11 replies to this topic

[Jerome Mrozak]

My "armies" are modeled for the fighting in N. Africa 41/42. This means 2lbrs, etc. There were distinct issues the sides dealt with, such as no British combined arms (they were clueless), Rommel's "box" formations, and how the German AT weapons did in the British. I'm also aware that the British 2lbr had fragmentation problems, such that the shell was useless against tank armor within a certain band of ranges (foggy memory, perhaps the 200m-800m band?). All of these combine to help describe why the outnumbered Germans won at least as many battles as they lost. But I'm having trouble getting these ideas into scenario rules, and am looking for suggestions.First, there is this perception that German weapons outranged British ones. The rules don't work that way. In practice, suppose a British vehicle is moving towards a German gun. Assuming normal movement (evasion makes this worse), the gun has a 5% chance per round from 37 inches to 48 inches and a 30% from 25 inches to 36 inches. If evading, make this only 10% from 25 inches to 36 inches. Although the MP rules allow shots out to 72 inches, in practice the British need only to advance about 12 inches through fire (36 inches to 24 inches) and it is a rather equal shootout. So my AT guns become merely weak tanks rather than impregnable positions, able to defeat an entire company (such as Rommel at Gazala).To provide the Germans this *could* require a gun-per-gun evaluation of range attenuation, but that isn't something I can do or, probably, something that MP should do. I just don't yet know what should be done.I *could* simulate the "ineffective band" of the 2lbr by an adjustment of the to-hit modifier. There is already a < 57mm modifier, so this isn't terribly different.Can I get some ideas from other gamers, perhaps to shake me out of my mode of thinking?Thanks,Jerome.

[Bob Benge]

Hey Jerome,First, I would look at the to-hit numbers. AT Guns would definately be in emplacements thus gaining linear cover -5 to-hit modifier Trying to close with AT guns will not be able to hit anything until the 12" range. With the 2pdr tanks having an OM1 of 0 and OM2 of -4, and firing at an AT Gun in an emplacement would get a -5 for linear cover, -3 for DM of 37mm AT Gun or -2 for DM of 50mm AT Gun. Considering the Brit TQ of 11, this would give a to-hit number, prior to range modifiers, of:Stationary vs. 37mm = 3Moving vs. 37mm = -1Stationary vs. 50mm = 4Moving vs. 50mm = 0Apply the range modifiers:Stationary vs. 37mm = 72" to 36" = No chance, 24" = 3, 12" = 5, 6" = 8 and 2" = 13Moving vs. 37mm = 72" to 24" = No chance, 12" = 1, 6" = 6 and 2" = 9Stationary vs. 50mm = 72" to 36" = No chance, 24" = 4, 12" = 6, 6" = 9 and 2" = 14Moving vs. 50mm = 72" to 24" = No chance, 12" = 2, 6" = 7 and 2" = 10Other considerations you might to try...Rommel had put his AT Guns low to the desert floor where the desert haze would obscure sighting them. You can place the AT Guns hidden and modify the spotting.Place soft ground (Soft Sand) to slow down an advance.

[Mark 1]

