Home Forums WWII East Front Tank Action—A Sergeant's War playtest in 6mm

Tagged: , ,

This topic contains 12 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by John D Salt John D Salt 2 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #13974

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    I ran another playtest of A Sergeant’s War, my WWII rules-in-development.  Today’s game was a test of the armor/vehicle rules.  We played 2 games in about 90 minutes, each one with about 16 vehicles in total, Germans vs. Soviets, in 6mm scale.

    In the first game, a company of T-34s advanced on 3 Pz IV-Hs and a single Tiger.  The Germans gave one half of the company a shellacking—knocking out 4 of 6 tanks—but on the other flank, the T-34s got in close and made mincemeat of the Germans at close range.  The Germans withdrew, with one Pz IV knocked out, one abandoned, the Tiger damaged and abandoned, and the remaining Pz IV retreating.

    In the second game, we used hidden unit markers to add a degree of limited intelligence.  In that game, the Soviets lost a platoon of T-70s when they moved up against what they thought were several dummy counters, but was actually the main German effort.  A swirling fight commenced, which saw 7 T-34s, 2 Pz IVs, and 1 StuG knocked out or abandoned.  The Soviets broke and ran.

    Here are some pics—below I summarize some of the rules for vehicles in A Sergeant’s War.  More pics and summary at my blog, http://thedogsbrush.blogspot.com/2014/12/eastern-front-tank-action-sergeants-war.html

    In A Sergeant’s War, the “battle space” represents an area maybe 500 meters across—firefight range for infantry, and knife-fighting range for armor.  At those ranges, even heavy tanks are vulnerable to medium tanks and guns.  Thus, there isn’t as much granularity between armor and gun types, as I just don’t think there was at really close ranges.

    The turn sequence is simple stuff: Side A fires, moves, engages in infantry fire fights, and then another fire phase, during which any units that haven’t fired or moved yet may fire.  Enemy units may use defensive fire against your movement.  There’s a number of rules restricting this for infantry, but for vehicles, it’s simple—enemy movement in your LOS, you get a shot.

    Shooting is done by comparing unit qualities—hitting a target of better training/experience than yourself is harder than hitting a target of inferior ability.  The to-hit roll is further modified by movement, cover, and a few special weapon modifiers.  All rolls are done with a D6.

    Once hit, the target rolls a D6 “Damage Test”, modifying the roll by your armor and the attacker’s anti-tank rating.  This yields a range of effects, from Morale Test, to Damage, to Destroyed.

    Damage is handled a bit differently than in other games—your vehicle is out of action until “recovered,” meaning that the crew have gotten their wits together and have the vehicle back in fighting shape.  Failing to recover your vehicle twice means that the crew abandons it.  Multiple damage results destroy a vehicle.  Damage thus represents a wide range of effects—crew casualties, minor or major damage to the vehicle, or the crew being concussed or confused.

    Once your vehicle force has taken too many casualties, vehicles may start to bug out and retreat from the board.

    Vehicle-only games play very fast, and involve a lot of movement and relatively few dice rolls.

    Thanks for looking and reading!

    #14006
    Tim
    Tim
    Participant

    I like your turn structure.  I also really like the way you describe how you “kill” vehicles.  I think that would go a long way to representing the “shoot until you are sure it’s dead” the crews would do.

    Your rules title is very nice, though I hope you don’t mind commenting that, for me at least, it brings to mind a crew commander point of view.  Doesn’t really matter though.  I look forward to hearing more.

     

     

    #14022
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Damage is handled a bit differently than in other games—your vehicle is out of action until “recovered,” meaning that the crew have gotten their wits together and have the vehicle back in fighting shape. Failing to recover your vehicle twice means that the crew abandons it. Multiple damage results destroy a vehicle. Damage thus represents a wide range of effects—crew casualties, minor or major damage to the vehicle, or the crew being concussed or confused.

