13 replies to this topic

[Dan Lewis]

I'm reading the rule book for the first time, getting ready for a game in a week and a half, using these rules. On page 11.2: Small Arms vs Vehicles. Says "All targets, other than infantry, are resolved like any other Direct Fire attack." Since the header says "vehicles", does the phrase "all targets" include AT Guns, Bunkers, Airplanes? My first question has to do with small arms vs. tanks. Suppose I'm an infantry squad with a OM1 of 0 and a OV of -2. Assume I am succesful in hitting. I fire from 6" at a British A9 with a DV of 4. I use the AP modifiers talbe for small arms and it's zero. So I subtract 4 from negative 2 and get negative 6. According to the chart, they have a 10% change of immobilizing the tank. Is that correct? And if it was a weaker tank with a 3 DV, then there's a 5% chance they will knock it out? If a tank pulls within 12" of a gaggle of infantry squads, won't take too long for them to knock it out using rifles. Did I miss something? This sounds really optomistic to me. My odds get even better vs armored cars. I thought that was the whole idea of tanks to begin with, they are pretty much impervious to small arms fire. Another thing, when you are firing infantry at a AT gun, do I apply the FP vs. the crew or the OV vs the gun? If I kill the crew, does that mean the gun is undamaged and it can be recrewed? Maybe I'm getting ahead, I haven't read all the rules yet.I'm not trying to be critical, but it seemed unrealistic to me, so I want to make sure I'm doing it right. :)

[Mark 1]

I am not one of the MP rule authors, mearly another user of the rules. So we will hear the final word from them.But in my reading of the rules, and as we play them, here is how I would reply.1 ) Infantry fire vs. tanksYes, infantry does have a small chance to immobilize a tank. Depending on the armor, they might even put a light tank or other light AFV out of the fight. But as to the likelyhood of succeeding -- well unless the gunners in the tank are asleep or comotose, that "gaggle" of infantry won't get many tries to make their die role. I find this to correspond well to my reading of history, and feel it is actually a better indicator of WW2 combat than most other rulesets give. One solemn rule of tanking is, and always has been, DON'T WADE INTO THE ENEMY INFANTRY WITHOUT YOUR OWN INFANTRY ESCORT.A man with a rifle can find lots of possible places to shoot at on a 1940 tank. Vision slits, pistol ports, engine gratings were all vulnerable to accurate and concentrated small arms fire, or the occasional lucky shot. Any open slit could lead to dangerous "splash" into the interior of the tank if struck by a bullet. Even moresoe, a few well-placed hand grenades could mess up running gear or engine really well. In this period many AFV drivers (including the driver of your British A9, A10, or A13) had a direct vistion slit in front of their eyes, and could even open that plate (it hinged downward) to have a full face view, unprotected, of the road in front of them. And the armor on many light AFVs, such as the British Mk VI or the German SdKfz 221/222 or 234 series was not even fully proof against full caliber rifle bullets (ie: .303 or 7.92mm) from all angles at close range. This was also true of the US M3 scout cars, and the M2, M3, M5 and M9 halftracks (and their derivatives).And remember, the MP rules don't say exacly what you have done to that vehicle. Only that it can't move, or is out of combat. Maybe you jammed the turret, or broke the cooling fan overheating the engine, or in some other way caused the crew to panick. We don't know, and we don't have to know.2 ) Shooting at guns If you continue reading on you'll find that an ATG presents two targets -- the gun itself (a vehicle target) and the crew (an infantry target). You will be attacking both, and even if you can't kill the gun, you might very well kill the crew, or vice versa. As to just running up and taking/using the gun yourself, there are optional rules in the WW2 databook as to who might actually know how to use an enemy's guns, but the short answer is -- not too many unit types can manage it.Hope this helps.-Mark(aka: Mk 1)

[Dan Lewis]

Thanks Mark, I appreciate your comments and ideas. Yes, I did think about vision slots but not much else. They are after all 6" away which at this scale is a far piece for infantry. So today I was reading and there was a paragraph on infantry vs. guns (AT or Artillery) and they state that small arms cannot hurt the gun, but rather they are attacking the crew. And of course the gun shield gives it a defence. Well if this is the case, then I have to say if small arms can't hurt the gun, then surely the same will apply to a tank. So using that logic, the infantry can attack the tank crew, they would use fire power and the tank crew should get hard cover. It will be interesting to hear the official response. So do you guys like MP? I'lll be introducing it to my group for the first time on the 12th. They like to play Panzer Marsch whcih is great but it's not for large games. I'm using a Beda Fomm scenario from an old Table Top games publication and the Italians have 70 tanks! Of course they don't all start at one time. But it will be a challenging first game.