The existance of a "shatter gap" for the 2pdr in the western desert battles is still a somewhat controversial subject among ballistics and armor experts. The theory is that the round would penetrate at lower velocities of longer ranges, then as the range closed it would start to shatter against the German face-hardened plate, and so fail. Then as the range got low enough the velocity was high enough that even a shattered projectile would penetrate again.This was the explanation developed to explain the failures of the gun, but modern understanding of the dynamics of penetrators against steel don't really support the hypothesis. And so the debate...Among the shortcomings of the British guns was that the solid AP round was insufficient for a reliable kill, even after penetration. Marginal penetration (where the round goes through the plate, but does not have any meaninful kinetic energy on the other side) by an explosive round can still be highly lethal, even if the round does not pass cleanly through, but "lodges" with only a portion projecting through the plate on the other side (if it then explodes). But marginal penetration by a solid shot only ventilates the tank. You need over-penetration, with a lot of kinetic energy on the other side, to really do a lot of harm. By the time we see PzIIIL or PzIVF, the 2pdr no longer had an over-penetrating capability, and so sometimes the panzers could take 3, 4 or more hits, even with penetrations, and continue to fight. Unless they were hit at close enough range that the rounds had enough velocity to over-penetrate.In either case, the 2pdr looks to me to be a bit over-rated vs. other guns of about equal performance, most notably the US 37mm. But whether that means the British gun is over-rated, or the US gun is under-rated, I can't yet say with confidence, as I haven't really looked into it in detail. As to the German AT gun defenses ... Bob's suggestions on digging in is quite valid. But you should add a layering of your defenses.The panzer-knackers were known to dig their guns in quite quickly, and did not duel with the British tanks at long ranges with the smaller guns. You'll find it is almost impossible under the rules to spot an dug-in AT gun until it shoots. Most of the time the Brits never even saw the smaller AT guns that killed them.So you dig in your 37mm guns forward of your 50mm guns. Then you drive around in your panzers drawing the British on to the guns. The 50mm guns open fire first from a reasonable range, and when the British attempt to charge the 50's, you clean their clocks at short range with the 37s. Even better if you can put a couple 88's far behind the 50s. -Mark 1

[Jerome Mrozak]

I've seen some sentiment that an AT gun, such as the German Pak 38 50mm, in practice could fire rounds much faster than the same weapon in a 3-man turret. Another rule set implements this by giving the gun twice the fire rate as the turret-mounted weapon.I can sort-of believe this for a British 2-man turret, such as a Matilda. But I've seen no internet page, or other rule set, that documents this either yea or nay.Comments?

[Mark 1]

javaguy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I've seen some sentiment that an AT gun, such as the German Pak 38 50mm, in practice could fire rounds much faster than the same weapon in a 3-man turret. Another rule set implements this by giving the gun twice the fire rate as the turret-mounted weapon.

It was indeed true that many AT guns could fire faster than an equivelant gun in a tank turret.There are many contributing factors to the effective rate of fire of a gun. One is the physical space available to the crew. Turrets are cramped vs. an AT gun's open environment. Another is access to the ammunition. French tanks in particular carried their ammunition in the hull, and so to reload one needed to duck down out of the turret to fetch a round. Also there is the question of the number of crew. Guns often had multiple ammunition handlers to feed rounds to the gun -- German 88s often had six or eight ammunition handlers on their crews, and were known to fire as many as 20 aimed rounds per minute in action! Few tanks had more than one loader, and some had no dedicated loader at all, but required loading as double-duty to either the commander or the gunner. Then again the French tanks had the poor turret crewman doing triple duty as commander, loader AND gunner, and then made him duck down out of the turret to fetch a round!But there is one more factor that also should be taken into consideration -- recoil forces and their effects on the firing platform. The recoil forces of a 50mm high-powered cartridge do not affect a 20 ton Pz III nearly as much as a .8 ton Pak38. And so even though the crew can feed rounds into the Pak faster, the gunner may or may not be able to get his gun on-target and take another aimed shot much faster. Sometimes the gun would even need to be man-handled back into position after jumping back to the point that it no longer bore on target. Again, here the 88, with its massive and heavy cruciform platform had a real advantage, as it (and most Flak guns) was very stable.AT guns that jumped around a lot on firing, from references I have seen, included the Pak 38, Pak 97/38, and Pak 40 for the Germans. The French 47mm APX Mle 37 was also quite a jumper, so also the US 3-inch and 57mm AT guns, as was the British 6 pdr and the 17 pdrs on the 25 pdr carriage. The 2 pdr was reputedly quite stable, and could maintain an impressive rate of aimed fire.Against this there are tanks that had enough room in the turrets, and tanks that lacked space, or lacked crewmen. I don't speak for the Mein Panzer team, but it appears to me these factors are balanced out in the Mein Panzer rules and equipment data. So for example the German Pak 40 has ROF of 2, while the Pz IV G or H have ROF of only 1. The Pak 40 was known to jump around a bit, but these tanks were known to be particularly cramped in their turrets. One may also look at the T-34 vs. the ZiS-3 76.2mm gun, or any of several other examples. One may agree or disagree with any one weapon's stats. But the MP team seems to have modeled the effects into the game.All IMHO.-Mark 1