    I’d suggest not using the word “recovered” for this rules mechanism, as recovering a damaged vehicle means something quite different in real life. Isn’t this essentially a morale check?

    I tend to doubt that anyone in an AFV would be concussed by any hit that didn’t also knock out the vehicle. Recall that 25-pdr HE detonatng on Churchill decks did not cause even minor discomfort, and there is a case of a Cromwell surviving a 15cm Nebelwefer hit without the crew being concussed.

    What are the relative proportions of damaging and killing hits? I believe that about 1.5 penetrating hits were required on average to knock out a tank. The “keep shooting until it burns” effect Tim mentions is undoubtedly a real one, but can be achieved quite easily by having the owning player roll for damage, and not reveal the result unless the target is seen to burn, or the shooter can see the crew bail out.

    All the best,

    John.

    #14047

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    Thanks for your comments!

    @Tim:  Thanks!  I feel that armored vehicles, at least in WWII, have a weird issue of both survivable—you’re always reading about needing multiple hits to take out—but also fragility, with tank units suffering attrition quite rapidly.  So I tried to balance that.  As for the title, thanks! I remember, somewhere, reading a journalist refering to the fighting as ” a sergeant’s war”—it’s always.  I suppose I could just google it, but that would take the mystery away.

    @john: YOu know, every time I have typed out “recovered”, I keep thinking, “I don’t want anyone to think I mean or am confused with actual vehicle recovery.” 🙂 With your comment my concerns were realized and I will change it.

    As for concussion—I meant the term more loosely (inaccurately) than literally concussed.  The damage result represents a variety of effects, including crew confusion and casualties.  Damage is more severe in the game than a regular morale check, because it will put the vehicle temporarily out of action and “recovering” from it is more difficult than regular failure of morale.

    As for the Cromwell that you mentioned—was it immediately able to fight the moment after that Nebelwerfer hit? Were they in contact with the enemy, or under indirect fire out of direct contact with the enemy? I imagine the dust and smoke alone could have at least “suppressed” the crew (if we using a regular gaming term, to mean that they were momentarily too distracted or otherwise affected to fight for a few moments).

    As for the likelihood of a kill vs damage vs morale, if all else is equal:

    1  Destroyed

    2-3 Damaged (with a better than even chance of abandoning the vehicle later)

    4-6 Morale

    7+ (caused by modifiers) No effect

    I basically wanted damage to be significant, but with an eye toward “if the vehicle is still more or less running, and the crew sticks around, they’re still a threat.”

    Thanks for your comment—appreciate it.

    #14066
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    As for the Cromwell that you mentioned—was it immediately able to fight the moment after that Nebelwerfer hit? Were they in contact with the enemy, or under indirect fire out of direct contact with the enemy? I imagine the dust and smoke alone could have at least “suppressed” the crew (if we using a regular gaming term, to mean that they were momentarily too distracted or otherwise affected to fight for a few moments).

    AFAIR it was out of contact, under distant bombardment; and, yes, I certainly think there was a “What the f*** was that?” moment before they carried on as usual.

    As for the likelihood of a kill vs damage vs morale, if all else is equal:

    1 Destroyed

    2-3 Damaged (with a better than even chance of abandoning the vehicle later)

    4-6 Morale

    7+ (caused by modifiers) No effect

    I basically wanted damage to be significant, but with an eye toward “if the vehicle is still more or less running, and the crew sticks around, they’re still a threat.”

    I imagine that there would be modifiers either way for the power of the attacking weapon relative to the strength of the armour being attacked. If a typical hit was resolved with a -1 or -2 modifier, then the number of penetrating hits required for a knockout would be quite close to the reported historical average of 1.5.

    Is “damaged” a single category, or do you distinguish F-kills, M-kills and other categories?

    I’m guessing from your use of 1d6 and the description of the damage probabilities that you are using fairly broad classes of weapon power and armour strength. Might you be kind enough to give an idea of the way these are applied to, say, the typical guns and armour to be found on the Russian Front circa 1943?

