Matrix Games Forums

I thought the range for the guns in BoB were
4000 Lt
10,000 med
30,000 Heavy

The Med guns though were Bofors, 3" and Vickers 2pdr. The first 2 actually fire higher than 10,000ft, while the latter probably rates lower.

The main issue is the Lt guns, which are actually mainly Lewis machine guns, singly and sometimes in pairs. These should be rated at around 2000 ft, not 4000ft. The hispanos/oerlikons 20mm go higher.

regards Otisabuser

Maybe there should be a die roll used to calculate a balloon destruction (or not). Maybe a 33% or 50% chance a balloon that has been shot down or its cable has been cut is counted as destroyed or not, in the latter it is replaced (repaired) without any cost. A similar die roll should be used for the heavy balloons but with only about 5 to 10% chance of being destroyed.

The ceiling used for AA gun data should always be the max ceiling of the self destructive fuse unless there's evidence a self destructive fuse was not used in reality.

I agree entirely with Otis - it would not normally be that difficult to replace the balloons themselves. The RAF Balloon Command in 1940, for example, maintained 100% spares, despite the absolute priority for getting every AA defence available in place. Presume it comes down to the point that it is all the other equipment - winches, gas canisters, cable, mooring points, and not insignificant manpower - which dictates how many balloon units you deploy, not the actual gasbags themselves. And all that investment in infrastructure is wasted if you don not have sufficient replacements for the balloons on hand for when they do get shot, ripped, blown away or even do their job properly.

In my original post, I expressed it very badly, talking of attrition to the balloons themselves, which is stupid for all the reasons Otis gives. On reflection, however, I still think that my original suggestion stands good, namely of not adding more balloons (or rather we should say balloon units) after Jan 44 (or even from the start of BTR at all), since it remains the case that the Germans had ceased investing in them as a means of defence. That leaves us two choices: do as Otis suggests, and auto-replace any destroyed balloon at the end of the day; that way, the balloon numbers remain static, except for any lost through not having been redeployed before the Allied advance overruns a location. Alternatively, do not replace, and thus rather artificially simulate the decrease in balloon unit deployment historically seen in 1944.

Personally, I would favour the former solution. A fixed pool of balloons to play with, but note still the capability to redeploy as you see fit. Both types of balloons should be treated the same way - there was no real difference in their usage, just the heights to which they were flown.

A thought - is balloon production at present linked to armament factories in the same way that I think AA production is?

David

Right - have dug out my copy of Ian Hogg's "German Artillery".

First off, he states that the definition of effective ceiling did fluctuate but that for the Germans in 1944-5 it was regarded as the height at which an aircraft doing 300mph could be effectively engaged for twenty seconds. So, by comparison with the British 1936 definition - 20 seconds engagement vs a 250mph aircraft before elevation passes 80 degrees - not a huge change, save for increase in target speed reflecting the improved performance of aircraft.

Secondly, the Germans did not use predictor sights for 2cm or 3.7cm weapons, unlike the British use of predictors for the Bofors. At the beginning of the war, their light flak had rather sophisticated computing sights fitted on the guns. But these were replaced with simpler, less advanced sights from 1941 for two reasons: the advanced sights were a maintenance nightmare, and could not be calibrated for high-speed targets; the Flakvisier35, for example, fitted to the early war 2cm Flak 30s, had an upper limit of 270 mph. Its stamped sheet-metal replacement (Linealvisier21) was marked for speeds up to 336mph. The clever early sights also suffered from a minimum effective ceiling of 980 feet. The Linealvisier was itself replaced by the Schwebekreisvisier30, a cart-wheel open sight.

2cm Flak 30
Rate of fire (practical, not cyclic) - 120rpm
Effective ceiling 1939-41 with Flakvisier35: 6,562 feet
Effective ceiling 1941-45 with Linealvisier21: 5,397 feet
Fired a variety of AP, HE and Incend shells in 10-11oz size range, often with self-destruct tracers

2cm Flak 38
Rate of fire (practical not cyclic) - 180-220rpm
Ceilings effectively as for Flak 30. As with Flak 30, early computing sight (Flakvisier38A) replaced by Linealvisier21, then Schwebekreisvisier30/58.