[Mark 1]

Danlewistn wrote:

So do you guys like MP? I'lll be introducing it to my group for the first time on the 12th. They like to play Panzer Marsch whcih is great but it's not for large games. I'm using a Beda Fomm scenario from an old Table Top games publication ...

You might like to read some of the battle reports I have posted in the AARs section of this forum. I've posted a sequence of the first 6 games I played, most with a set of buddies that also played one or two other rule sets with me. I've played a lot of rulesets in my time, including a whole raft of rules by TTG. I am satisfied with MP and plan to stick with it.(I probably have the scenario book you got your Beda Fomm clash from -- will have to go digging when I get a minute.) Three of the six AARs I posted deal with battles involving my Italians. Two are placed in North Africa, although my passion is Tunisia rather than the Western Desert. Still, you might be interested in seeing my Italians at work.

...and the Italians have 70 tanks! Of course they don't all start at one time. But it will be a challenging first game.

I strongly recommend against starting quite so large. We have found that the MP rules scale up reasonably well to a re-inforced company per player (say about 4 to 6 platoons), and in the case of experienced players (experienced with the MP rules) you can even get up to a battalion or so per player and still keep the game rolling along. This is particularly true of you aren't using lots of the rule modules like engineering, or amphib, or air power. We don't even use the morale or C&C rules, yet still find that the games are quite satisfying, with morale and command & control playing their part even without the specific rules. That is because the basic game structures -- the turn sequence, and the combat mechanics -- seem to drive MC&C issues into the game even without tables and die roles. I like that.But you are better off starting a bit smaller, and then building up to larger games on your third or fourth time out.Just my $0.02 worth.-Mark(aka: Mk 1)

[Dan Lewis]

Does it normally take this long to get a reply? Perhaps they are on vacation. B)

[gregoryk]

Dan,No, it usually is a faster reply, but our Mein Panzer specialist is on a pretty brutal work regimen, and may not have had the time to check in on the site. I will take a stab at your comments. First, the armor penetration values are based on real world data, even for small arms. Now that may not make someone happy who has had their AFV knocked out by rifle fire, but it can occur in the game, and represent those anomalies that, for whatever reason, a tank went hors de combat. It could have bee bullets coming through the driver slit or other opening, which may have caused the vehicle to become immobilised. If you are dissatisfied with the current chances of a tank to be taken down by small arms, may I recommend the MMG version of the hit table, located here.On guns and shooting them, first the target must be rolled to-hit with the Damage Modifier of the gun, which is usually a minus value. If it hits with an AP value, then the outcome will be determined by the AP value of the gun versus the gun AP value, which is usually '1' or '0.'. This does not necessarily kill the crew. With HE fire, the blast is less likely to damage the gun, using the HE OV of the weapon, but it will stand a better chance of killing the crew. One is resolved on the Vehicles, structures and gun side of the table, the left side — AP — and the other is attacking on the Fire Power table, the right side — HE OV. So if a gun is attacked with HE, use the HE OV on the target with the same die roll. If it is AP, use the same die roll to see if the crew is killed, Suppressed, or Pinned by the Fire Power table, giving them the benefit of their linear cover (-5) for the gun shield. N.B. MMG uses a different approach, using the Fire Power table for both guns and crew whether it is HE OV or AP. This seems to work better for the difficulty of taking out the crew and the gun.If I am wrong, I am sure I will be corrected.Cheers,Gregory

[Dan Lewis]

Gregory, thanks for your response. You commented "the armor penetration values are based on real world data, even for small arms. Now that may not make someone happy who has had their AFV knocked out by rifle fire..." First, there does not exist any real world data for rifles penetrating armor (exception, AT Rifles). Rifle bullets do not penetrate tank armor, half track armor and such. I completely agree with you that there is the odd chance that a crewman can be hit through a vision slit, and that is a subjective discussion about what is reasonable and what is not. But the kill table not only allows the tank to be suppressed, but also knocked out completely, 5% of the time in my example, and the odds get much much better with something such as an armored car. And as I pointed out in my 2nd message, the rules say, small arms can't hurt a AT gun, so they have to use FP against the gun crew. So forget about the subjectivness of the above. If small arms can't hurt an AT gun per the rules, then how can it hurt a Tank? The logic of the AT gun rules make sense to me, and sould be consistently applied. So I'm glad to see someone else worked on this issue, I'll check out the attachment.

