View Full Version : Poll: Is flak/AAA too accurate in 4.01m???

08-27-2005, 12:40 PM

08-28-2005, 01:20 AM
Hi mortoma!

I'm doing a lot of mudmoving online and have to say that AAA accuracy seems to have increased with 401. I don't think it is too much though. It is still possible to attack targets and survive.

Attacking big ships is very hard, but if you are up against an airfield it should be fairly easy to take out all the AAA guns.

Fly straight towards the guns, aim low. Have your nose raise and as the gun comes into the centre of the sights - fire. Ideally you take no damage and the gun is destroyed.

08-28-2005, 06:42 AM
I find it depends on what you're doing.

I got hit by friendly flak yesterday, and the only enemy was at least a half mile away. Not very accurate

On the other hand, U-boat flak is murderous. U-boats were awful, terrible, ineffective gun platforms. Narrow beam, they'd roll on wet grass, and yet they are snipers with their AAA. The U-boat would have been a war-winner with AAA like that

08-28-2005, 07:00 AM
I'm a dedicated flak whiner, so my vote stands clearly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

08-28-2005, 07:07 AM
A very tough issue.Looks like the flak is made to miss to some extent.

If you compare flak vs fighters with flak vs bombers there is not much difference.

Bombers are slow and big yet the flak blows up in the 50-70m vicinity.

Fighters are small,fast and cruise high yet flak shells also detonate in 50-70m vicinity.

2nd glance at the issue:There is too little of a number of bombers in missions to overwhelm the flak.The flak historically never stopped big attacks.Sure,there were bomber casualties but no one ever thought of stopping the entire attack.

In IL2 we have 8 bombers diving on a city.If they make more than oone pass,about 30% will survive.That means a 70% of bomber wave has been stopped.Flak simply cannot play such a significant role in city/target defense!

3rd glance on the issue:
If you drag your enemy to your airbase you mostly see flak detonating all over the vicinity of the fighter but not a direct hit.
If you get lucky and get on his six the flak is very likely to hit you instead because you are in vicinity zone of the figher you are following.
In this case flak is much too inaccurate.

4th glance on the issue:
On more than 300 sorties in Czech War I have been forced to bail from flak fire maybe 7times.
That is a negligible number,don`t you think?

However,out of those 7 times 3have been impossible hits.I was hit at 5000-7000m altitude,doing at least 330km/h.

08-28-2005, 09:59 AM
Good observations carguy.

Myself I think its ok in accuracy but as you said it does not change much in variation between slow and straight flying big bomber and small and agile targets.

I found that attacking an airfield defended by 6 or 8 light AA guns ALONE is rahter dangerous (and it should be) however doing so in a group is fine.


08-28-2005, 11:06 AM
Heavy flak certainly seems too accurate when I'm flying at high speed and low altitude. I always end up taking an 88 shell to the cockpit when flying at 300 feet... that shouldn't happen.

Heavy flak seems OK at high altitude, though, and I don't have any quarrels with light flak. I just wish the heavy guns weren't so impossibly fast to change aim.

08-28-2005, 02:33 PM

I'm not going to reply to the poll because it depends if you are talking about light flak or heavy flak.

By that I mean the difference between the 20mm/37mm/40mm light flak and the 85mm/88mm heavy flak.

As far as I'm concerned, and I have done a lot of research on this, the light flak is modelled extremely accurately, and I don't think we have a problem with it.

Light flak was extremely deadly to aircraft operating under 2000 meters, which is as it is in the game. At the same time, you can avoid it by using a lot of speed, maneuvering hard, and making sure you are forcing the flak to have a lot of deflection in its fire.

For heavy flak, I think it is definitely out of balance.

Historically heavy flak was quite inaccurate, especially over 20,000 ft. (6000 meters) It could only hit massed bomber formations which were proceeding in a straight line and at low speeds. (B-17's cruised around 165 mph/265 kph) Even then, with huge formation targets to shoot at, and 1000's of guns, they only hit around 20% of the targets which passed over them.

In the game, a Fighter flying at over 600 mph TAS at 6000 meters can be hit and destroyed by a single heavy Flak gun within 3 or 4 shots if it continues in a straight line.

This is clearly overmodelling.

It may be that Oleg has decided to make individual guns more accurate, in order to reduce the total number of guns required to be placed in a Mission, and thus reduce the load on the game engine. But he has gone a bit too far, even if we accept this scenario.

I believe the heavy flak needs to be toned down quite a bit.

08-28-2005, 02:43 PM
Pilots like Clostermann said they hated flak because it simply was an effective killer. From accounts, it would appear that targets would have large numbers of flak guns (probably more than in an average online scenario due to the lag it causes) so if it is "overmodelled" it's ok as it offsets having to have more guns.

The same cannot be said for aircraft AI gunners, however; they are too accurate IMO.


08-28-2005, 04:27 PM
Thanks for all your opinions, you all have good points. However in attacking airfields, the enemy guns seem to concentrate more on you as a human pilot than they do your buddies, in the same way ememy AI fighters seem to pick on you more than your AI buddies.

