Page 1 of 7
The Flak Gap
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 11:50 pm
by Big B
There is supposedly a "flak gap" between 5000 to 7000 feet.
Below is a screen shot of the editor showing the lowest altitude AA device for Japan - the 13mm HMG.
It clearly has a max altitude of 13000 feet. All other AA guns go higher. Notice also there is no MINIMUM altitude setting.
So how do we know there really is such a thing as the 6000 foot flak gap?
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 12:49 am
by rogueusmc
I don't ever see any gap...
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 1:01 am
by treespider
IIRC its the guns like the 75mm AA and the 105mm AA that have max ceilings of 30,000 and 36,000 will not fire at targets below 8,000 and 9,000 respectively. IRL these batteries could have at least put up area fire as opposed to not firing at all....
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 2:31 am
by MineSweeper
Treespider, here is a chart showing the capabilties (range wise) of AA guns (German)....FYI....need to find the japanese models......
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:26 am
by Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Treespider, here is a chart showing the capabilties (range wise) of AA guns (German)....FYI....need to find the japanese models......
The one thing this does do is show just how rediculous the 13,000 ft. ceiling for the 13mm (basically .50 cal. class) MG shown above is. It's unbelievable just how much of the "research" for this game turns out to be garbage....
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:32 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Treespider, here is a chart showing the capabilties (range wise) of AA guns (German)....FYI....need to find the japanese models......
The one thing this does do is show just how rediculous the 13,000 ft. ceiling for the 13mm (basically .50 cal. class) MG shown above is. It's unbelievable just how much of the "research" for this game turns out to be garbage....
Actually according to this website...
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_13mm-76_mg.htm
Its not so ridiculous...
Range
.
Elevation With 0.11 lbs. (0.05 kg) Shell
Range @ 45 degrees 6,560 yards (6,000 m)
Range @ 50 degrees 7,108 yards (6,500 m)
AA Ceiling @ 85 degrees Maximum: 14,764 feet (4,500 m)
Effective: 13,060 feet (3,980 m)
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:43 am
by Mike Scholl
"Effective" is the key word. The shell might be effective at 2.5 miles..., but delivering it accurately against a rapidly moving target with a hand-directed mounting at that range is wishfull thinking at best.
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 3:46 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
"Effective" is the key word. The shell might be effective at 2.5 miles..., but delivering it accurately against a rapidly moving target with a hand-directed mounting at that range is wishfull thinking at best.
Then why don't you find us some real data on the 13mm before coming out with your bombastic statement that the research for the game sucks....
The graphic earlier presented similar style info...effective vs. maximum ceiling...
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:02 am
by MineSweeper
Plus, I might add that the germans had the finest AA weapontry in the war IMO.....Though the US 90 mm and the Swedish 40mm bofors were great weapons.....Japanese, not so good----their 25mm was terrible with regard to reloading......
Though, I must add that the proximity fuse made a huge difference regarding US AA....[;)]
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:12 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Plus, I might add that the germans had the finest AA weapontry in the war IMO.....Though the US 90 mm and the Swedish 40mm bofors were great weapons.....Japanese, not so good----their 25mm was terrible with regard to reloading......
Though, I must add that the proximity fuse made a huge difference regarding US AA....[;)]
Curiously the 25mm had an even shorter effective ceiling than the 13mm...
also from -
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.htm
Range
.
Elevation With 0.55 lbs. (0.25 kg) HE Shell
Range @ 45 degrees 7,439 yards (6,800 m)
Range @ 50 degrees 8,200 yards (7,500 m)
AA Ceiling @ 85 degrees Effective: 9,843 feet (3,000 m)
Maximum: 18,040 feet (5,500 m)
Note: The sources listed below disagree as to the ranges and AA ceiling for this weapon. I have chosen to use those given in "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War."
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:20 am
by MineSweeper
[/quote]
Curiously the 25mm had an even shorter effective ceiling than the 13mm...
also from -
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.htm
Range
.
Elevation With 0.55 lbs. (0.25 kg) HE Shell
Range @ 45 degrees 7,439 yards (6,800 m)
Range @ 50 degrees 8,200 yards (7,500 m)
AA Ceiling @ 85 degrees Effective: 9,843 feet (3,000 m)
Maximum: 18,040 feet (5,500 m)
Note: The sources listed below disagree as to the ranges and AA ceiling for this weapon. I have chosen to use those given in "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War."
[/quote]
That is strange...[&:]
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:26 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: MineSweeper
Curiously the 25mm had an even shorter effective ceiling than the 13mm...
also from -
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_25mm-60_mg.htm
Range
.
Elevation With 0.55 lbs. (0.25 kg) HE Shell
Range @ 45 degrees 7,439 yards (6,800 m)
Range @ 50 degrees 8,200 yards (7,500 m)
AA Ceiling @ 85 degrees Effective: 9,843 feet (3,000 m)
Maximum: 18,040 feet (5,500 m)
Note: The sources listed below disagree as to the ranges and AA ceiling for this weapon. I have chosen to use those given in "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War."
That is strange...[&:]
The M2 for comparison's sake...
Range with 1.71 oz (48.5 gm) Bullet
1940's Water-cooled version
.
Range Effective: 2,600 yards (2,400 m)
Maximum: 7,400 yards (6,770 m)
AA Ceiling Effective: about 5,000 feet (1,524 m)
Maximum: about 15,000 feet (4,570 m)
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range with 1.71 oz (48.5 gm) Bullet
Modern Air-cooled Version
.
Range Effective: 2,200 yards (2,000 m)
Maximum: 7,400 yards (6,770 m)
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 4:43 am
by MineSweeper
Actually, that makes sense....the 13mm should be more effective at short range(depending on how short)then the 25mm....doh!.....the 25mm was an awlful weapon....