[Jerome Mrozak]

I performed an analysis of an attack of British tanks upon German AT guns. The idea is that a line of British tanks attack a single gun. Eventually the surviving tanks get close enough that their guns are effective in attacking a gun in linear cover. How many British tanks are killed before the gun is? The answer is the effective ratio of attack:defense needed to attack the gun.My heroes here are the A13 cruiser and the Pak 38 (50mm) AT gun. If the A13 actually manages a hit on the gun, even if it was dug in, the likely hit table row (6 - 1 = 5, possibly -2 more for range attenuation to 3 row) gives a 90% to 100% chance of disabling the gun. If the Pak 38 hits the tank with uncapped rounds (my available sources all indicate that capped rounds were rare for the Germans) it gets an attack on the roughly 0 thru 2 tables, about a 70% chance of disabling the tank for the attack. My method is simple. Line up the tanks far away from the gun. Then have them advance full-speed -- 10 inches -- across open ground. Each round the gun shoots a tank yields a % probability of hitting. After registering from around 70% to 100% probability in hits, the gun can turn its attention to the next tank. Note that the gun can't profitably kill a tank with the first round and then shift to the next target.This pattern of many-tanks-per-gun can be repeated for the entire gun line. The British are trying to calculate what they need for a mass assault.So, how many tanks die before the tanks reach, say, 10 inches away? Against Pak 38s, it is about 3 tanks dead before the British can get in their killing shot. So a British attack at about 4:1 odds will waste the tanks, but the guns are gone. Suppose the British use evasive movement, yielding a 6 inches per turn movement? It turns out that the results are much the same. More time is spent in the kill zone, but the chances per hit are much less (20% less) per roll.These losses are much less than the British would want to achieve in the field. To get the historical results, everytime one of the British tanks are killed smash it with a hammer. After a few losses the British player will take his tanks and go home. For example, an (unnamed) assault was tried where about eight tanks were lost, and the remaining 20 or so went away, unwilling to dash themselves. Note that no Germans were lost, so the ratio was 8:0. But only a small fraction of the British force was hazarded.Still, at Gazala the Germans lined up a lot of AT guns with their tanks and the British were unwilling to attack at all, even though they had numerical superiority.What does that mean for my Mein Panzer playing? I'm trying to improve the 3:1 kill ratio for the Germans to something like 6:1 or 8:1. Hiding the guns in the haze works only for luring the tanks into a kill zone. Once there, the guns are rather expendable (even dug in).Still trying to work things out.

[Bob Benge]