    All the best,

    John.

    #14085

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    John, you basically just roll on the damage chart, adding or subtracting your own armor (in this case, “+” armor is heavier armor) and adding or subtracting the attacker’s anti-tank rating (a “-” AT rating is a better AT gun).

    I feel that at the close ranges of tank combat, the granularity of armor differences–and the effectiveness of armor generally—is less of an issue.  Your Tiger is still a Tiger, but at 250 meters, even a Sherman or T-34 are a threat.  But I also want armor to be survivable—more likely to be lost due to morale and damage rather than outright destruction. I like having my toys on the table longer.

    Some common stats, for the Eastern Front 1943:

    Vehicle         Armor       AT

    Pz IV-H        +0/-1           -1

    Tiger I            +1/+0         -2

    Pz III              -1/-2          +0 (long 50mm)

    T-34/76         +0/-1         +0

    T-70                -1/-2          +1

    Halftrack      -2/-2          –

    Ferdinand      +2/+1       -3

    (The two numbers for armor are Front/Flank-Rear)

    I still have to dig around for more armor/gun data.

    Thanks for the interest and engagement.

    #14092
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    I’m going to suggest that the values you have given would correspond very closely to grading armour thickness and the penetrating power of guns in bands of about an inch (to use a quaint and obsolete unit).

    Using such a categorisation, armour bands would correspond rather well with, for example, the successive upgradings of armour the Germans used for ther medium tanks. At the start of the war, these were armoured to a level of some 30mm, a touch over an inch. The next generation were armoured to 50mm, or two inches. The final models of Pz III and Pz IV were armoured to 70mm and 80mm respectively, or about three inches.

    Gun classes would by my calculation come out something like this:

    Rating 0: Anti-tank rifles, 12.7mm or 15mm HMGs, 20mm cannon.

    Rating 1: Light anti-tank guns such as 3.7cm PaK 36, KwK36, KwK34(t) or KwK38(t), Bofors 37mm, 45mm model 37, or 37mm M3; the 5cm KwK L42, “flower-pot” guns such as the 7.5cm KwK 37 or LeIG 18, or 76mm model 27; and small-calibre high-velocity guns such as the Hotchkiss 25mm or SPzB 41 squeezebore.

    Rating 2: Improved anti-tank guns such as the 47mm PaK35(t) or 45mm model 42, PJK41 squeezebore, 6-pdr L45, and 5cm KwK L60 or PaK 38, and medium-velocity larger guns such as the 76mm F11, F34 or ZiS-3, 75mm Mark 5, 75mm M2 or M3, or field guns firing in the anti-tank role such as the 10.5cm leFH 18M or 25-pdr.

    Rating 3: Larger high-velocity guns, such as the 7.5cm KwK 40 or PaK 40, 7.62cm PaK36(r), US 3-inch or 76mm, the 6-pdr L52, or long-barreled field artillery such as the 10cm K17, 107mm model 1910/30, or the heavier 152mm TG.

    Rating 4: Converted or actual anti-arcraft guns such as the 8.8cm KwK 36 or FlaK 36, Soviet 85mm or US 90mm M3, higher-velocity heavy artillery such as the 10cm K18, 107mm M-60, or 152mm ML-20, the British 77mm, and the Soviet 57mm.

    Rating 5: Serious tank killers such as the Panther’s 75mm KwK 42, the 10.5cm FlaK, 7.5cm PaK 41 squeezebore, the 17-pdr, or the 122mm A19.

    Rating 6: Super guns such as the 8.8cm L71, 12.8cm, or 100mm model 44.

    For most weapons that have special ammunition such as HVAP, APCR or APDS, the effect would be to increase the attack rating by one. This does not apply to APCNR for squeezebore weapons, where the effect has already been taken into account.

