Hello everyone! I come forth with a variety of higher BR Anti Air options for all nations! From a basic upgrade of Anti Air gun emplacements that we have now, such as multi gun configurations and/or increases of calibre. To flak guns and a potentially very interesting event (or premium) idea, unguided anti air rocket emplacements!
I’ll divulge all of such below and please do let me know what you think, whether any of it is a good or bad idea, how better to implement some items or even different suggestions.
Anti Air guns as they’re currently implemented in game all feature one commonality amongst them, though this can arguably extend to another in conjunction with the former.
Across all factions they all feature a single gun and single barrel. This in some cases can cause potential issues when engaging “stronger” aircraft, particularly in the context of higher BRs. Such as, planes being able to shrug off hits due to better designed airframes, or merely due to being harder to hit, as higher BR aircraft tend to fly faster and are typically flown by more experienced pilots.
Though sometimes the damage that can be done isn’t due to just the enemy aircraft itself, or necessarily its pilot, or the AA guns’ calibre. The other potential problem can just be the volume of fire, i.e., how many rounds can be fired before reloading and how fast are those rounds fired in succession. As can sometimes happen with the USSR and their current AA gun, the AA 72K.
Whilst it can be very effective when an aircraft is struck, due to being chambered in a 25 mm round, unlike the other nations 20 mm guns. Its rate of fire, smaller magazine and frequent reloads can at times, leave something to be desired when pitted against the faster aircraft in the higher BRs.
My suggestion to improve upon the aforementioned potential shortcomings, is to either increase the calibre and or, amount of guns that are mounted within an AA emplacement in higher BRs (4/5). This of course can’t be without some sort of trade off in terms of the games balance, in my opinion.
As for how they should be balanced for the increase of firepower, I would suggest to reduce the distance that the lead indicator becomes visible maybe by about 25-50% or so, and/or to maybe slightly increase the radius of the lead indicator so it’s slightly less precise, as the intention of multiple guns is to saturate a larger area with oncoming fire. It would encourage players to adapt and pre-fire more often when the lead indicator isn’t present, learning to lead their shots with the experience of the lower tier AA guns.
(Or if even that was overpowered one could remove the lead indicator entirely; either way balance would have to come to fruition via testing.)
Or alternatively they could wait for planes to get closer before unloading upon enemy aircraft, though naturally this comes with the risk of the enemy having a greater likelihood of attacking their intended target.
Additionally due to these emplacements greatly increasing one’s effective firepower, naturally they’ll be more costly for engineers to build than standard AA emplacements in game currently. Maybe even requiring two or more engineers to build! Not only that, but with there being more guns they’ll need a little longer to reload and sometimes more frequently, so take care with your ammunition.
↓↓ Now to list off my suggestions for each faction in this regard ↓↓
Japan
Type 96 25 mm AT/AA gun
Also known as the Type 96 25 mm dual purpose gun, or nicknamed the “double 25” or “triple 25” depending on its configuration. It was one of the most common AA guns to see amongst the IJN, as was used extensively on ships and in fortified positions on land.
Additionally it was even at times used as an anti tank gun or even as a means to attack land based objectives throughout the pacific theatre.
Chambered to fire 25x153mm shells, firing at an effective fire rate of 110 rounds per minute and loaded with 15 round magazines.
Due to a slightly slower effective fire rate of Japan’s current AA in game of ~10 rpm less, as well as being fed via magazines with 5 rounds less, it mightn’t be the worst idea to implement the “triple 25” with appropriate balance.
“Double 25” configuration
“Triple 25” configuration
Type 4 20 mm twin AA machine cannon
If it would be preferable to not increase the calibre and to instead, simply increase the volume of fire, the most reasonable AA emplacement to suggest would likely be the Type 4 20 mm twin AA.
Around 500 Type 4 20 mm AA configurations were made throughout WW2 and it was comprised of two Type 98 20 mm AA machine cannons, the very same gun that is currently used as Japan’s engineer built AA emplacement.
USA/UK
37 mm gun M1/M1A2
The 37 mm gun M1 / M1A2 were common place as coastal defence guns often set up as AA batteries, or deployed in batteries intended to stop torpedo boats. Around 7250~ guns were produced throughout WW2.