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 7:08 am
by Apollo11
Hi all,
Here are my original threads about FLAK gap (they are 2 and 1 years old [:D]):
#1 (2005)
"IMPORTANT: Huge undefended "empty" zone in AA..."
tm.asp?m=960298&mpage=1
#2 (2006)
"Humble request for Don and Joe regarding AA WitP programming..."
tm.asp?m=1131500&mpage=1
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 10:27 am
by castor troy
while I know of raids with heavy bombers against the home islands I doubt that in real war the Japanese AA defense was so bad that in real life Allied commanders could have come up with the same they do in WITP: THE LOWER THE BETTER! I see that in all my games (excluding Nikmod - which IMO seems a bit too effective [;)]).
What I´ve experienced in years of playing: 6000 feet must be the just perfect altitude for Allied bombers. No morale hit, best accuracy, weak flak (too high for effective small AA gun fire, too low for heavy AA guns). When flak is more dangerous at 20.000 feet why come in high if I can go in at 6000 feet also. 6000 ft still too much flak, let´s go lower... 2000 ft seems perfect now... let´s go on at 2000 ft...
No doubt that Japanese flak was not what you would like it to be as a Japanese commander. Though I doubt that in 4 years of war there would not be a real quick development of AA defense if the standard, perfect, super dupi altitude of Allied 4Es would be 6.000 ft.
Again: in WITP what "normally" happened in real life - means a lot of flak, let´s go higher - is reverted in the game - means a lot of flak, let´s go lower... [8|]
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:14 am
by Apollo11
Hi all,
The Japan's inability to target (i.e. lack of German like radar technology) at night is understandable but having huge bombers flying slow and low in broad daylight is something completely different and that's why I am constantly reminding community of very important so-called "FLAK Gap" problem...
Leo "Apollo11"
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:26 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
"Effective" is the key word. The shell might be effective at 2.5 miles..., but delivering it accurately against a rapidly moving target with a hand-directed mounting at that range is wishfull thinking at best.
Mike, "Effective" did not mean effective as a climber, but as an offensive weapon against a target....
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:28 am
by rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: castor troy
while I know of raids with heavy bombers against the home islands I doubt that in real war the Japanese AA defense was so bad that in real life Allied commanders could have come up with the same they do in WITP: THE LOWER THE BETTER! I see that in all my games (excluding Nikmod - which IMO seems a bit too effective [;)]).
What I´ve experienced in years of playing: 6000 feet must be the just perfect altitude for Allied bombers. No morale hit, best accuracy, weak flak (too high for effective small AA gun fire, too low for heavy AA guns). When flak is more dangerous at 20.000 feet why come in high if I can go in at 6000 feet also. 6000 ft still too much flak, let´s go lower... 2000 ft seems perfect now... let´s go on at 2000 ft...
No doubt that Japanese flak was not what you would like it to be as a Japanese commander. Though I doubt that in 4 years of war there would not be a real quick development of AA defense if the standard, perfect, super dupi altitude of Allied 4Es would be 6.000 ft.
Again: in WITP what "normally" happened in real life - means a lot of flak, let´s go higher - is reverted in the game - means a lot of flak, let´s go lower... [8|]
Actually, IRL - it did work out to "lots of flak - let's go lower" - and evolved into skip bombing, where flak losses were cut to a minimum, and casualties went down, bombing accuracy went up, and morale went up. Of course, this is not exactly what happens in the game where the morale drops, and you get cut up with 100' attacks. And remember: the tactics were first worked out (for the US) by B-17s (4E heavy bombers), although the speedier mediums perfected the method later.
If one demands accuracy in the game model - would you be willing to swap fixing "the flak gap" for realistic skip-bombing attacks?
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:35 am
by m10bob
I have immense problems with the automatic and horrendous morale hits taken by skip-bombers.
It is not historical and might be considered a unique tactic for the Allies, as Banzai charges and Kamikazes are for the Japanese..
RE: The Flak Gap
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 11:36 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: castor troy
while I know of raids with heavy bombers against the home islands I doubt that in real war the Japanese AA defense was so bad that in real life Allied commanders could have come up with the same they do in WITP: THE LOWER THE BETTER! I see that in all my games (excluding Nikmod - which IMO seems a bit too effective [;)]).
What I´ve experienced in years of playing: 6000 feet must be the just perfect altitude for Allied bombers. No morale hit, best accuracy, weak flak (too high for effective small AA gun fire, too low for heavy AA guns). When flak is more dangerous at 20.000 feet why come in high if I can go in at 6000 feet also. 6000 ft still too much flak, let´s go lower... 2000 ft seems perfect now... let´s go on at 2000 ft...
No doubt that Japanese flak was not what you would like it to be as a Japanese commander. Though I doubt that in 4 years of war there would not be a real quick development of AA defense if the standard, perfect, super dupi altitude of Allied 4Es would be 6.000 ft.
Again: in WITP what "normally" happened in real life - means a lot of flak, let´s go higher - is reverted in the game - means a lot of flak, let´s go lower... [8|]
Actually, IRL - it did work out to "lots of flak - let's go lower" - and evolved into skip bombing, where flak losses were cut to a minimum, and casualties went down, bombing accuracy went up, and morale went up. Of course, this is not exactly what happens in the game where the morale drops, and you get cut up with 100' attacks. And remember: the tactics were first worked out (for the US) by B-17s (4E heavy bombers), although the speedier mediums perfected the method later.
If one demands accuracy in the game model - would you be willing to swap fixing "the flak gap" for realistic skip-bombing attacks?
Oh you mean the night time skip bombing attacks which didn't start until October of 1942 by the B-17's?[;)]