    If you want to keep your scheme of better armour going in the positive direction and better guns in the negative, you could find suitable gun ratings by subtracting the above ratings from 2. Armour ratings would be the number of inches of armour minus 3. For myself I think I would prefer to have both gun and armour ratings going in the same direction, and not have any negative numbers; your dice-roll modifier would then just be the armour’s defence value less the gun’s strike value.

    All the best,

    John.

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 12 months ago by John D Salt John D Salt.
    #14097

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    John—wow, thanks!

    I like the description of AT and armor as + or – numbers, but your suggestion of just converting it to numbers that are compared is simpler.  And it ends up being the same amount math for the player, I think, and avoids confusion as players look at their Tiger’s 88mm gun and ask “why is it penalized?”

    I didn’t realize the Soviet long 45mm AT gun could be as lethal as a standard 75—though it does make sense, considering the German 50L60 was a fine tank killer for its time.

    Thanks again. Gonna give you a shout-out in the rules if that’s cool with you.

    #14102
    Ivan Sorensen
    Ivan Sorensen
    Moderator

    Sometimes smaller guns can be deceptively efficient tank-killers. The long Soviet 57mm gun was even used for a fairly short-lived T34 “tank hunter” in place of the normal 76mm gun. Not sure how many were built though.

    Nordic Weasel Games
    https://sites.google.com/site/nordicweaselgames/

    #14547
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Right, I warn you, this is long. I may have spent too long looking at this stuff. I have however decided that a slightly finer division into 20mm bands will distinguish pretty much everything that needs distinguishing. The following strike values are calculated by a Python script that implements Dehn’s penetration formula, with a nominal velocity reduction for a range of 500 metres. Armour is taken as the average effective thickness, with a 10% penalty for low-quality late-war German armour. Data sources were notjing special, mostly googled and many wikipedian, but I think they classify things into bands quite satisfactorily.

    Guns
    Special ammunition:
    HEAT values as shown, 1 less for early model German HL and Italian Effeto Pronto.
    German PzGr40, Russian BPK, British APCR +1 to given value.
    American HVAP, British APDS and Littlejohn APCNR +2 to given value.
    Special ammunition always counts as a hit by a small gun, as do hits from German squeezebore guns (2.8cm SPzB 41, 4.2cm PJK 41, 7.5cm PaK 41) where the APCNR bonus is already included in the values shown.
    British 2-pdr AP should have a strike value of only 1 against all targets until the introduction of AP/HV, and against German face-hardened plate on Pz III H-J and Pz IV F-G before the introduction of APC.

    Strike value 0:
    HMGs, ATRs and 20mm cannon of all nations, and
    American 105mm infantry howitzer M3
    Belgian FRC 76mm
    British 15mm BESA, 3.7-in howitzer, 4.5-in howitzer
    French 37mm SA 18 or mle 1916, 47mm SA34
    German 7.5cm leIG18 or LG40, 15cm sIG 33 or LG40
    Hungarian 75mm M15, 100mm M14
    Italian Canone da 65/17
    Japanese 37mm tank gun Type 94, 100 or 1, 37mm anti-tank gun Type 11, 57mm tank gun type 97, 70mm infantry gun Type 92, 75mm mountain gun Type 41, 150mm howitzer Type 38
    Netherlands 120mm howitzers 12 lang 12 or 12 lang 14
    Rumanian 105mm Krupp m12 or m16
    Russian 76mm infantry gun m1943

    Strike value 1:
    American 37mm automatic gun M1, 75mm pack howitzer M1
    Austrian Bohler 47mm
    Belgian C47 FRC 47mm
    British 95mm tank howitzer
    French 25mm SA 34 or SA 37, 25mm mle 38 AA, 37mm SA38, 47mm SA35, 75mm SA35
    German 3.7cm PaK 36, KwK 36, KwK 34(t) and 38(t), 7.5cm KwK or StuK 37
    Hungarian 37mm M36, 105mm 43M
    Italian Canone da 37/54 AA, Canone da 47/32, Obice da 100/14, Obice da 100/17
    Japanese 76mm Type 99
    Rumanian 40mm 37M, 105mm Krupp m16, 105mm Skoda m40/43
    Russian 25mm 72-K AA, 37mm 1-K, 76mm KT-28, infantry gun m1927, or mountin gun m1938, 122mm M1909/37 or M1910/30, 152mm M1909/37 or M1910/30
    Swedish Bofors 37mm