One thing you may very well want to add would be the morale rules. This would hamper a unit of the death march on a position as you mention. Also understand that the hitting is the most important part as if you can't hit you have no chance to kill. You mention that if the A13 CAN get a hit then it has a 90% chance to kill. Well, this is true, but you fail to mention that A13 CANNOT get a CHANCE of a hit on a dug in Pak 38 AT Gun until it is at 24" and that is if the A13 is NOT moving. If the A13 is moving then it has NO CHANCE to hit until it is at 12", then it has only a 10% chance to a range of 6". Now the Pak 38 cannot get hits until the range to the A13 is at 36" where it has a 25% to hit a moving A13. This gives the Pak 38 2 shots at tanks in this range. Then at 24", the odds increase dramatically to 50%. More than likely the Pak 38 would get one shot, maybe 2, if things work out just right. Now, when the range decrease to the 12" range band then the odds increase to 60%. This gives the one Pak 38 a total of 8 shots, minimum, at a A13 unit before things get desperate for the Pak 38. Note these odds are for just one shot. The odds increase with the second shot as the fact that the consecutive shot modifier would apply on the second shot, increasing the odds by 5% and the fact that you are rolling 2 shots also increases the odds. The CinC can quote on these exact probabilities as he is a statistics guru. Now also understand that if the Pak crew are regulars, then they would be concentrating on a target until it is dead then shifting to the next. If the Pak 38 crew are veterans, then the ROF increases by 1. This is important as this increase now gives the Pak 38 the capability of shifting targets. The Pak 38 would be able to fire 1 shot at 2 different targets if it desired or put 3 shots on one target with the 2nd and 3rd getting a +1 for consecutive fire at same target (this modifier is NOT cumulative). If you bump up the crew to elite then the to-hit odds will increase 5% AND you gain +2 to ROF which gives you 2 shots at on target and then be able to shift to another target and get off one rounf on it. Having seen AT Guns in action in the game a dug-in AT gun is a hard thing for non-artillery units to eliminate without artillery. Artillery is the best weapon vs. dug-in AT guns in Mein Panzer. I learned this the hard and painful way playing the ODGW crew. :)Want to increase the the kill ratio, give the Pak 38 crews veteran or elite status. :)

[Jerome Mrozak]

If enough A13 tanks rush a gun, then enough of them will get close enough so that the gun can be destroyed, either by close fire or by overrun (if possible). A group of tanks can move until they are very close, then stop and deliver their fire. Their chances to hit the gun become much higher because they are stopped.BTW, at 12 inches I have a moving tank with the single-shot chance of 10% and a stationary single-shot chance of 30%. I figure it as:TQ: 11, Moving: -4 OM2, -2 DM, -5 linear cover, 12 inch range +2 = hits on 1-2.TQ: 11, Stopped: 0 OM1, -2 DM, -5 linear cover, 12 inch range +2 = hits on 1-6.(my original analysis figured TQ 12, DM -1).So (enough) tanks rush up to the 12 inch range and stop, then deliver fire. The exercise asks, how many? I should refine my exercise (see below).I think you are considering consecutive fire wrong. The rules say that both the attacker and target must be stationary to get the consecutive fire. The tanks are still advancing here. Even the second shot of a ROF > 1 would still be on a moving tank.While it is true that the Pak can take out a number of tanks, the point of that exercise is to determine how vulernable the guns are. It turns out that a determined attack by four tanks would destroy that gun. If the gun line were the difference between failure and success, then such an attack could succeed.The question is, whether the British player would be willing to expend the tanks on that goal. Suppose the gun line were taken out, and then the British discover there were more gun lines? Then the attack is shown to have been expended on a strongpoint, rather than searching for weaknesses. As a counter-example, at ElAlamein Montgomery told his tank leaders that they were permitted to lose all of their tanks in the goal for a breakthrough. Such a message wouldn't be needed if such losses were commonplace and expected.I've been trying to play Mein Panzer with as few rules as I can, because the club I go to needs to see games whose turns move quickly. I've seen others in my club run Mein Panzer scenarios. I think there is no excuse for 30-minute turns (four platoons each side), but we have them. I aim for 10-minute turns. One way to get there is to simplify rules (no infantry, no morale, homogenize the troops). It seems, though, if I want the effect I want I'll have to try some optional rules.As a side issue, the universal tendency in the games I've been with is for the attacker to charge into battle as fast as possible. In a mobile engagement, both sides charge forwards. So there is no inclination to search for weak spots, do recon, etc. The recon on a n-deep gun line would show that a frontal assault couldn't succeed, and the tanks would go elsewhere or call in arty, etc. That would require some teaching by the referee (me!).Making the Pak crew veteran or elite certainly improves their chances here. A resource I hadn't considered.Action Item: rework my analysis involving expert gun crews (why not?).