This would be considered more of a side-grade as opposed to an upgrade of the current 20 mm oerlikon already available to the allies. Whilst it does boast a impressive 37 mm gun it does comparatively shoot much slower at ~120rpm, so careful shot placement would be a must.
M45 quad mount
A very familiar gun configuration to those acquainted with the Allies M13 MGMC. Whilst it would be a downgrade in calibre, the area saturation and effective fire rate without having to worry about overheating could certainly do some serious damage, as it peppers Axis planes into confetti.
20 mm Polsten
A direct upgrade to the oerlikon, courtesy of the UK, that didn’t trade on effectiveness, yet reduced the cost of production by plenty and the parts comprising the gun in half. They did come as single guns, but were often mounted in triple or quad mounted configurations, fed by either 30 round magazines per gun, or 60 round drum magazines.
triple gun configuration
Quad gun configuration with drum mags
Germany
3cm MK 303 Flakzwilling
A late war AA gun of Germany, produced by Krieghoff that came under consideration for replacing the 2 cm Flak and 3.7 cm Flak weapons currently used in defensive AA positions. It was even taken into consideration as the main weapon on the Flakpanzer IV “Kugelblitz”, but it was ultimately rejected. Only 222 guns were produced before the end of the war.
The 3cm MK 303 Flakzwilling, fired powerful 30x210 mm shells at a formidable fire rate of 400 rpm. Though it was only fed with 15 round clips, so reloading might be frequent, otherwise it’s an all around upgrade to the already in game Flak 38.
A Czechoslovakian repurposed 3cm MK 303 Flakzwilling
3.7 cm Flak 43
Another AA platform from late in WW2, though it’s initial design was as early as 1939. The Flak 43 came as a derivative to the previous 3.7 cm Flak 18/36 and 37, of which could also fit just fine into this suggestions position.
The Flak 43 came in both a single and double gun configurations, with a practical fire rate per gun of 180 rpm. Though the 37 mm shells only came in 8 round clips, so be sure to shoot carefully.
Double gun configuration
Single gun configuration
USSR
Tripled DshK AA Mount
Something that might be considered bit of a side-grade to the current 72-K AA emplacement already available to the USSR, though it’s one advantage would be it’s ability to saturate the air with 12.7mm rounds, without having to let up for the most part. Allowing plenty of pre-fire potential, and a good solid burst swiss-cheesing any enemy plane.
Triple DshK AA mounted on a GAZ truck
25 mm M1944 (94-KM)
Now something that is purely a direct upgrade to the in-game 72-K AA is the 94-KM. It’s essentially a twin-mounted 25 mm 72-K autocannon. Simple to understand and a simple double up of firepower!
94-KMs mounted on GAZ trucks
For the second part of my suggestion, I want to propose the implementation of a completely new buildable structure, that will feature it’s own independent and new mechanics to the game. In a way they’re already present, but only as set dressing to the battles we fight scattered all over various maps.
I digress, in saying that I propose for Flak guns to be added into the game, alongside what I will likely feature in its own suggestion post, the introduction of a whole new class of soldier with their very own squad. Sensibly being introduced into the tech tree starting at BR 3; the Flakgunner! comprised within a squad that’s a part of the 4 factions many various Flak/AA, Divisions/Battalions/Regiments respectively.
To briefly summarise in sparse detail, they’ll feature their own unique skills that assist in traversing the gun, the spotting range (lead indicator), reloading guns, the ability to mark enemy aircraft, unique voice lines for marking attackers or fighters and of course their engineers within the squad having unique buildable AA platforms.
(But for now let’s keep the discussion at the focus of the guns themselves. And leave the idea of a new soldier class on the back burner.)
As for balancing the flak guns it should be done carefully and thoughtfully in every way. They should still be useful and strong when used correctly, but they shouldn’t completely replace the types of AA platforms we have now. Furthermore, as I suggested above it could borrow some of the methods of balance I aforementioned, as well as their own unique trade offs to ensure they maintain a fair playing field for everyone.
(Additionally, I’ll just be listing one 75/76 mm gun per faction as a baseline, there may be better guns that could fill their spots, this is primarily just supposed to be a starting point.)
↓↓ Once again I shall list off my suggestions for each nation ↓↓
Japan
Japanese Type 88 75 mm AA gun
A Flak gun belonging to the IJA and serving as a replacement to the Type 11 75mm AA gun in the service of frontline combat, that at the time competed fairly equally against AA guns in use by the Western Allies. It fired 75x497mmR shells and there were over 2000 guns built.
