Actually flak is just bad all round!

[Finkeren]

I once saw a Russian flak plan for an airbase from some manual - there were 25 guns, not 6. Try that. Also some were 25mm for higher rate of fire.

 

See how well you do against 25 guns then report back.

 

I think it's very well balanced in BoS, considering, that a real life attack on a well defended air field would involve at least 25 bombers, not just a maximum of 6.

[Brano]

FLAK= Flugzeug Abwehr Kanone = it is not ment to shoot planes down from the sky directly/primarly.It is ment to force them either to change heading/altitude/speed/formation thus rendering their attack less acurate/ineffective/void.

[Finkeren]

FLAK= Flugzeug Abwehr Kanone = it is not ment to shoot planes down from the sky directly/primarly.It is ment to force them either to change heading/altitude/speed/formation thus rendering their attack less acurate/ineffective/void.

 

Exactly. But if you don't heed the warning and continue flying in straight lines or circle above the target area, they're still gonna get you sooner or later.

 

Which, coincidentally, is pretty much what happens in BoS. 

[Brano]

Real anti-aircraft means were at disposal only after the war.Radar guided standard small calibre cannons (like soviet ZSU-23 Shilka) or rockets (radar/IR guided) As predecessors,we can consider only small calibre cannon automatic/semiautomatic installations (up to 40mm like Bofors) as only they had some decent chance to shot down low flying aircrafts = direct aim at target.

Large calibers like soviet 76 or 85mm and german 88mm and 128mm were real FLAK installations ment to do,what FLAK is ment to do

[unreasonable]

How long have you been playing the campaign, and what level pilot are you?

 

If you are still on level 3 - 4 or thereabouts, the flak will be sparse and at the lowest skill level, making them pretty much a non-threat.

 

However: Once you start progressing to level 7 and above, the flak becomes quite deadly, absolutely requiring that you make a quick entry and exit over the target area and that you take out any AAA armed trucks in a supply collumn first or they will take you down on the next pass.

 

I think the flak in BoS is very nicely done, ranging from completely harmless to a near certain death sentence depending on the situation and skill level of the gun crews. 

 

As for one of the specific points you're making: Yes, the heavy AAA rarely ever hits anything. That's absolutely realistic. The RLM calculated that even the Flak-88 batteries that protected German cities (which operated in carefully coordinated batteries and were aimed using advanced radar technology and which fired at large formations of aircraft flying mostly in a straight line) used an average of 10,000 shells to bring down 1 (one!) aircraft. In BoS we are talking about single guns with no special equipment taking aim at single aircraft (or very small formations) often flying in irregular patterns. Of course they're not hitting anything!

 

My view exactly , I would just add that since heavy AAA is an area weapon, whether used in predicted fire or barrage fire, the chances of a hit with any given shot were more or less proportional to the numbers of aircraft in the formation, up to a certain maximum contained in the airspace that would count as the target area.  Only a proportion of the "firing opportunities" would be against one aircraft: indeed in the west they would often (usually) be against a massed bomber formation or a night bomber stream: in either case the zone into which the AAA was firing would usually contain several aircraft.

 

This makes it hard to determine what a realistic rate of loss should be, since we might know the numbers of shells expended and the shootdowns, but we have to guess the average number of aircraft in the target formation.

 

IMHO, however, the heavy AAA in BoS is too accurate given the primitive equipment of the time, and I expect that if someone were to set up a test scenario comparable to some documented historical occasion the losses incurred would be three or four times higher than predicted: but I could be wrong about this: interesting to see if anyone can construct plausible test missions to determine the shells expended/shootdown ratio.

 

The OP might reflect that a loss rate of 10% for a bomber formation might not seem like much in game terms, but this is a catastrophic average loss rate for a bomber force expected to carry out sustained operations. Possibly justifiable for cheap single engine ground attack, if you are ruthless enough.....

 

(I hate the accuracy depends on pilot level mechanic - it has been a major contributor to my stopping playing SP  )

[LukeFF]

Real anti-aircraft means were at disposal only after the war.Radar guided standard small calibre cannons (like soviet ZSU-23 Shilka) or rockets (radar/IR guided) As predecessors,we can consider only small calibre cannon automatic/semiautomatic installations (up to 40mm like Bofors) as only they had some decent chance to shot down low flying aircrafts = direct aim at target. Large calibers like soviet 76 or 85mm and german 88mm and 128mm were real FLAK installations ment to do,what FLAK is ment to do

 

Well, there was also the proximity fuse used in American AAA, and that technology was pretty darn advanced for WWII. 