    Strike value 2:
    American 37mm M3 or M6, 75mm M1897 or M2, 105mm howitzer M2, 155mm howitzer M1917
    Belgian 75mm TR or GP
    British 2-pdr, 25-pdr Mk I
    French 47mm SA37, 75mm mle 1897, 105mm mle 1934, de Bange 120mm
    German 2.8cm SPzB41, 5cm KwK 38, 7.5cm HK 16 or 36, 10.5cm leFH 18
    Hungarian 76mm M18, 105mm M37, 150mm M14
    Italian Canone da 47/40, Canone da 75/32, Canone da 105/25
    Japanese 47mm tank or anti-tank gun Type 1, 75mm gun Type 38, 41 or 95, 105mm howitzer Type 91, 150mm howitzer Type 96, 8cm AA gun Type 3
    Netherlands 150mm 15 lang 15
    Polish 75mm wz 02 or 02/36
    Rumanian 100mm Skoda 34
    Russian 37mm 61-K AA, 45mm 20-K or 53-K, 76mm L-10, F-11 or F-32, 122mm M-30 or M-30S, 152mm m38
    Swedish 40mm Bofors AA

    HEAT strike value 2:
    Italian Canone da 65/17
    Japanese 70mm infantry gun Type 98, 75mm mountain guns Type 41 and 94, 75mm guns Type 38 and 41, 76mm Type 99
    Russian infantry guns m1927 or m1943, mountain gun m1938

    Strike value 3:
    American 75mm M3 or M6
    British 6-pdr L45, 75mm Mk V, 3-in 20 cwt AA, 25-pdr Mk II
    French 75mm mle 34 AA, 105mm mle 13
    German 5cm PaK 38 or KwK 39, 7.5cm FK16nA, 10.5cm leFH18M
    Hungarian 150mm M15
    Italian Canone da 75/34, Obice da 105/28
    Japanese 75mm gun Type 90, 105mm gun Type 14, 75mm AA gun Type 88
    Netherlands 7-veld
    Rumanian 75mm Skoda m28, 75mm Skoda m25 AA, 105mm Bohler m40
    Russian 45mm m43, 76mm m1902/30, F-34, F-22, USV or ZiS-3, 152mm D-1 or M-10T

    HEAT strike value 3:
    American Bazooka, 75mm howitzer M1, M2 or M3
    British PIAT, 3.7-in howitzer
    German 7.5cm Kwk or StuK 37, 7.5cm leIG 18 or LG40, 7.5cm PaK 97/38
    Italian Obice da 75/18, Canone da 75/27, Canone da 75/32

    Strike value 4:
    American 57mm M1, 76mm M1, 3-inch M5 or M7, 155mm how M1
    British 6-pdr L52, 5.5-in gun-how
    French 105mm mle 29,
    German 4.2cm PJK 41, 7.5cm PaK, KwK or StuK 40, 7.5cm FK 7M85, 7.62cm PaK 36(r)
    Hungarian 104mm M15, 150mm M32
    Italian Canone da 75/46 AA
    Rumanian Vickers m31 AA, 80mm Bofors AA, 150mm Skoda 34
    Russian 76mm m38 AA, 107mm m1910/30

    HEAT strike value 4:
    American 105mm howitzer M1 or M2
    British 95mm howitzer, 4.5-in howitzer
    German 10.5cm StuH 42, leFH18 or leFH18M
    Hungarian 105mm 43M
    Italian Canone da 105/25, Obice da 105/28, Obice da 100/14, Obice da 100/17
    Russian 122mm M-30 or M-30S

