IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone in AA coverage!

[Nikademus]

88's and 105's were doing just fine @6000 feet in tests I ran using BTR. (no other flak guns present)

[spence]

From Jan 43 to the end of the war approxiamately half the 5"/38 cal AA shells produced were VT (variable time) fuzed. The US also developed versions for the 3"/50 and the 6"/47 (although after the war). The Army got VT fuzes for the 90 mm AA gun approx mid 43 and for their howitzers (for antipersonnel use) towards the end of 1944.
VT fuzes were developed for British Naval AA guns (4.5", 5.25" and 4") in the US and deployed before 1944 was over.
The number of rounds per a/c kill for 5" with VT vs 5" with MT (mechanical timer) averaged out at 500 rds/plane (VT) compared to 2000 rds/plane (MT). 5"/38 VT fuzed shells were better against Kamikazes than against conventional attack "because of the simplified trajectory of the kamikaze attacker".

[spence]

Some data I found (sure hope this works)

[spence]

sorry folks

for a readable version of my previous post try this:

www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-075.htm

[michaelm75au]

STRANGE OBSERVATION
Both Japanese and US "share" the same device 409 "75mm AA Gun" - is this a posiblye typo in OOB?

I could only see #409 in US and Chinese units. What Japanese units have it?

If so, then it will only show up in the Allied replacement pool. #409 is in Allied device range.

Michael

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: spence

From roughly Oct 42 onwards there should be no "flak gap" for the 5"/38 in any case with the introduction of the VT proximity fuze. This particular fuze exploded the AA shell at the closest point of approach to an enemy aircraft due to a radar transponder in the fuze itself. It thus was effective from the muzzle (well almost) of the gun to the maximum ceiling/range of the gun. It was a major contributor to the deadliness of USN flak. It meant for one thing that the large caliber artillery could still engage a target that was rapidly changing the range. Older style AA fuzing required a manual time-fuze setting which could not be done fast enough to deal with a dive bomber which had already tipped over (for instance).
This technical Allied innovation has been ignored in this game and its predecessors (Pacwar/UV).

The use of the proximity fuse would not affect any difficulties that particular guns & mounts have tracking crossing targets. Certainly does improve the odds of hitting targets changing only (or mostly) range (as you point out).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: michaelm

STRANGE OBSERVATION
Both Japanese and US "share" the same device 409 "75mm AA Gun" - is this a posiblye typo in OOB?

I could only see #409 in US and Chinese units. What Japanese units have it?

If so, then it will only show up in the Allied replacement pool. #409 is in Allied device range.

You are right - my mistake (I removed it from my post on page 1).

Allies have device 409 "75mm AA Gun" whilst Japanese have device 275 "75mm AA Gun"...


Leo "Apollo11"

[michaelm75au]

Thank goodness.[&o]
Couldn't stand another error[:D]
Michael

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: michaelm

STRANGE OBSERVATION
Both Japanese and US "share" the same device 409 "75mm AA Gun" - is this a posiblye typo in OOB?

I could only see #409 in US and Chinese units. What Japanese units have it?

If so, then it will only show up in the Allied replacement pool. #409 is in Allied device range.

You are right - my mistake (I removed it from my post on page 1).

Allies have device 409 "75mm AA Gun" whilst Japanese have device 275 "75mm AA Gun"...


Leo "Apollo11"

[jwilkerson]

So Apollo11, could you restate briefly what you think the problem ( still ) is at this point ?

Are the light weapons ( per the database ) able to fire up to the appropriate ( roughly 7,000 to 13,000 feet ) altitudes ? And are the heavy weapons restricted to minimums somewhere in this same altitude band ?

Or if not what is the case in the database ?

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So Apollo11, could you restate briefly what you think the problem ( still ) is at this point ?

Are the light weapons ( per the database ) able to fire up to the appropriate ( roughly 7,000 to 13,000 feet ) altitudes ? And are the heavy weapons restricted to minimums somewhere in this same altitude band ?

Or if not what is the case in the database ?

The problem is composition of AA (and base) units for all sides with existence of heavy AA "altitude gap"...


