Wow. Thank you.
Anti tank guns
-
As the unit represented by the “tank” piece is, let’s say, three armored divisions, then what would be represented by the AA as anti-tank gun? Maybe an unlimited number of tank-killer regiments? Well, not unlimited if they get just the single shot, but certainly a large force that reflects an uncanny ability by the Soviets to mobilize mechanized ground forces to counter the maneuvers of German armored divisions.
As anti-aircraft gunnery, the AA piece represents a broad array of defenses capable of filling the skies with flak. Am I way off base historically to assume that such gunnery would be easier to muster and utilize than would an anti-tank force spread across a thousand-mile front?
(either way, sounds like it might be a fun house rule to playtest)
-
If you had 2 aa guns, could you use one for each?
-
what about unlimited aa guns, you can use them however you want, but they can only fire on a maximum of x units or something. start with x is 6 then do some careful complex math to calculate the right value for x so that buying aa/tank guns or infantry varies from game to game. Also russia has 4 aa guns to start with, this makes the german bomber worth a lot, it’s loss means the aa guns are free…
-
Feels kinda right that the maximum shots an AA gun could fire in such a scenario would be 6. One pass only at up to 6 aircraft – but it still seems odd to deliver the anti-tank function to these units that cost only as much as a single tank to begin with! It’s like a massive cheat or something. Plus, anti-tank units active on the battlefield would not occupy fixed positions; in other words, they would be capable of attack. We have only been discussing defensive use of the AA piece so far, right?
-
The W@W rule regarding "anti tank guns in my oppinion is crap and I don’t use it.
I supose this is in reference to “88s” which were used as AAA and as anti tank artillary. However the AA guns in A&A are representing not only Fixed AA positions but mobile AAA batteries as well as figher defences.
And when you consider the diference in numbers of tanks in a armored division vs Fighers or bombers in a squadron it doesn’t ad up.
I also tend to think that anti tank is considered in the increased defenceive value on Infantry.
Just my opinion
-
Well reasoned, Mr. Dezrtfish – I guess this just goes to show that, as the saying goes, fish really is brain food!
-
The AA piece would serve as the anti tank gun…In WW2,AT guns were used by almost every combatant(I dont know if Japan had one or not)…The 88 was the best AA\AT gun by far in WW2 and was used in all of the major battles on the Eastern front…IMHO,the game need some sort of counter-balance to the mass armor theme,plus the AT gun reflects reality…I think I read some say the anti-tank gun option in W@W is “crap”.I think that is way wrong.In W@W,Germany gets five turns to build armor plus SS tanks…If Russia didnt have AT guns,they would get steamrolled every time…I do agree the rule can be frustrating because the AA\AT gun shoots before EACH round of combat and can inflict maximum damage but thats what makes W@W challenging…
-
I was the one that said the at rule is crap. Of course that is my opinion, but Russia doesn’t need it to defend it’s self.
First off they have the ability to build 40 Infantry in those five turns, plus if played properly Russia has the time to conquer quite a few neutral countries as well as a piece of China. As soon as they go to war and war time production the 2IPC Infantry can quickly bog the germans down.
Of course this is realy a discution that belongs in the varient forum. If you would like to dicuss it further I suggest you post the topic there.
Basicly the AT rule shifts the balence of the game away from Germany.
-
@mat:
If you had 2 aa guns, could you use one for each?
Well, the rule for AA guns in A&AE is that you get ONE shot (vs. each attacking air – or in this case armor – unit), no matter how many AA guns you may have in the territory under attack.
What do youse all think of this rule?
Also – these experienced marauders say that in W@W you get to fire for each ROUND of combat, rather than just prior to the give-and-take of regular combat, as the rule is for AA guns in A&AE.
Maybe the best houseplay for A&AE is to take the AA/AT variation from W@W but limit it to ONE round of firing, pre-combat?
-
Yes.The rule would be just like the AA rule in A&A,with the exception that the AA gamepiece now has the ability to destroy airplanes OR armor, OR,if the attacker has armor and air attacking simultaneously,the defender chooses either one…Example: Attacker moves two planes and seven tanks into a territory containing an AA\AT gun…The defender decides to go for the armor and rolls seven dice for the armor, all hits are immediately removed from the board…Now play continues normally…It doesnt radically change the game,but can whittle down an armored spearhead before it gets to Moscow,maybe just enough for Russia to hang on a couple more rounds before going down…
-
ZZZ wrote:
mat wrote:
If you had 2 aa guns, could you use one for each?
Well, the rule for AA guns in A&AE is that you get ONE shot (vs. each attacking air – or in this case armor – unit), no matter how many AA guns you may have in the territory under attack.
I mean could you use one for antiaircraft and one for antitank shots?