[Jerome Mrozak]

I have revised a study on how to attack a gun line using Mein Panzer rules. I assumed that the attack can be broken into any number of "X tanks vs 1 gun" segments. I assumed the attacks were A13 vs. Pak 38 (50mm) and A13 vs Pak 36 (88mm). The file is attached to this post (MS Word format, perhaps Word 2003 format). I took into account the German veteran status, with its improved rate of fire.In summary, merely rushing the gun means the British player loses 2-3 tanks before the either gun is gone. Nothing subtle is required. [file name=MeinPanzerRanges.doc size=137728]http://www.odgw.com/images/fbfiles/files/MeinPanzerRanges.doc[/file]

[gregoryk]

Now this is interesting, as is your table. Very much the sort of analysis I both employ and enjoy. I can tell you that you need to include more than simple kills in your formulation:[ul][li]Mission kills or stopped tanks — an immobilized tank is of little value, especially if its crew bails out. Suppression also slows down the rate of advance of a tank line. These will keep some tanks back, rather than allow them to keep "rushing" forward.[/li][li]Note that the extra ROF given by the Veteran and Elite status is at ½ To-Hit, rounded down. That may affect your calculations.[/li][li]Finally the effect of Morale cannot be underestimated. We never play without it, and find it takes minimal time once practiced. A tank line that loses 3 tanks is at 50% Morale losses, so it is likely to stop, or even turn tail.[/li][/ul]We have found in our games that the most impressive thing to stop a tank line is a well-placed AT gun with a good range of fire. Given that, they typically stop a platoon.Cheers,Gregory

[Bob Benge]

I think you are considering consecutive fire wrong. The rules say that both the attacker and target must be stationary to get the consecutive fire. The tanks are still advancing here. Even the second shot of a ROF > 1 would still be on a moving tank.

This is not quite true, at least for ROF guns. The intention of this rule was for ROF guns firing at the same target over the course of multiple turns. A ROF gun of 2+ may use this modifier since it is firing at the same target - moving or not; a bonus for predominantly AT guns. That is how Jon the original designer has played it in the past, anyways. Also, this could be one of your rules mods - consecutive fire bonus for moving targets.As an aside on decreasing game turn time: Include a line for each vehicle tha has the adjusted OM1/2 values for range and the adjusted AP Values for range. This will require less time finding the values on the chart. Gregory has posted a Word version of a player sheet that hasthese lines on it - just fill in the values. I used it at the last few convention games and it was faster and the players loved it. Also, get the easy-vis reference card as this will help also as it makes finding tables easier since the print is bigger for us older folk. ;) The key to fast turns is familiarity with the basic rules and having players capable of completing their shots without help.

[gregoryk]

bbenge wrote:

I think you are considering consecutive fire wrong. The rules say that both the attacker and target must be stationary to get the consecutive fire. The tanks are still advancing here. Even the second shot of a ROF > 1 would still be on a moving tank.

This is not quite true, at least for ROF guns. The intention of this rule was for ROF guns firing at the same target over the course of multiple turns. A ROF gun of 2+ may use this modifier since it is firing at the same target - moving or not; a bonus for predominantly AT guns. That is how Jon the original designer has played it in the past, anyways. Also, this could be one of your rules mods - consecutive fire bonus for moving targets.

Bob and I disagree notoriously on this point, as I did with Jon. I agree with your interpretation, that a new solution needs to be made each time the gun is "fired," taking note of the fact that a RoF=1 actually is about 1-8 rounds down range per minute.

As an aside on decreasing game turn time: Include a line for each vehicle that has the adjusted OM1/2 values for range and the adjusted AP Values for range. This will require less time finding the values on the chart. Gregory has posted a Word version of a player sheet that has these lines on it - just fill in the values. I used it at the last few convention games and it was faster and the players loved it. Also, get the easy-vis reference card as this will help also as it makes finding tables easier since the print is bigger for us older folk. ;) The key to fast turns is familiarity with the basic rules and having players capable of completing their shots without help.

It does save an awful lot of time, and the players get the hang of the game faster.Cheers,Gregory