2cm Flakvierling 38 (quad mounting)
Rate of fire for combined four barrels (practical not cyclic) - 700-800rpm
Ceilings effectively as for Flak 30. As with Flak 30, early computing sight (Flakvisier40) replaced by simpler open sights.

3cm Flak 38
Basically the MK103 aircraft cannon on a 2cm Flak 38 mount, produced late 44, early 45.
Rate of fire (practical): 250rpm
Maximum ceiling: 15,420 feet
Effective ceiling: 4,922 feet

3.7cm Flak 18
Limited production only in 1935-6, due to weight problems. Note that the effective ceiling is the same as for the 2cm Flak with the early Flakvisier sights. Basically the Flakvisier 33 sight on the 3.7cm weapon was the same as that on the early 2cm weapons, and effective ceiling thus limited by that and the self-destruct fuses.
Rate of fire (practical) - 80rpm
Maximum ceiling: 15,749 feet
Effective ceiling: 6,562 feet
Fired a 22oz shell with percussion and self-destruct fuse, with or without tracer.

3.7cm Flak 36/37
Flak 36 was original version with Flakvisier36 sight, Flak 37 was limited production with clockwork computing Uhrwerkvisier sight.
Performance as for Flak 18.

3.7cm Flak 43
Although the ammo used was the same as the earlier models, the Flak 43 used steeper rifling in the barrel. Since the self-destruct fuses used spin-decay as a trigger, this significantly extended the time until rounds went pop. Initially had the clockwork Uhrwekvisier (later named Flakvisier43), but replaced in mid-44 by the Schwebekornvisier, a simpler sight but able to cope with higher speeds.
Rate of fire (practical) - 180rpm
Maximum ceiling: 15,755 feet
Effective ceiling: 13,780 feet

Points for consideration.
The effective heights for most of the 3.7s is way below its ballistically theoretical capability. What is interesting is the RAF's concern in 1941 (long before the deployment of the Flak 43) about 37mm at 12,000-16,000. What I am not clear on from Hogg is at what time-distance the spin-decay self destruct would kick in. If it was at or close to effective ceiling, then it should have been far below heavies even at 10,000-12,000 feet. My suspicion therefore is that it was closer to the maximum ceiling. What we could be looking at therefore is tracer coming up and exploding in the 12,000-16,000 range, causing a lot of light and flashes at night. The effect may therefore have been more psychological than real - these 37mm rounds will have been fired without benefit of radar or predictors at targets well beyond the calibration of their sights. But I certainly would not have envied a bomb-aimer face down in the nose of a heavy trying to focus on a target with all that going on about you, regardless of whether it is aimed in a meaningful manner.

Have to do some work now, heavy flak to follow...

Hi all,

Regarding BB's -

A basic question we have to look at then is as it stands in BOB/BTR does the placement of a BB or HBB represent the placement of a BALLOON or a BALLOON BATTERY (by that I mean the balloon and the ground based support of it)?

If it represents just the balloon then if it's destroyed in game it should be destroyed.

If it's the battery then no probs as you say replacement balloons could be sent up.

Once thats decided perhaps we need to look at the numbers represented in the game? As in IF it's balloons and not batteries how many were produced in the period concerned and do the numbers made in game reflect reality.

Regards,

Steven

It has to be as a unit. Without the unit, the balloon is meaningless - an uninflated envelope of fabric.