[Wulf]

FLAK= Flugzeug Abwehr Kanone = it is not ment to shoot planes down from the sky directly/primarly.It is ment to force them either to change heading/altitude/speed/formation thus rendering their attack less acurate/ineffective/void.

 

 

No, you fail to grasp the distinction between light, medium and heavy flak.  The type of flak you were likely to encounter typically depended on the target being defended and the likely nature of the threat to that target.

 

Cities and industrial areas threatened by high altitude heavy bombing would typically be defended by concentrations of 128 mm Flak 40s and 88 mm Flak 37/38/41 types.  That arrangement obviously wouldn't work very well for shipping, for example, which was more likely to come under attack from low level torpedo bombers  and long range medium bombers so it was more likely to be defended in the main with 37 mm Flak 43 type weapons and/or 20 mm Flak 30/38 type weapons on single, twin or quad mountings.  The 20 mm and 37 mm Flak guns were typically direct fire weapons designed to deal with low level threats.  The 88 mm Flak and the 128 mm Flak were typically indirect fire,  barrage weapons .  However, individual batteries could and often did take on direct fire duties in daylight using ranging information supplied by gun layers.  Also, with the development on radar prediction, individual batteries of heavy Flak (88 and 128 mm) could and often did engage individual target at very high altitudes.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Wulf

[Cybermat47]

Well, there was also the proximity fuse used in American AAA, and that technology was pretty darn advanced for WWII.

 

How did that work? Was it magnetic, like Kriegsmarine torpedoes? However they did it, I'm impressed

[unreasonable]

How did that work? Was it magnetic, like Kriegsmarine torpedoes? However they did it, I'm impressed

The VT fuze was Doppler radar: actually another invention handed over to the US during the war because the UK manufacturing base did not have the capability to mass produce the gizmos that the scientists in the universities were inventing. It ended up being used in artillery shells as well allowing airburst barrages which are truly scary to look at if you are an infantryman. Apparently British AAA units used it to shoot down V1s as well.

 

 

The Wikipedia entry for "proximity fuze" is pretty interesting if you are into this kind of stuff.

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

http://www.dos4ever.com/EF50/EF50.html

 

https://youtu.be/6-D592VR4RU

Edited June 17, 2015 by 71st_Mastiff

[F/JG300_Gruber]

 

 

Don't think to Flak as a laser beam anti aircraft weapon.

 

Despite the heavy fire, I don't see any engine smoking here.

 

I think in BoS, these guns are already effective enough to ruin your bombing day if you wander too low...

[Urra]

Don't think to Flak as a laser beam anti aircraft weapon. Despite the heavy fire, I don't see any engine smoking here. I think in BoS, these guns are already effective enough to ruin your bombing day if you wander too low...

Nice shot.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

That shot is now my new desktop when I get home. I hope its high rez

[heinkill]

The best flak experience I have had in a game was microprose B17,the sound was awesome and scary especially when the box barrage came up.

 

+1 to that! The crack of the flak exploding, schrapnel ripping through the skin of your B17s, the plane next to you catching fire and falling into the one below it, crew members dropping in pools of blood...

 

 

H

 

PS in fairness during the beta stage a lot of us complained that the flak was too deadly, and the devs adjusted...

[Sokol1]

[Wolf8312]

Yeah that’s true. I would much prefer if BOS had a campaign wherein you could choose the option to play more akin to real life. If you die you are dead and must go back to the start. If you crash land in enemy territory likewise, the war is over, and if you crash land (etc.) in your own territory you get another shot at another mission.

 

I personally find day Z to be pretty tedious for the very reason it is so damned amazing when you do finally -after about 6 days of walking- make enemy contact. The immersion is incredible because they give you so much to lose. 

 

Now of course this wouldn’t work with a game like BOS but I think they should at least try to give the player something to lose.

 

I accept I am probably wrong about the flak in terms of realism but to be honest the reason I made this post in the first place is because I feel that the SP game rather lacks tension and certainly immersion. Cant speak for MP as its dead to be honest.