As the one poster pointed out, you can pick off some of the AAA guns, but that depends on what you are flying and also depends on being able to do more than one pass. Now, after the patch, the AI attacking an airfield seem to only make one pass, then go home. Whereas before the patch they seemed to make mulitple passes. This made it easier to get all the AAA emplacements because you could time another pass with thiers, so you would not be picked on as much. Being able to pick off the AAA emplacements also depends on the armament of the plane you are flying and also on how good of a stable gun platform it is. If you are in a plane with only MGs, then you generally can't scratch the AAA too bad. If you are in a plane that has adequate cannons for the job, but is a loose gun platform, it becomes hard to hit the AAA for that reason alone. In some planes you can't miss though.

Also it has never been easy to hit the flak guns, since it's far harder to spot them!!
The AAA artillery emplacements have a huge muzzle flash, but the flak guns have only a tiny
bit of flash, more of a puff of smoke than flash. I don't recall ever being able to see the flak guns, only the brighty flashing AAA guns.
If only Oleg would have given the flak as much muzzle flash as the AAA.

08-29-2005, 05:19 PM
I would most appreciate some options for Flak that are there for ships AAA and the other way round. Engagement radius for ships and Skill + ROF for ground guns. Default ship skill is at Veteran, setting this down to Average or Rookie for AAA guns may just be what some ppl want.

08-30-2005, 07:51 AM
The answer is yes and no. If you compare single gun to single real life versus in-game gun then yes, the AAA is overmodelled. However, the numbers of AAA guns in game is far less than you would face normally.

For an industrial area concentric rings of flak guns could number as many as 50 or 60 (I'm talking the heavy stuff)...the game would crawl to a stop if you had that many objects throwing up flak.

So it seems a single flak gun has the shootdown capability of several guns combined. Overall, flak effectiveness is about right. It's survivable if you fly correctly and unforgiving if you don't. At least for the ground based gunners.

I agree with others about submarines though. The flak from a sub is ridiculously out of whack. Aircraft were the bane of a sub's existence and they dove to avoid them and fought only when absolutely necessary. The Germans could have won the BoB by simply parking an IL2 modelled U-boat in the Channel and destroyed the RAF...

08-30-2005, 08:43 AM
i think there is a setting in the config to lessen the rate of fire for AAA. do a search, i bet you can find something helpful.

08-30-2005, 05:07 PM
No, that is for ship AAA only, and as far as I know, only works on pacific maps!!! It does not affect ground based guns at all, either in the western/eastern front or the pacific.

08-30-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
So it seems a single flak gun has the shootdown capability of several guns combined. Overall, flak effectiveness is about right.
Sure, it is like simulating the number of flaks you would meet and it makes some sense, but you are still in a group of usually 3-4, maybe 6 aircraft, no more. The game is generally scaled down in terms of numbers of planes etc. The same should stand for the flak.

08-31-2005, 05:19 PM
I kinda divide it into two categories. I think the light flak is alright, it's made to track fighters and medium bombers. The heavy flak on the otherhand is too accurate, especially against fighters. The Luftwaffe estimated that it took over 4000 heavy flak shells for each bomber brought down. In the game though I get hit most often by the heavy flak, even when my speed is over 600+kph range.

08-31-2005, 06:09 PM
This is what A. Price in his "LW Handbook" had to say about ground AA.

Light flak (20mm) had an effective range of ~1000m while for medium flak (37mm) the effective range was ~1500m. Heavy flak (88mm) had a maximum effective range of ~9000m. Light and medium flak could only effectively engage a/c that were flying more or less directly at or away from the gun.

A 3.7cm Flak 18, -36, -43 had a pracical RoF of 80rnd/barrel.

The 20mm guns, 2cm Flak 30, and -38, had a pracical RoF of 120-180rnd/barrel.

stats for USS Hornet, CV-12:

Ships Guns:
7,275 rounds of 5" ammo fired
115,179 rounds of 40mm ammo fired
409,580 rounds of 20mm ammo fired

9 Planes shot down

from - http://www.its.caltech.edu/~drmiles/cv-12_16feb45.html

That is 59,115 rds fired per a/c shot down.

11-05-2005, 11:40 AM
Ship AA is definately too effective. Setting up a reenactment of a historical attack on the Hornet (AI doing all the flying); on default settings, everyone was shot down nearly right away. I had to lower ship ROF to 5.0 and halve the number of escorts to obtain the historical result of about 50% of the attackers being shot down.

11-05-2005, 08:52 PM
most aces in ww2 were shot down from ground fire or at least i herd on the military channel

11-05-2005, 09:15 PM
My suggestion to anyone pondering this question is to park yourself, in a bomber, next to a flak gun, or another AI controlled bomber.

Fly some target planes over the both of you, and see which does a better job of shooting, you or the AI.

11-06-2005, 04:48 AM
Changing your course, speed, height and direction always helps. This was the tactic used.
Never attack airfields or well defended (AAA) sites, unless you do it in mass.

Weave man, weave...kaboom!

11-06-2005, 05:12 AM
The flak may be more effective than they should alone, but in RL there were much more flak around. So one thing balances the other.