On 31 July 1940, RAF Balloon Command had 52 Squadrons - the 900 series of numbers - distributed under the command of 18 Balloon Centres, themselves under the command of Nos 30-34 (Balloon Barrage) Groups. Each squadron had between 2 and 6 flights, and operated between 8 and 42 balloons. Looking at the detailed figures, it would seem that the average land-based flight operated between 1 and 3 balloons, but the waterborne flights - either static barges or flown from coastal convoys - could operate up to 12 balloons apiece. This actually suggests that the waterborne deployment was more efficient in equipment or manpower - maybe the availability aboard ships of suitable winches and men used to veering out heavy cables, albeit not normally in a vertical direction was factor. The limiting factor in terms of numbers of physical locations that could be defended was thus the number of flights and squadrons, not the number of balloons. Yes, if an important site needed more balloons, there was clearly scope for giving a particular flight more balloons, without necessarily a need for lots more men - you have already made an investment in that location in terms of skilled personnel and on-site maintenance kit - or even allocate more than one flight or squadron to a locale. For example, Hull - an obvious major east coast target - was defended by the two strongest squadrons, Nos 942 and 943, the first having 42 balloons, including 24 flown from afloat, and the second 32 balloons, all based ashore. By contrast, locations such as Crewe (very important railway yards) had a single squadron with eight balloons. London had 10 squadrons, but each had either eight or nine balloons only.

To deploy balloons somewhere wholly new means either forming a new unit or redeploying an existing one.

Hi David,

I understand that you need a unit (structure at the site to deploy the balloon) thats not what i'm debating. I'm trying to ascertain whether in game at present when you deploy 1 x BB to a site does that indicate 1 BALLOON is deployed there to an EXISITNG framework OR that 1 BALLOON UNIT is deployed to the site.

Regards,

Steven

Part Two:

5cm Flak 41
Less than 200 built circa 1941 - first attempt to produce a medium weapon. Unstable when fired, unstable towed, could not track targets fast enough, bit of a disaster, but proved the basic idea was a good one. Used the Flakvisier41 tachymetric computing sight. Followed by later projects in 5cm and 5.5cm, but these never got past prototype before end of war.
Rate of fire (practical) - 130rpm
Maximum ceiling: 29,529 feet
Effective ceiling: 18,374 feet
Fired a 4.85 lb HE shell with tracer. Self-destruct fuse had two settings - 5-8 seconds or 14-18 seconds.

8.8cm Flak 18, 36, 37
Usually used with Ubertragungs 30 or 37 predictors - the weapon mounted sight was not very advanced.
Rate of fire: 15rpm
Maximum ceiling: 32,482 feet
Effective ceiling: 26,248 feet
Fired various HE, frag and incendiary pellet AA natures in 20-22lb range with time fuses.

8.8cm Flak 41
Rate of fire - 20rpm
Maximum ceiling: 49,215 feet
Effective ceiling: 35,025 feet
Slightly different ammo, shell 20.7lb, with 1.9lb HE fill.

10.5cm Flak 38/39
Usually used with Ubertragungs 30 or 37 predictors.
Rate of fire - ?
Maximum ceiling: 37,403 feet
Effective ceiling: 31,005 feet
Fired 32.6lb HE shell with 3.3lb fill.

12.8cm Flak 40
Rate of fire: 12 rpm (double that of course for twin mounts)
Maximum ceiling: 48,559 feet
Effective ceiling: 35,025 feet
Fired HE shell of 100 lb with 7.5lb fill.

Sorry Steve, understood.

My interpretation is that the game does not distinguish between them. Clearly the game is treating it as a unit, in the sense that it is able to be flown. But it then assumes that when the balloon is destroyed, you have to take the decision whether or not to replace it, and thus whether or not to deploy a whole new unit. As opposed to treating the balloon itself as a consumable which automatically gets replaced as and when it gets damaged or destroyed.

Therefore, what we are arguing is that the game mechanics need to be tweaked so that it consistently treats the "balloon" as the balloon unit, with all the logical implications built in.

