Bought a pack of 88mm Flak36s. Then, using WWII MicroArmour: The Game, noticed an AP value of 9 vs PAK43's AP of 11 and the Tiger II's also of 11. Why, even the Tiger I's short 88mm has an AP of 10. What's the rationale? I know the Flak36 doesn't suffer as much from range but that doesn't offset a difference of two columns on the CRT.
About the only gun that would penetrate a Matilda in N Africa was the Flak36. Well, an AP of 9 barely overcomes the Matilda II's armor of 8. An AP of 11makes more sense.
The Tiger I and the Flak36 should have the same AP value.
The only difference (maybe) is that the Flak36 would probably have fewer AP rounds available as its' primary role should have been lobbing HE at aircraft.
There are the same difference in the squad game, but they are not justified except for the following.
The Flak 36 had a L/56 barrel the same of the Tiger I, so they should have the same AP value.
Pak 43, Tiger II and Nashorn had a L/71 barrel so should have teh same (higher) AP value.
Just to give an idea of the difference of performance, the Pzgr Patr of L/56 had a proectile weight of 9,5 kg and a propelling carge of 2,52 kg. Muzzle velocity 820 mps
The Pzgr Patr 39-1 of L/71 had a similar projectile weight (10 kg) but a propelling charge of 6,83 kg. Muizzle velocity 1.ooo mps
Besides the projectile, charge, barrel length (and hence velocity), the layout of the gun might be a factor in these numbers as well.
The Flak36 was optimized for AA tracking and shooting, rather than for AT work. In particularthe controls for elevation and direction were on opposite sides of the gun. This allows two seperate gun layers to provide a constant movement in each axis, a very useful capability when tracking a target in 3 dimensions (such as an aircraft), but a cumbersome arrangementwhen tracking a target in only 2 (such as a tank). Effectively you had two aimers shouting at each other across the breach to bring the gun onto target.
As MATG is a 1-to-several ruleset, I expect that the AP value reflects not only the penetration and destructive power of the gun, but any other considerations that contribute to the overall effectiveness of a battery. So this could explain why a unit of Tigers would be more effective than an AA gun battery, even if they were firing the same ammunition.
Note the word "could". Because I have no real information on what the game authors had in mind. Only speculation on my part.
-Mark 1 Difficile est, saturam non scribere. "It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Once again, great answers! Much appreciated.
There's still advantage for the Flak over the ATG: 360 degree roatation, i.e., no facing restrictions. Still, at the range one should use either, you shouldn't have to shift the ATG much.
If you look carefully you will run across issues like this in the weapons data. The most obvious boo boo is the Jagd Pz IVb with a defense value of "[4]" when all my research shows it should be an [8] like similar vehicles of its chassis and era. But hey, we're all human, mistakes happen now and then.
But the issue you raise is not a typo, as the same issue faces the Soviet 85mm AA gun. The Soviet AA gun is valued at an AP of 7 while all of the AFV's armed with the same gun are given an AP of 10. Yet I've read in several sources that the SU-85 used a gun based on the AA gun, but specifically it was designed to use the same AP ammo as already being issued to the AA gun units.
One other factor that I didn't see mentioned, that came to mind was the ROF, which I would imagine could be higher with an open AA gun mount than that of a tank gun (in a turret). If this was a factor in the calculation, of course it would also lean towards a higher AP value for the AA gun, not lower.
John was fond of saying "if you don't like it, make your own rules."
SO... throwing the new numbers into the calculator one gets the following :
FlaK 36 APf 11 APr 40 HEf 6 HEr 40 D 2 Spd 0 yields 149 points
Now you might be going HUH? at this point (I did). My first thought was '149 points, that makes an 88 battery more expensive than a Tiger II (Pz VIb) platoon'. But the calculator factors in the range of the weapon. And throwing AP11 HE6 40" down range is VERY powerful ability. It really boosts the 'Points' value very high.
If you look at all the AA guns in the rules they almost all have ranges for both AP and HE set at 10". The exeptions I can think of off the top of my head are German 88 and the UK's 3.7". This is very artificial as every AA gun range value I've looked up is usually much better than 1km. But the "Points" for AA guns would all be higher if accurate ranges were used AND it would influence "gamers" to use many AA guns ahistorically (eg pointed down at infantry and APC's instead of UP at airplanes). Obviously AA gun batterys did point down when the need arose, and in the case of both the German 88 and the Soviet 85, it was encouraged as they issued AP ammo to them. But overall I see this as a mechanism to encourage more historical use of the weapon than a nod to accuracy.
This line of thought can also take one down the road to addressing the Air to Ground rules in general and I personally like the compromises and choices the games' author made in that regard. And so I live with inaccurate ranges of AA guns.
regards,
Leif
P.S. the JagdPz IVb points are right, as published, for a unit with a D=[8].