    Strike value 5:
    American 90mm M1 AA
    Belgian 155mm mle 24
    British 77mm
    French 105mm mle 1936
    German 8.8cm FlaK 18, 36 or 37 or KwK 36, 10cm K17
    Italian Canone da 90/53 AA, Obice da 149/19
    Japanese 105mm gun Type 92
    Netherlands 10-veld
    Rumanian 75mm Resita m43, 155mm mle 17, 75mm Vickers m36/39 AA
    Russian 57mm M41 ZiS-2, 85mm 52-K, ZiS-S-53 or D-5T, 152mm ML-20 or ML-20S

    HEAT strike value 5:
    German Panzerfaust Klein, 8cm PAW 800, 15cm sIG-33

    Strike value 6:
    American 90mm M3, 4.5-in gun M1
    Belgian 120mm mle 31
    British 17-pdr, 3.7-in Mk I-III AA, 4.5-in gun
    German 7.5cm KwK or StuK 42, 10cm K18, 10.5cm FlaK 38
    Russian 107mm M-60

    HEAT strike value 6:
    German Panzerfaust Gross, Panzerschreck, 3.7cm PaK 36 or 5cm PaK 38 Stielgranate

    Strike value 7:
    German 7.5cm PaK 41, 8.8cm PaK, KwK or StuK 43 or FlaK 41, 12.8cm FlaK 40
    Russian 122mm D-25T, A-19 or A-19S

    Strike value 8:
    German 12.8cm PaK 44
    Russian 100mm D-10S

    Armour
    0 front, 0 side:
    All armoured half-tracks and carriers, and:
    American M20 recon car, M8 Greyhound armoured car, M2 light tank, M22 Locust, M3 GMC, M18 GMC Hellcat
    Belgian T-13, T-15, ACG-1
    British Humber, Morris or Otter LRC, Guy, Fordson, Marmon-Herrington, Humber or Daimler armoured cars, Vickers light tank, Tetrarch, A9, A13 Mk I, Deacon
    French Panhard 178 AMR, P-165 AMD, Laffly AM80, P-16 AMR, Renault FT, UE or AMC 35
    German Sd Kfz 250/9, 221, 222A, 223A, 231 6-or 8-rad, 232 6- or 8-ras, 233, 236 6- or 8-rad, Pz I, Pz II A-C, Pz III A-C, Pz IV A-B, Pz 35(t), Pz 38(t) A-D, Marder I or III, Nashorn/Hornisse
    Hungarian Czaba aroured car, Toldi I
    Italian AB40, AB41, AB42 armoured cars, Lince scout car, L3/33, L3/35, Semovente 90/53
    Japanese Vickers-Crossley or Type 92 or 93 armoured cars, Type 92 Jyu-Sokosha, Type 94 TK, Type 97 Te-Ke tankettes, Type 95 Ha-Go, Type 98 Ke-Ni, Type 4 Ke-nu light tanks, Type 89 Chi-Ro, Type 97 Chi-Ha and Shinhoto Chi-Ha medium tanks, Type 2 Ka-mi amphibious tank
    Netherlands DAF or Landsverk armoured cars
    Polish Ursus armoured car, TKS tankette, 7TP
    Rumanian R1, R2 tanks
    Russian FAI, BA-3, -6, -10 armoured cars, BA-64 or -64B scout cars, T-27 tankette, T-60, T-26, BT-5, BT-7, SU-57

    1 front, 0 side:
    American M3 Stuart, M24 Chaffee, M8 GMC Scott
    British Dingo or Humber scout cars, Staghound armoured car, A10, A13 Mk II, Crusader I, Stuart I-IV
    German Sd Kfz 222B, 223B, 234, Pz II Luchs, Pz II D-F, Pz III D-F(early), Pz IV C-D, Pz 38(t) E-G, LAS 7.72, Marder II
    Hungarian Toldi II, Toldi III
    Italian L6/40, M11/39, M13/40, M14/41 Semovente 47/32
    Japanese medum Type 1 Chi-He Gun tank Type 2 Ho-I
    Russian T-35, SU-76
    1 front, 1 side:
    French Renault R35 or R40, Hotchkiss R35 or R39, FCM 36, Char D1 or D2, Char B1
    German Pz III F(late)-G
    Russian T-28