David

Hi Dave,

Roger. We're on the same wavelength [8D]

Regards,

Steven

good info on the Flak DBS

again, for the Ballons, we can argue either side and still with in reason be right, my hassle is, in BoB we have ballons that can be killed, in BTR we have ballons that can be killed and ballons that can not be killed

if they are barrages that should replace there losses at the end of the day fine, make them ALL that way, if the game is set that they have to be replaced from the pool, FINE, just make all of them have to be replaced

that is the only point I am trying to make

if they are to become self contained units, we need to look at the build rates

I want it to be fair, but I also want it to be level across both games

from what I know of the Arm system in BTR, no the Ballons are not made at this or that plant, it is a abstrack number (if you cripple ARM, I don't know if they keep building the same or not, I didn't look for that when I had the chance)

ARM for the most part, are just targets with in the game (as it stands right now)

some do build tank parts, and some build AA parts, most most of them are just "nothing" targets

Hi HS,

Thats right. We need consistency for all sides and also accurate modelling of them. I remember seeing a while back that there were 2400 BB's in use during the BOB but thats not overly useful (didn't list where, prod rate etc) and i'm not convinced of it's reliability.

Steven

Further to my puzzlement over Bomber Command being concerned in 1941 over light flak in the 12,000-16,000 band, have just revisited Westermann's "Flak". Makes the point that in the early war years, German flak frequently resorted to blind barrier fire against RAF night raids. And in Jan 41, Goring, worried at ammo expenditure, specifically had to ban 37mm batteries from using the tactic. This makes much more sense - light flak hosing up to maximum ceiling, with very little probability of a hit, but still damn disconcerting to the aircrews flying towards the target. And of course, at this stage of the war, RAF crews were often descending to 9,000 or even 6,000 feet to try to spot specific targets in the dark, especially airfields and ports.

HS

Absolutely agree, must be consistent. I shall look for figures for the British in BoB, but I believe that in both BoB and BTR we would be perfectly justified in not giving the defender a fixed pool of balloons which regenerates after damage but does not increase in strength. For BoB, we are dealing with a relatively short period of time; if there are any reinforcements that should be had, it would be in the form of occasional fixed reinforcements to reflect the formation and deployment of a new squadron - eg extra 10 balloons on 10th September or whatever. For the Germans, as I say, BTR covers the period when the balloon force is in decline. Not suggesting we withdraw balloons, but at least don't add any. But still allow both sides to redeploy balloons as they wish.

Absolutely agree, must be consistent. I shall look for figures for the British in BoB, but I believe that in both BoB and BTR we would be perfectly justified in not giving the defender a fixed pool of balloons which regenerates after damage but does not increase in strength. For BoB, we are dealing with a relatively short period of time; if there are any reinforcements that should be had, it would be in the form of occasional fixed reinforcements to reflect the formation and deployment of a new squadron - eg extra 10 balloons on 10th September or whatever. For the Germans, as I say, BTR covers the period when the balloon force is in decline. Not suggesting we withdraw balloons, but at least don't add any. But still allow both sides to redeploy balloons as they wish.

[:)]

Hi DBS, you may have access to far better material on balloons than I have. The best I have is 2 lists in TCG James book on Battle of Britain, one for 31st July and an almost identical one a month later.
It's in the form of:-

No30 Gp London, Chigwell, No 4 Balloon Centre
908 Sqn, Metropolis, 5 flights of 9 balloons
909 Sqn, East Ham, 5 flights of 9 balloons
910 Sqn, Dagenham, Essex 5 flights of 9 balloons ( includes 3 waterbourne sites ).........and so on

I did think this was good enough for game purposes as it is far better than what is in it already. However, in light of whta you have already posted [&o]

regards Otisabuser

No mate, we're looking at the same lists. But I do think it is good enough for our purposes.

Cheers DBS,

so what needs to be changed is, add a little routine at game start which copies all balloon numbers (A) at a location to another location in the database (B). Lord knows there's enough free space in the database.

During the turn, balloons get destroyed. The value of A at each site depletes. This gives the chance for low level attacks after the balloon busters have been in. This already works in game.

At the end of the day, another routine restores the original value of A at each site by copying B, which is the unchanged value.

....or in English, the sites re-inflate their balloons from stores for the next day.

Balloons work properly and everyone's happy. [:)]

.....I think

regards Otisabuser

Have posted the Otis/DBS balloon list to JCL. [:)]

Well are the values now correct for BoB?
Is "effective" ceiling or "max" ceiling used?