-
Well, be pragmatic: use what works.
Discuss with fellow-players (enemies) prior to play, and go with the rule variations you like. If all agree to allow use of one AA vs. air and another in same territory vs. armor, great!
Just please be sure to let us all know via this forum how it playtested out!!Hey – which history buff can tell us what the Russians generally used for AA & antitank? (we all know about the all-purpose German 88s)
-
Well for start. I don’t like the aa gun option to destroy tanks it makes it only harder for the germans to win. And the game is balanced already, but anyone can play the game with rules they like to play it with…
ZimZaxZeo: The russians used the all purpose 75mm anti-tank gun, which was similar in british and american use. (Although the british had a 76mm anti-tank gun, which they installed in their tanks later in the war, because 75mm couldn’t do squat against tigers/panthers).
But the russians used AA gun was 85mm. Which they used against tanks as well, it was maybe the second best anti-air gun in the war. (88mm is too popular). The british had 3’ inch gun.
As for the use of 88mm and AA guns against armor, they weren’t that practical. Because the ammunition what they used was explosive designed against air planes. Against well armored tank the ammunition only exploded against the armor plate or bounced off the armor to explode beside the tank. Doing no harm. The ammunition that anti-tank guns used was designed to penetrate the armor and explode inside and to use those ammunition you had to use a little different designed gun. The AA guns weren’t designed for that. But because they were so big guns, their ammunitions were powerful and could penetrate armor still…
When the germans discovered the use for 88mm against tanks they designed -43 anti-tank gun of it.
I ain’t no real history freak. And I could be wrong in many ways what I said. But that is what I have learned and think how they worked…
-
I believe there were two basic types of rounds used in the German 88–a high explosive used for AA and also against soft targets and a solid shot designed to penetrate armor.This solid shot had a tungsten spike at its core and could destroy any armor at a 1000 yds…I believe they could fire between 16-20 rounds a minute…Devastating firepower…
-
Good Lord! (not to mention Gee Whiz!) At that rate of fire, coupled with the potency of the shot, this must have indeed unleashed devastation. You are saying that a seasoned crew could fire every three seconds!?
Shades of Patrick O’Brian and Cap’n Lucky Jack Aubrey!
-
Yes…As incredible as it sounds,its true…I think there was a five or seven man crew and they were able to ram the rounds home pretty fast…I believe the round weighed about 22 lbs…All of the Allies feared this gun…
-
Well first i think your overdoing the germans ability to fire a 88… :o
A well trained AT crew would normally get 2-3 shots of a minute (4 if they didnt care about aiming).But yes they were feared, but anyway…
The 88 AT gun was NOT the same as the 88 AA gun, the only time they used the AA gun as AT gun was in the Africa campaign.
After that the mobile and stationary 88 AT could NOT rotate upwards (why should or would they look for tanks there?) and the AA could not be (as mentioned earlier) used against the massive Allied tanks.
Also, the AA guns was normally of lower caliber than the AT guns… to give a higher rate of fire and hence a higher killing power (planes arent that armored).
But history becomes myth, and suddently all German AT and AA was 88’s
Anyway, i like the rules as they are, not think the allied needs more help…
just my thoughts :)
-
But another issue…
There properly are a reason why AT isn’t in the game. Why need it, you have arty instead, otherwise there are alot of special units that should or could be included (German Sturm pioneers, British commandos, paratroopers, the german magnetic minefield that covered more or less all of the coast of England, elite panzer formations to name a few).
If the AT unit was included the russian forces would be more or less a wall of metal, and the germans dont have that much protection from the allies.
If things should be more correct there should be more space between US and Morocco, Russia should have the largest airforce (but they should only att/def with 2/2 max. (after all the russian airforce was the largest but after 2 weeks they were destroyed)).
Fortress Europe should be in place (which would stop any raiding force in europe, because the main guns would destroy as much allied ships as they would destroy troops… mmhh could create intresting games :)
you of couse could use the models from A&AP + A&A to create these special units (and they would create some very long games of trying to claim a foothold in europe and to force the other countries into submission) :)
well just thoughts
-
Also, the AA guns was normally of lower caliber than the AT guns… to give a higher rate of fire and hence a higher killing power (planes arent that armored).
I’m no expert, but is’nt the designation 88, as in Flak 88, the calibre of the weapon? So the AA gun was of calibre 88mm and if you then have a 88 AT gun… shouldnt that be the same calibre?
Then the munitions could be of different lenght and, and also under sized for precision.//Samael
-
I said “Normally”. The Wirbelwind for one is Quad 20 mm, and yes for city fortification there would have been both :)
But i still dont think that the allied need AT guns.
Suggested Topics