    2 front, 0 side:
    American M3A4 or M5 Stuart
    British AEC armoured car, Crusder II-III, Stuart V-VII
    Italian Semovente 75/18, Semovente 75/34
    Russian T-70
    2 front, 1 side:
    American M10 GMC
    British Matilda I
    French Char B1bis, Somua S35
    German Pz III H-J(early), Pz IV E-G, StuG III A-F(early)
    Italian M15/41, P26/40
    Russian SU-76i

    3 front, 0 side:
    Hungarian 43M Zrinyi II
    3 front, 1 side:
    American M3 Grant, M4 Sherman(75), M36 GMC Jackson
    British Centaur IV, Cromwell IV-VI, Challenger, Grant, Sherman I, IC, II, III, V or VC
    German Pz IIIJ-N, Pz IVH-J, StuG IIIF(late)-G, StuH 42, StuG IV
    Italian Semovente 105/25, M 42T da 75/46
    Russian T-28E, T-34/76, SU-85, SU-122
    3 front, 2 side:
    British Matilda II
    German Pz IIJ
    Russian KV1 m40, KV-1S, SU-152

    4 front, 1 side:
    American M4(76) Sherman
    British Cromwell VII-VIII, Comet, Sherman IA
    Russian T-34/85
    4 front, 2 side:
    Russian KV-iE, KV-1 m41
    4 front, 3 side:
    British Churchill I-VI
    German Tiger E

    5 front, 1 side:
    German JagdPz IV, PzIV(70), JadgPz 38(t) Hetzer
    5 front, 2 side:
    German Panther D or G
    5 front, 3 side:
    American T-26 Pershing
    Russian KV-1 m42, KV-2
    5 front, 4 side:
    Russian ISU-122, ISU-152

    6 front, 2 side:
    German Panther A
    6 front, 4 side:
    British Churchil VII

    7 front, 1 side:
    Russian SU-100
    7 front, 2 side:
    German Jagdpanther
    7 front, 3 side:
    German Tiger B (Porsche turret)
    Russian KV-85, IS-2

    8 front, 3 side:
    American M4A3E2 Jumbo
    German Tiger B (Henschel turret), Ferdinand/Elefant

    10 front, 3 side:
    German Jagdtiger

    #14570

    Nathaniel Weber
    Participant

    John—I’ll give you a full reply tomorrow, but thanks so much for all that info. Very, very useful.  Please shoot me an email at thedogsbrush(at)gmail(dot)com so that I can get your info so I can mention you in full in the game and get you a copy when the time comes to publish.

    #15674
    norm smith
    norm smith
    Participant

    Fascinating topic and discussion.

    I have been working on WWII tactical games and several times have had to tweak the gun / armour relationships and hit / damage methods. When I started reading the post, I was not keen on only a ‘1’ giving a straight knock-out, but then the subsequent post showed the modifiers based on gun / armour differences, which makes all the difference.

    My first attempts at rule writing had the Pnanzer IVh, Sherman, T-34 (i.e. medium tanks) benchmarking  effectiveness at zero, everything else ran off that. so a medium gun was 0, a light gun was -1 and a very light gun was -2.  By contrast a very heavy gun was +2. This together with the bell curve of a 2 x D6 seemed to work well in the middle ranges (i.e. mid war medium tanks) but was less capable of showing better relationships with the lights and heavies. Part of my solution was to go to a D10.