Here are my 'upgraded' Soviet 85mm AAG stats:
85mm AAG APf 10 APr 30 HEf6 HEr30 D=2 Speed = 0 Points = 106
You can really see the effect of 10" of extra range when you look at these numbers, as the only other difference between the 85mm AAG and the 88mm AAG is the 11 APf.
The same differences in AP performance exists in the Squad Game too.
I may accept the explanation for Flak 36 and Tiger I. They have different ranges but
160 for AP of Flak 36 (against 100 for Tiger I) seems too much But this do not apply to other weapons,.
The Tiger II has 12/6 AP/HE, while Pak 43, Nashorn, Jagdpanther and Elefant have 11/6.
It seems not a question of mounting (turret or hull) because the 75 Pak 40 has a constant 9/5 on tanks, jagdpanzers and ATG.
I don't think I wrote '160' anywhere, and I forgot to take in your excellent point that the AAG was L56 like the Tiger I not L71 like the Tiger II and others with that gun. And I just looked and the Tiger II has Firepower values of 12/8 25/25. Even the 128mm armed JagdTiger isn't that good an HE value. I'd personally chalk it up as a typo and fix it.
So the Calculator shows the following:
data #1 (L71 88 as AA) f=11/6 r =40/40 def = 2 move = 0 Points = 149
data #2 (L56 88 as AA) f=10/6 r = 40/40 def = 2 move = 0 Points = 140
Just for grins:
Tiger II f=11/6 r=25/25 Def = [13] move = 8T points = 119
I don't always know (or remember) why John put in the numbers he did (i.e. tiger II vs. nashorn & elefant etc). I'll ask George, he may remember why John put in the values he did. I've rewritten several stats and recalculated points values for a bunch of weapons and use them for my private scenario designs. The ones I'm working on for submission to GHQ will all use book values. But I'd really like to put out an update to the MATG rules with many of the updates incorporated in the microsquad rules (George did a great job with those) and updated weapon stats.
Maybe I'll post my own 'mods' to a website sometime. I could post my exel version of the weapons calc there too.
One other important factor that one needs to throw in is the 'tech level' of the weapon. This is a concept John introduced in the modern rules but you have to use it in the Calculator. John always considered the 88 AAG a tech level 2 weapon because of its advanced optics and gun laying doctrine (as explained in special weapons rule 10.2). He also extends this benefit to the UK's 3.7" AAG (as written in the weapons stats).
this factor boosts the point values some, but high firepower at long range is more critical to the calculation. Just look at the big arty stats and point values, they cost a lot because they lob big chunks of metal a LONG way.
RedLeif wrote: And I just looked and the Tiger II has Firepower values of 12/8 25/25. Even the 128mm armed JagdTiger isn't that good an HE value. I'd personally chalk it up as a typo and fix it.
Sorry, my book says 11/8 not 12/8. We are all prone to typos now and then.
I have two points to rise. One techniocal and one on the rules.
The Flak 36. First of all the elevaton and transverse wheels where on the same side (the right) with the elevation behind the transverse. In direct fire the control where like those of any ATG. It was used a direct telescopic sight (Zielfernrohr 20 or 20E) mounted above the transverse wheel. This sight had a drum for distance setting that was connected with a pointer for elevation. The pointer set the drum with the left hand (and the elevation operator matched the pointer). Withe with the right hand he turned the transverse wheel to follow the target. Quite straightforward actually.
The rules. My comment were referred to The Microsquad rules not the MATG. In any case the difference are relvant to AP/HE values only as the range are the same (obviusly multiplied by four in the squad rules due to the different scale).
In any case the difference are (the first values are for MATG)
Tiger II 11/8 12/6
88 Pak 43 11/6 11/5
While they are equal for the other vehicle/guns
but this means that all the AP 88/71 are 11 in MATG but are 12 for Tiger II in MS and 11 for all the others.
Moreover why 8 HE for Tiger II in MATG against a 6 for all others?
About the point value, I think that the problem with Flak 36 is relevant to its range. It get an AP/HE range of 40/40 (or 160/160 in MS) while for the other 88 (L/56 or L/71) is 25/25 (or 100/100) and 30/30 (120/120) for the Pak 43.
In my opinion the AP range of Flak 36 is too high, it should be 25. In general the two ranges are equal in the rules but there are a few cases of different ranges.
Thanks TAMMY for providing the details on the 88mm AAG. Your command of details is very cool. I usually don't dig up that much data unless I need to.
My understanding was that the 88mm ATG, and most other caliber AA guns were equipped with a stereoscopic rangefinder. And in the "producing weapon stats for [MATG] it sights this as a reason for assigning it tech level two. This, and John told me about it when explaining Tech levels to me many years ago, is why I mentioned the 'technology bit' as influencing the weapon cost. The variables in the formulas are not something folks new to the MATG rules might know or care about.
