from WW1)
Assuming no losses (kek), maximum strength would have been:
47 x 75/76mm guns
101 x 40 mm guns
98 x 20 mm guns
125? x 7,62 mm guns (no info found quickly on the three companies' guns amount, or the amount of makeshift AAMG's converted from regular MG's)
Total 371+ guns
Kills:
76 mm 31 planes (0,7 per gun)
40 mm 128 planes (1,3 per gun)
20 mm 104 planes (1,1 per gun)
7,62 mm 51 planes (0,4 per gun)
Total 314 (0,8 per gun)
FAF fighter strength at start of war:
40 x Fokker D.XXI
15 x Bristol Bulldog Mk IVA
Additions:
12 x Gloster Gladiator Mk1 (flown by Swedish volunteer unit F19)
30 x Gloster Gladiator Mk2
26 x Fiat G.50 (of total 35 ordered)
30 x Morane-Saulnier MS406
10 x Hawker Hurricane Mk1 (too late to take part in combat)
6 x Brewster F2A-1 (of total 44 ordered, too late to take part in combat)
Kills/losses, kill ratio, kills per plane in service:
Fokker 151,5/10 (15,1:1, 3,8 per plane)
Bulldog 6/1 (6:1, 0,4 per plane)
Gladiator Mk1 8/3 (2,7:1, 0,7 per plane)
Gladiator Mk2 37/14 (2,6:1, 1,2 per plane)
Fiat 11/1 (11:1, 0,4 per plane)
Morane 14/1 (14:1, 0,5 per plane)
Total 227,5/30 (7,6:1, 1,5 per plane)
(The remaining 12,5 kills out of 240 made by bombers & recon aircraft)
-
To sum up:
371+ guns (many of them not available at the onset), 314 kills, 0,8 per gun
153 fighters (many of them not available at the onset), 227,5 kills, 1,5 per plane
So a fighter was maybe twice as effective as an AA gun, but you could get many more than two AA guns at the cost of a single fighter. Plus training AA gunners was easier and faster than training pilots (and the pool of suitable recruits was also larger).
-
To sum up:
371+ guns (many of them not available at the onset), 314 kills, 0,8 per gun
153 fighters (many of them not available at the onset), 227,5 kills, 1,5 per plane
So a fighter was maybe twice as effective as an AA gun, but you could get many more than two AA guns at the cost of a single fighter. Plus training AA gunners was easier and faster than training pilots (and the pool of suitable recruits was also larger).
So fighters were more effective....
-
Yes, in a single comparison for this example. But nationwide, the AA were much more effective (counting cost and training and everything).
-
Yes, in a single comparison for this example. But nationwide, the AA were much more effective (counting cost and training and everything).
What Kelmola and Slayer said. The guns are an assload cheaper, crews are easier to train, and you can still rip apart enemy planes. As I noted above too, these were generally used in batteries, so you may have 4-5 guns all shooting at a single plane, meaning that you're a lot more likely to hit. Also, as I said, it's hard to counter enemy AA apart from running, since they can be kept hidden until the right moment to shoot, and it's near suicide to attempt to strafe and take one out, since you're always going to be more inaccurate than it.
-
Using quickly googled sources for wartime prices:
Cost of a single Brewster F2A without weapons and instruments as sold to Finland: $54000 (admitted, this WAS way overpriced, but hey, situation being what it was)
Cost of a single 40mm Bofors: $9500
Cost of a single FlaK 38: $2400
Also, guns are easier to manufacture yourself than planes, plus there was a smaller risk of losing a gun tube than a plane, because SEAD was not a thing yet.
-
Also, ignoring the AAMG's from the statistics above, you arrive at 1,1 kills per gun tube.
-
In game the problem is not accuracy or damage. The problem is the pilots know where every gun is. adding more guns or making a battery system where you control multiple less accurate guns but have a harder central batttery is only way to stop them being over powered against aircraft and yet still provide cover
-
While batteries would be fun they would look ugly and be totally pointless because they could be destroyed as easily as the current static guns.
What we need is more mobile AA, and random placing of AA emplacements (such as is already done with the static MGs). If each flag had, let's say three points where the gun can spawn then it would be much harder to guess where each gun is on the current run of the map.
-
I totally agree with LuckyOne post ;)
-
Same here. The problem isn't with the AA guns itself, but the fixed locations.
Operation Cobra, for instance, makes that crystal clear. US need only one pilot who's familiar with the map to make german AA effectively useless. Also on this map it would help loads if they took the shields off the 88's so they can do what they're actually designed for. But even better would indeed be replacing the fixed vierlings with mobile ones.
Not to single out Cobra again, but I really hope they fix that map this way. Was one of my favorites but not so sure anymore.
-
Funny, some maps have AA guns in positions where they are USELESS against ground targets, but also can see only a fraction of the sky.
Sure, in reality they would be very useful for shooting at bombers and planes flying at a realistic, high altitude. But in FH2 these guns are useless, essentially just props yet the players can still get in them. I know at least one of the Africa maps has these sorts of guns, in towns with almost no useful field of fire against ground or low air targets.
-
Mareth line comes to mind where german AA is restricted and allies have a mobile bofors which is a real plane killer (found that out first hand).
-
The problem isn't with the AA guns itself, but the fixed locations.
This. Planes can attack from any direction while fixed AA has nowhere to go, and to add insult to the injury, terrain features are visible from farther away than planes (never mind that the plane always sees on the map even beyond visible range where a particular piece of terrain lies in relation to him, so all the pilot needs to do is to memorize fixed AA locations).