IJA AA Regiment

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name             Ceiling
 ------------------------------------
 12x 276     105mm AA Gun     36000
 12x 275     75mm AA Gun      30000
 8x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000
 

IJA AA Battalion

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name             Ceiling
 ------------------------------------
 18x 276     105mm AA Gun     36000
 6x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000
 

IJN AA Battalion

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name             Ceiling
 ------------------------------------
 8x  276     105mm AA Gun     36000
 8x  275     75mm AA Gun      30000
 8x  273     25mm AA Gun (3)  14000
 24x 272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000
 

IJA Base Force

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name             Ceiling
 ------------------------------------
 4x  275     75mm AA Gun      30000
 4x  274     40mm AA Gun (2)  14000
 4x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000
 

IJN Base Force

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name             Ceiling
 ------------------------------------
 4x  275     75mm AA Gun      30000
 4x  273     25mm AA Gun (3)  14000
 4x  272     13mm AAMG (2)    13000
 

US Marines AA Units

Code: Select all

 Unit #  Name       Type
 -------------------------------
 2652    1st USMC   AA Battalion
 

US Army Coast AA Regiment

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
 -----------------------------------------
 12x 409     75mm AA Gun           28000
 8x  406     37mm AA Gun           10500
 8x  404     20mm Oerlikon AA Gun  10000
 

US Marines AA Battalion

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
 -----------------------------------------
 12x 409     75mm AA Gun           28000
 

US Army Base Force

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
 -----------------------------------------
 4x  409     75mm AA Gun           28000
 4x  406     37mm AA Gun           10500
 4x  399     .303 Lewis AAMG       6200
 

US Navy Base Force

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
 -----------------------------------------
 8x  410     3in AA Gun            29800
 8x  408     40mm Bofors AA Gun    22800
 8x  403     0.5in Browning AAMG   14500
 

US Marines Defense Bn (on average - they differ a lot from one to another)

Code: Select all

 ##  Device  Name                  Ceiling
 -----------------------------------------
 12x 410     3in AA Gun            29800
 30x 403     0.5in Browning AAMG   14500
 30x 399     .303 Lewis AAMG       6200
 

The dead zone lies between (not surprisingly) 6K and 9K feet.

Guns with max of 26K feet have a min of 7K.
Guns with max of 28K feet have a min of 7K.
Guns with max of 30K feet have a min of 8K.
Guns with max of 34K feet have a min of 9K.


Both sides, therefore, have protection of lower altitudes (below 7000ft, 8000ft and 9000ft) exclusively lying in hands of smaller sized AA weapons (i.e. automatic guns of smaller caliber) whilst heavy AA guns only start to operate above 7000ft, 8000ft and 9000ft.

Like "Nikademus" said this was not the case in BtR (Gary Grigsby's Bombing the Reich) where heavy AA guns operated at lower altitudes and where this "altitude gap" was much more narrower.

I agree with that think that heavy AA minimum altitude should be lowered to 4000ft - 6000ft (this is roughly 1500m - 2000m) which equals several seconds of shell flight time.

Please note that Japanese are especially "shafted" here because, for example, they have measly 13mm machine gun for defense for dedicated IJA AA units (please note that there is just one single IJN AA unit). The base forces have additional automatic weapons for this "altitude" gap but those are few in numbers (4 per unit is almost nothing)... [X(][&:][:(]


BTW, 6000 ft is _DEFAULT_ set altitude for all air units in WitP - with above discoveries it now looks that value is not foolish as it seemed (it seems ludicrous low but now with this knowledge we all know better)... [8D]


Leo "Apollo11"


P.S. [Edit]
Please remember that even at 10000 ft the heavy AA guns are almost useless. My comprehensive bombing tests (I posted them here many many times) shoved that even with 100+ heavy AA guns (75mm and 105mm) present the attacking 100 bombers (B-29, B-17, B-25) suffered very low casualties...

[Nomad]

I believe Apollo, that the _DEFAULT_ altitude is 15000 in WitP( it was 6000 in UV ).

[Twotribes]

Default is 15000, most people change to 6000 cause that is as low as you can go with no added moral penalties.

I personally change my naval attack bombers to 10k because 6 seems to low and 15 is just to high. My heavies go in higher usually.