After doing just a few minutes of research it becomes clear that all German AA guns were provided this type of tool. But most tanks of WWII, and specifically the Tiger I & II were not equipped with such in the turret. The internet tells me that the Tiger II had the "Turmzielfernrohr 9d monocular sight" and the data I saw indicated it was very good - easily justifying the max range of 25".
So it seems the game designer chose to simplify all AA guns of 40mm and less to a fixed range of 10" except the German 88mm (40"), the UK's 3.7" (30"), the Italian 90mm (25"), and the Soviet 85mm (20"). And he only gave the German and UK weapons the 10.2 rule. Without doing a lot more research I can only speculate that the Italian and Soviet crews were either not equipped with this better sight or weren't trained very thoroughly prior to having to use them. I'm curious and will look into it further in the future. I would be surprised if an AA gun crew of any nationality didn't have this type of tool, as to me (with hindsight), it makes so much sense and they are so easy to make.
As to your point on different stats for seemingly the same weapon system I've noticed these types of discrepancies with many systems in the data. Unfortunately the game designer is no longer with us, but when asked in the past he always had an answer. Including the one I mentioned in an earlier post, "if you don't like it change it". Mr. Christensen, the author of the MS rules may know also, I'll ask.
Those with very good knowledge of details of many weapons, ammunition, doctrine, etc may be able to shed more light on those discrepancies than I can and I'm thankful when they do.
All AA batteries had rangefinders but not one for each gun. The AA battery was organizsed for barrage AA fire not for single gun aiming.
In direct AT firing it was each gun for itself. If you look at photographs of 88 in AT firing you will see, in most of them, a man with bunocular observinbg the field like for any other ATG. This man was at a certain distance from the gun in order to folow the target and not be blinded by the dust cloud due by the blast of the gun firing.
So a battery in AT role may have used the rangefinder but only as a general evaluation of targets distance not for aimig the AT fire.
Note that at normal AT range. the Flak 36 had an error in height of 1 meter for an error in range of 200 meters, so had quite a margin of error in distance evaluation.
Wow! What a response. After all this input ... I'm not sure what to think!
This I just did: I lined up the Flak 88 and both Tiger turrets to compare barrel lengths, aware that I can't see all of the turret-mounted guns. The Tiger II's barrel easily outreaches the Flak's and the Tiger I's may be longer (by a little), too. Still, I think the Flak's large crew, optics, and visibility (i.e., they're not cooped up in a small box) favors accuracy and rate of fire. so I'm upping the Flak's value to that of the Tiger I.
Clearly Tammy, your knowledge of the equipment far exceeds mine, that is very cool. And it makes complete sense that the battery was trained in AA fire. I have felt, for some time, that the AAG's, when used on ground targets, should likely have different ranges than for aircraft, it would just mean more special rules and stats. And that's OK.
GR I think it is entirely justifiable to change the AP value of the 88mm AAG and the Soviet 85mm for that matter, as long as you adjust the points to go with them. See my above posts for representative suggestions as to those values. Or make up your own.
Just be careful, one can fixate on one aspect of a weapon systems historical data that "means this or that value should be adjusted". When in game play the weapon works fine.
My own point of obsession is the soviet SU122 and especially the SU/ISU152 self propelled guns. I think they ought to be more effective at short range (<6" away) against AFV's, as I have many sources that confirm they could knock the turret off a Tiger or Panther and/or cause so much internal spalling that the crews would be killed or incapacitated. Yet one must be VERY lucky to achieve this result with the rules as written. I think, if I've got all the rules right it can only be done with a side shot to the Tiger or Panther and then its a roll on the -2 table (assuming no terrain issues) and they can only get a Disrupted result (which does indicate long term damage to the target platoon). I think this result is OK, but if the SU/ISU 152's AP went up by 1 or 2 at <6" I think it would be better,but they'd still need a side shot.
At the same time I think, the written values work and perhaps the writers of my sources were being a little generous. After all the conditions on a proving ground test range must be different than the conditions in an ISU when 4 Tigers are 1000m away and shooting at you! Your insane (and maybe drunk) SU commander is yelling "Drive Closer", the Russian equivalent of "WTF?" has got to be going through the driver's mind.
So am I being too generous with my optional rule? I have not play tested this option yet but I'm still considering it.
But, back to the topic, the large AAG's, with dedicated AP rounds, make total sense to increase to me.
What's the rationale? I know the Flak36 doesn't suffer as much from range but that doesn't offset a difference of two columns on the CRT.
An AP of 11makes more sense. 
Once again, great answers! Much appreciated.