    While testing the rule tweaks, I frequently used a situation of a T-34/76d and a T34/85 against a Tiger 1. Basically the T-34/76 should need to get to point blank range and and the T34/85 to within 500 metres of the Tiger frontally to stand any chance of causing damage. I also wanted enough scope within the modifiers to show the Panther 75/70 having better armour penetration than the Tigers 88/56 – but the 88 to have a better explosive value for anti-infantry work etc.

    Tactical games can be a little bit like something out of the comic world, our on table ranges are relatively small, but we all want to see the differences between armour types reflected ….. though as shown in the above paragraph,  even at close ranges, there were still some very real differences between some vehicles that naturally gives us differences without a system having to use mechanics to give us that ‘feel’. A lot of 1st or 2nd round shots did give instant kills.

    Ranging shots were common. but I think a lot of games are cramming maybe two minutes of action into a turn, so a single shot from a tank in a turn is likely already representing the inclusion of ranging shots – the dice is helping us with that!

    Within my penetration systems, I use a ‘stun’ restult, which helps soften the instant kill problem and represents all sorts of things from temporary damage that can be fixed, to a wounded commander or driver etc in the tank that needs to be sorted, mechanical jams etc and vehicles can recover from a stun – but they are sitting ducks while they do so and this encourages the enemy to pour more shots into them in an attempt to to get a destroy result to replace the stun.

    All good stuff and I have very much enjoyed the post and all the work that has gone into it – thanks.

    John – as an aside, I would like to thank you for all the work that you did in putting gun / armour charts together in a single document. They have been a constant reference for me. LINK TO THAT DOCUMENT – http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf

     

    • This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by norm smith norm smith.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by norm smith norm smith.
    • This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by norm smith norm smith. Reason: edits are to get the last two paragraphs right

    http://commanders.simdif.com

    #15987
    John D Salt
    John D Salt
    Participant

    Tactical games can be a little bit like something out of the comic world, our on table ranges are relatively small, but we all want to see the differences between armour types reflected ….. though as shown in the above paragraph, even at close ranges, there were still some very real differences between some vehicles that naturally gives us differences without a system having to use mechanics to give us that ‘feel’. A lot of 1st or 2nd round shots did give instant kills.
    Ranging shots were common. but I think a lot of games are cramming maybe two minutes of action into a turn, so a single shot from a tank in a turn is likely already representing the inclusion of ranging shots – the dice is helping us with that!
    Within my penetration systems, I use a ‘stun’ restult, which helps soften the instant kill problem and represents all sorts of things from temporary damage that can be fixed, to a wounded commander or driver etc in the tank that needs to be sorted, mechanical jams etc and vehicles can recover from a stun – but they are sitting ducks while they do so and this encourages the enemy to pour more shots into them in an attempt to to get a destroy result to replace the stun.

    Obviously hit probability is influenced by all sorts of circumstances, but a useful snippet from Biryukov and Melnikov’s book “Antitank Warfare” (Progress Publishers, Moscow 1972) says:

    “The experience of the Great Patriotic War showed that to put a tank out of action required an average of 2-3 direct hits which took 6-8 shots. The number of shots required to knock out a tank also depended on the distance. Tanks fired upon from a distance of 300m were hit with 1-2 shots, from a distance of about 1,000m with 8-10 shots.”

    John – as an aside, I would like to thank you for all the work that you did in putting gun / armour charts together in a single document. They have been a constant reference for me. LINK TO THAT DOCUMENT – http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf

    There is a more recent collection than the one on Martin’s site. E-mail me at musketoonltd at gmail dot com if you want the latest version, or my files on general weapon effectiveness, or my collection of artillery snippets. I have pretty much stopped collecting armour penetration data, because 90%+ of the literature is rubbish, and even the good figures tend not to be comparable between nations (see my post on proof conditions for British ATk guns and you;ll see they are not necessarily even comparable for a single nation at different times during the war). I have started collecting armour penetration formulae instead. I discovered a new one last week in Rosenberg and Dekel’s “Terminal Ballistics”, but my favourite is still James Dehn’s formula.

    All the best,

    John.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.