[Nikademus]

Correct. Players use 6000 feet because for one, it used to be the default setting for a long time in UV + it is the lowest alt one can bomb without incurring automatic morale penalties.

However....in the end the biggest reason players do it is because they can without suffering damage and losses to great to sustain a continual bombardment. The # of hits achieved at this alt will ensure obliteration of the base in a very short period of time.

[Twotribes]

Well then, I suggest one of 2 remedies. One would be lower the minimum level to fire on heavies to 6 thousand feet OR change moral penalties for 4 engine Bombers to 10,000 feet.

I prefer number one.

[Nikademus]

My preference is number 1 as well. But as i said earlier, it wont make any appreciable difference.

[Twotribes]

Against the allies it doesnt make sense for japanese bombers facing p-39's to fly at 6000 feet, they should fly at 15000 or higher to make the 39 much less effective.

[Nikademus]

The Japanese bombed at high altitude to to avoid both flak and fighter interception (At lunga for example they usually bomed at around 25,000 feet.

In the game the Japan player will want to bombard at 6000 feet for the same reason the Allied player will. It will get them the hits to close the base and wipe out any airpower sitting on the ground. Provide enough escorts and one doesn't have to worry about enemy fighters. Its actually more important for the Japanese to bomb low because the low yeilds of their bombers produce less results vs the stable of modern Allied medium and heavies.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: spence

From Jan 43 to the end of the war approxiamately half the 5"/38 cal AA shells produced were VT (variable time) fuzed. The US also developed versions for the 3"/50 and the 6"/47 (although after the war). The Army got VT fuzes for the 90 mm AA gun approx mid 43 and for their howitzers (for antipersonnel use) towards the end of 1944.
VT fuzes were developed for British Naval AA guns (4.5", 5.25" and 4") in the US and deployed before 1944 was over.
The number of rounds per a/c kill for 5" with VT vs 5" with MT (mechanical timer) averaged out at 500 rds/plane (VT) compared to 2000 rds/plane (MT). 5"/38 VT fuzed shells were better against Kamikazes than against conventional attack "because of the simplified trajectory of the kamikaze attacker".

Following web sites discuss the proximity fuse (which, from what I can tell only the Allies had):

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq96-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuse
http://www.smecc.org/radio_proximity_fuzes.htm

[spence]

YES - ONLY THE ALLIES HAD THE PROXIMITY FUZE. In fact, really only the Americans. The shells for British guns were all designed and produced in the USA.

The idea for proximity fuzes was not uniquely American. Everybody else realized how useful they would be. BUT ONLY THE AMERICANS PRODUCED ONE THAT WORKED. The shells were ordered into production when design tests showed a reliability of 50% but by the time the shells began to ship out to the fleet that reliability figure had improved to 80% and rose steadily thereafter to near 99%. Of the other warring nations Germany apparently got closest to producing a proximity fuzed shell but field reliability remained a big problem that in fact was not solved before the German surrender.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: spence

YES - ONLY THE ALLIES HAD THE PROXIMITY FUZE. In fact, really only the Americans. The shells for British guns were all designed and produced in the USA.

The idea for proximity fuzes was not uniquely American. Everybody else realized how useful they would be. BUT ONLY THE AMERICANS PRODUCED ONE THAT WORKED. The shells were ordered into production when design tests showed a reliability of 50% but by the time the shells began to ship out to the fleet that reliability figure had improved to 80% and rose steadily thereafter to near 99%. Of the other warring nations Germany apparently got closest to producing a proximity fuzed shell but field reliability remained a big problem that in fact was not solved before the German surrender.

A few years back I was cornered by a neighbor of my parents and a friend of his while visiting my parents (it's amazing how veterans always like to talk to former military regardless of age). It turned out the neighbor's friend was a B-29 crewmember during WWII and he specifically mentioned they flew their night missions BELOW the minumum flak altitude. I'm not sure exactly what he said but it was something like "above the machine gun fire but below the flak". The minimum flak altitude was a fact and one that was taken advantage of like any sane person during an insane period such as a war would do.

According to what he said, they had more problems with engine fires than with Japanese flak.