11-06-2005, 05:27 AM
Historically, flak was the major killer of pilots. Seems about right to me

11-06-2005, 05:57 AM
Well seems to me we have to distinguish what flak we are taling about here. Just saying "flak is too accurate" doesn't take into account the difference between heavy and light flak...land and sea (for the latter large and small ships or subs).I tend to think the heavy and light gournd flak is pretty good considering it has to make up for the smaller amount of guns then in reality. Ships are mixed, u-boats are way too accurate (SH3 must have used PF parameters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) larger ships are better, but still need tweaking cause of the fps issue.

11-06-2005, 06:37 AM
low level flak seems about right to me...

what I find definitely not right, it's to have 88mm AAA guns taking out a lone fighter flying at 4-5000m altitude...

From every reading I had from fighter pilots they never bothered for large caliber FLAK... they just kept on flying, none having ever heard of a fighter getting downed by big flak canons when cruising at altitude..

In this game, when playing an online campaign, I almost got killed more times by FLAK at altitude than by enemy fighters or small flak

11-06-2005, 10:59 AM
In this game, anything that moves is shot at. What I'd like to see is the ability to pull your own rip-cord when bailing out. It might help prevent one from being a practice target.

11-07-2005, 03:48 AM
I agree with previous posters that heavy flak is a bit too accurate firing at a fast moving fighter at around 2-3000m.

The trouble with an airfield attack in the game is that the AI flak are firing at you well before you get to the airfield, suprise was the key element for successful airfield strafing in real life. It would be great if the game could calculate a pause in firing depending on your approach altitude/speed etc.

Clostermann lost 6 out of 8 tempests on a single pass strafing an airfield late in the war so light flak in concentration should be quite deadly.

11-07-2005, 05:41 AM
I don't think flak is good enough!

When ever I fly missions or co-ops I can't help think there is never enough of it. Just looking at 2nd TAF losses over the period of June to December 1944 virtually all the losses are HBF 'hit by flak'. These planes would make one high speed pass and leave, not loiter and still get shot up very badly.

Maybe thats really down to the mission makers I guess but flak IMHO is always too little compared to RL.

11-07-2005, 07:09 AM
If you attack at low level you're inside the small arms envelope and should expect to take fire from anything and everything.

Ground troops will shoot rifles at you.

Officers may even shoot pistols at you.

The chances of them hitting are very small, but there's a lot of them shooting...

In this game there appear to be no coolant leaks, which means that ground fire is a lot less dangerous than it perhaps should be to a lot of aircraft.

For example IRL the P-51 runs its intercooler from the main coolant circuit, so a single round anywhere in the radiator will drain the whole system, leading to engine failure in ~ 15 minutes.

(The Spitfire uses different coolant circuits for the main radiator and the intercooler, so after damage to the intercooler circuit the engine will continue to run in MS gear quite happily.)

IMO the lack of radiator damage has had several key impacts upon the game.

i) DM: air-cooled engines have lost their biggest advantage over liquid cooled engines.

ii) AAA: without radiator damage, a given quantity of AAA hits is far less lethal than it should be and therefore appears to have been modified for increased lethality in compensation; again this makes aircraft fitted with air-cooled engines look bad in relative terms.

I think that the AAA should be globally toned down a bit, and that liquid cooled aircraft should have their DMs modified to give a delayed engine failure after hits to the cooling system.

This would considerably improve air combat too as aircraft fitted with liquid cooled engines would be considerably more vulnerable, shifting the balance.

.50s would be more effective against the Bf-109 and Fw-190D9/Ta-152.

The P-47 would be a more attractive ride for Allied pilots as it would be relatively tougher.

However, I also think that below ~ 1000 feet or so light AAA should become considerably more effective to simulate the small arms envelope.

I also think that AAA should have a delayed response. This could piggyback on the routine that runs the air-raid sirens at bases.

There should be a ~ 30 second delay between an enemy aircraft being spotted and AAA opening fire initially. After AAA has opened fire it should be at 5 second readiness for 15 minutes or so, after which it should return to 30 second readiness; it's impossible to be alert all the time.

This would serve to punish the second wave of any ground attack in a realistic fashion.

11-07-2005, 10:04 AM
the biggest problem with the flak/AAA is that it's set for late-war levels of volume and accuracy, and there's only one standard for all sides.

At the beginning of the war, the need for light AA guns was badly underestimated, and attacking ground targets was generally a 'walk in the park' for fighters and light attackers unhindered by aerial opposition on all sides.

From my reading, it appears that the Allies' had an effective light AA capability fairly quickly, and that the Germans weren't far behind, if at all. Certainly, the Germans' had a formidible heavy AA capability very early, but the Allies' development of proximity fused shells made their heavy AA much more effective by mid war (ot the last third of the war, if you're not American).

It appears that the Soviets and the Japanese were a bit behind the curve, but they compensated by having everyone who could (even kids with slingshots) shooting back. The Japanese never really caught up, but the Soviets managed to get the needed weapons produced or acquired from Lend-Lease.

It would be ideal if we could set the AA volume and accuracy according to the time and place we're dealing with, and give the player a shot at the element of surprise.