USA/UK
Vickers Model 1931
A British AA gun that was used throughout WW2, although initially in the 1930s’ it was rejected by the British, it was then exported across the globe before the war, especially all across Europe. Though in the midst of WW2 there were use cases by British troops despite the design’s initial rejection. The primary shell size of the initial model and most exports was 75×495mmR, though Romania and Finland took it upon themselves to change the shell type to 75×561mmR and 76.2×505mmR respectively.
Germany
Bofors 75 mm Model 1929 (M/39)
The M/39 is an AA gun of Swedish origin that saw use by the Germans, the Dutch, Hungary and China in particular. The gun also served as partial inspiration for the very iconic 8.8 cm Flak 18 used by Germany throughout WW2. The M/39 fired a 75×604mmR shell.
Note that some parts are missing on this gun since it’s in a public space.
USSR
76 mm air defense gun M1938
The Soviet designed M1938 was a slight modernization of the 76 mm air defense gun M1931, featuring a slightly improved barrel and new carriage to hold and transport the gun. It was chambered to fire 76.2x558 mmR shells.
Now for my final suggestion in all of this and perhaps the biggest curve ball idea, something very niche and unique. And I think could warrant becoming “Reinforcements Received” material, and or premium options.
I’m talking about bringing Unguided Anti Air Rocket Launchers!
The basic premise would be said systems being buildable structures, that can be very powerful when used correctly, but at the same time, they’ll be the most costly structures to build and reload once fully depleted of rockets, with a very lengthy reload time.
These Unguided AA Rocket Systems will need a particularly careful balance to ensure they’re not the ‘be all, end all’ of Anti Air. They should be very deadly, but very costly and carefully used.
I understand this is a very very out of the box idea, possibly one that is even controversial or shouldn’t be added, though nonetheless I will lay forward some examples for your consideration.
At the very least I’ll be showing you something that I hope is at the very least interesting, so with that said here is my last suggestion for this thread.
↓↓One last time, I shall list off my suggestions for each nation↓↓
Japan
Type 4 Incendiary Rocket (RoSa)
A 28 tube 12cm rocket system that uses incendiary elements for the warheads of its rockets, developed late into the war seeing limited use mostly within the IJN.
USA/UK
Z Battery Ground Projector
A British short range rocket system that was both deployed by the Navy and ground forces, though the latter was primary for the home guard. It launched 76 mm rockets that came as two variants, one being a wire barrage and proximity fuze HE.
The No.4 Projector, which held up to 9 rockets
Germany
Henschel Hs 297 Föhn
The Föhn, also called the 7.3 cm Raketen Sprenggranate, the 7.3 cm Föhn-Gerät, or even a nickname given by the US Allies the “Beercrate flak”. It fired 72.9 calibre rockets with a total length of 28 cm. In total the Föhn held 35 rockets that it could use against Allied Aircraft.
US troops with a captured Föhn
USSR
Katyusha??? (Or something else?)
Let me begin by saying my apologies. In my own personal efforts I’ve not found a suitable option to fill this spot that I’m perfectly satisfied with.
I did find mention of a wire barrage Katyusha rocket, that was under development and field testing under designation RZS-132. It supposedly even took down a couple planes, though I’ve not been able to confirm much.
Maybe there’s a variant of the Katyusha rockets that have been tested with a timed, or proximity fuze but I unfortunately couldn’t find it.
Sorry USSR fans, if I do manage to find something or if someone is able to bring forth a suggestion to fill this spot I will put it here.
Well, that brings us to the end of my AA mega suggestion. Thank you to everyone who sat through and read my ramblings. Whether a little, a lot or all of it, it’s greatly appreciated and I hope you enjoyed.
Maybe you think all of this is a good idea, a bad idea, some good some bad, or you know something better all in all or just here and there. Either way I sincerely would love to hear your thoughts if you have any.
As for my personal thoughts on AA in enlisted currently? I think it’s not too bad. I wouldn’t hate to see some new AA vehicles or some 75 mm and under flak guns some day. But otherwise I’ll manage relatively okay I think. Though I am completely open minded to the idea of new things to mess around with, new mechanics and the lot so I say why not. The only way to truly ever know is with some solid testing.
But anyhow, once again thank you all for reading.
With much love.
