German 88mm AT gun usage in game

[plloyd1010]

I am not sure that my rules would make this discussion very different. We have discussed the issue of bombardment weapons not effecting fleeing, such as the absurd possibility of fleeing in the direction of artillery, or in this case, heavy AA guns.

Another incongruity is the fact that heavy AA guns may take opportunity fire against vehicles, but not against personnel. Just something else to think about.

[Stx11]

If this really bothers you so much a simple house rule would be that 88/AA guns can only fire directly but use the Bombardment table. This would eliminate your concerns about indirect fire capability while keeping the combat factors in line with the designer's intentions for expected effectiveness.

[cjsiam]

If this really bothers you so much a simple house rule would be that 88/AA guns can only fire directly but use the Bombardment table. This would eliminate your concerns about indirect fire capability while keeping the combat factors in line with the designer's intentions for expected effectiveness.

Of Course, that's why the discussion happens.....
 
There are a few things though, so I think it's more then just a single rule
1) Direct fire---should be possible---at least at the 88mm AT kind of range and power
2) Indirect Fire -- might need some consideration for trajectory issues --- firing indirect closely behind obstacles
3) Impact on Fleeing/Combat movement---have to consider them Direct fire Arty...

I think that would cover it....the unit just has a DF as well as BF factor....as well as AT....cause it kinda DID.
The system has the mechanic to handle it---the unit counters as designed may not---but that's not a sufficient impediment to redress the
  "conflicts with reality" that ensue by ignoring these aspects of this type of units performance in field---the system can handle it...and big boys
can remember the issues of DF not on the counter 

all good.....

[saracv3]

CJ mentions an important number: 6000m; the longest AFV kill in history. Recorded in 1943 by a Nashorn on the Eastern Front. The Nashorn was armed with an 88/43. This is almost an incredulous fact. But this legendary tank destroyer has a range of 20 hexes in Panzerblitz (4000m; each hex is 200m, same as PG), a game that Dr. Mike is close to. So why is the 88 AT range so much less in PG. The field version of the 88 was hauled around with what appears to be about a 53’ trailer.. I believe it probably stored the three different types of ammo; AT, HE and AA. An interesting little research project here.

It could be a special rule to specify what type of ammo the 88 uses in each scenario if research can establish that information. I also suspect the setup/breakdown time of the 88 is a bit more than a 37mm. Yes, I’m in favor of an 88 rule.

[plloyd1010]

I am aware of long-range kills by the 88 pak43, and its vehicle variants. They are mostly done from elevated positions. The issue is that clear terrain is not usually barren, flat terrain. There is almost always undulations, brush, ground shimmer and dust which constrain spotting ranges. Spotting out to 2½ km is pretty good. The point being that building a grand tactical rule around an extreme event is not good from, the simulation side.

PB/PL range and movement factors reflect the upper end of the subject's statistics quite well. Attack and defense factors are sketchier, because it is a ratio based combat system. PG (Brian Kipple) took a different approach, assuming a subsystem tactical doctrine. Generally it works well, high profile movement is questionable in relation to historical AARs that I have read, but generally it holds up. An 88 pak43 hitting a platoon of T-34s at -1, at a range of 3km, not too unreasonable.