 

Even an unrealistic 3 lives and then its game over approach would ironically make the game more realistic for me as in giving me more to lose it would probably make me fly much more realistically, as without giving too much of a rats ass about dying I don’t really strategize all that much and fly missions like a dare devil loon.

 

And gnome those pictures are amazing, to think what those guys had to go through (well flak obviously). Imagine preparing for a mission like that having somehow survived the last one. Man I'd call in sick!

 

Excuse my ignorance but are those American Planes flying over Germany?

[Dakpilot]

Flack in the user made missions seems to be much more immersive,

 

There is a small example in this vid from Veteranen mission recorded by JG5 Emil, at one point you can see the flak and hear it very audibly in cockpit

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/13912-veteranenmissions/?p=268187

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[FuriousMeow]

I think there's a bit too much of an expectation of Western front AA/Flak vs what was present on the Eastern front. There were far more defenses in the West because the invasion already happened and the important areas of defense had already been beefed up with permanent installations. Stalingrad was still an actively moving front, major clusters of 88s weren't going to be placed around a temporary Army encampment. Plus the altitude of air combat in the East was very low which doesn't give much time to put up a wall of flak defense as the West since there is less time for everything. In General, there was less of everything on the Eastern front. Less large air combat battles, less permanent G2A defenses, and very little to no large bomber formations from the Russian side.

 

As far as sound, it's been beefed up in movies - most of those explosions in movies aren't even explosions but engineered sounds of varying different things. Very close flak explosion you'll get a thump/whump, you'd feel it more than you would hear it as it would be deadened by the sound of the aircraft motor, the wind, the enclosed environment, and the headset/flying helmet.

 

Even comparing what you hear outside of the cockpit of a plane's engine to what the engine sounds like inside the cockpit is completely different - which is why aircraft sounds for inside the cockpit can't be compared against the external sounds that are heard at airshows because it's just different due to the a number of factors. Like how your voice actually sounds different than what you yourself hear.

Edited June 26, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[Wulf]

I think there's a bit too much of an expectation of Western front AA/Flak vs what was present on the Eastern front. There were far more defenses in the West because the invasion already happened and the important areas of defense had already been beefed up with permanent installations. Stalingrad was still an actively moving front, major clusters of 88s weren't going to be placed around a temporary Army encampment. Plus the altitude of air combat in the East was very low which doesn't give much time to put up a wall of flak defense as the West since there is less time for everything. In General, there was less of everything on the Eastern front. Less large air combat battles, less permanent G2A defenses, and very little to no large bomber formations from the Russian side.

 

As far as sound, it's been beefed up in movies - most of those explosions in movies aren't even explosions but engineered sounds of varying different things. Very close flak explosion you'll get a thump/whump, you'd feel it more than you would hear it as it would be deadened by the sound of the aircraft motor, the wind, the enclosed environment, and the headset/flying helmet.

 

Even comparing what you hear outside of the cockpit of a plane's engine to what the engine sounds like inside the cockpit is completely different - which is why aircraft sounds for inside the cockpit can't be compared against the external sounds that are heard at airshows because it's just different due to the a number of factors. Like how your voice actually sounds different than what you yourself hear.

 

 

I agree that the type of heavy 88 and 128 mm flak deployed around German cities and industrial areas, particularly from 1943, wouldn't have existed in the East to any great extent.  . However, it would be a mistake to conclude from this that the flak that accompanied the Whermacht on its travels around Russia was anything but formidable.  The Germans (unlike most of the European armies in the late 1930's) invested heavily in the belief that flak would be a critical component in the success of any future land campaign.   Indeed, one of the only reasons the Germans were able to defeat the much heavier tanks fielded by the French in 1940 was the abundance of heavy 88 mm flak at the very forward edge of their offensive.  The Germans did much the same thing in Russia in 1941 where they were able to use their heavy flak to do what their armour couldn't -  destroy the much bigger and better tanks fielded by the Red Army.  So yeah, not the same emphasis on fixed heavy flak batteries but notwithstanding that, the flak being put up and around the German Army in the field in 1941-42 would have been intense and highly effective to say the least.     

Edited June 26, 2015 by Wulf