[Bob Benge]

Hello,Sorry for the delay in response, but Gregory is right; I changed jobs the beginning of the year, had to certify at my job which meant classes, classes, classes, have had to go back to shift work and don't get the opportunity to check the site at work like I used to. Dang the bad luck. ;)Gregory has the correct procedure for resolving fire vs. Guns..

You commented "the armor penetration values are based on real world data, even for small arms. Now that may not make someone happy who has had their AFV knocked out by rifle fire..."

The Armor penetration values and Armor ratings are calculated from real world values including angle of penetration. The very small chance that it could happen does represent the fact that AFVs had some small Achilles heel that could render them mission kills or immobilized. Note that 1-hit represent a mission kill, times when the tank has been rendered ineffective due to damage and/or crew bails out, and not a brew up, which is represented by 2-hits on a 1-hit vehicle. Now the actual chances of rifle fire taking out a medium or heavy tank is next to nil. An example:A Soviet Rifle squad has an OV of -2. Say the Rifle squad is firing at a German PzKpfw IIIJ whose Armor DVs are: F=6, S=3, R=5, T=2. So If the rifle stand fired at the PzKpfw-IIIJ the base Kill Values would be as follows: Front: -2 - 6 = -8, Side: -2 - 3 = -5, Rear: -2 - 5 = -7, Top: -2 - 2 = -4. Note that this is the base table chances which don't include the Small Arms Range Modifier from the TO-KILL MODIFIERS TABLES, AP MODs TO-KILL which are 2" = +1, 6" = 0, 12" =-2 and 24" =-5. So if a tank gets to within 2" of the Rifle Stand then the base chance improves by 5% otherwise there is no better modifiers available. So our results by Kill Values would be as follows: Front: Suppress = 1-3 (15%), 4-20 = No Effect (85%); Side: 1 Hit = 1 (5%), Immobile and Suppress = 2-3 (10%), Suppress = (4-6) (15%), No Effect = (70%); Rear: Immobile and Suppress = 1 (5%), Suppress = (2-4) (15%), No Effect = (80%); Top: 1 Hit = 1-2 (10%), Immobile and Suppress = 3-4 (10%), Suppress = (5-7) (15%), No Effect = (65%). Again note that these numbers don't even take into account the Range modifiers for Small Arms which means that if the tank doesn't get within 6" the Kill values will shrink by -2 at 12" and -5 at 24". Note also that the Rifle Stand's max range is 24". If the tank gets close to infantry without support, it takes its chances and should be attempting an overrun. Also, normally a cardinal sin for a tanker.  Normally the best chances for rifle fire to take out AFVs are during early war years when armor was relatively light 1-3 (10mm to 30mm) or with light vehicles; Recon, Armored Cars and Light Tanks. To date, we have not had anyone complain about our numbers in this respect either or we would have changed them. :)

First, there does not exist any real world data for rifles penetrating armor (exception, AT Rifles). Rifle bullets do not penetrate tank armor, half track armor and such. I completely agree with you that there is the odd chance that a crewman can be hit through a vision slit, and that is a subjective discussion about what is reasonable and what is not. But the kill table not only allows the tank to be suppressed, but also knocked out completely, 5% of the time in my example, and the odds get much, much better with something such as an armored car.

Our Original author, I believe, had found some data on rifle penetration of armor. If I am wrong on that account then he formulated them from actual battle accounts and playtested them out extensively. I know for a fact that the M3 halftrack had problems keeping rifle fire out of the infantry compartment from numerous accounts. There aren't too many armored cars that have much better armor than the M3 either as typical armored cars are 20mm front armor (DV=2) and side and rear armor of 10mm (DV=1). I would say that if an Unsupported Armored Car attacked a Rifle Stand, then I would like the odds of the Armored Car winning the battle, but it is not unwinnable for the infantry either.

And as I pointed out in my 2nd message, the rules say, small arms can't hurt a AT gun, so they have to use FP against the gun crew. So forget about the subjectiveness of the above. If small arms can't hurt an AT gun per the rules, then how can it hurt a Tank? The logic of the AT gun rules make sense to me, and should be consistently applied.

Tanks and AT Guns are very different targets. Tanks have the crew and gun enclosed in the vehicle and is considered 1 target. AT Guns are 2 targets; the gun itself and the crew. As such, the AT Gun as unit is 2 targets. Rifle fire cannot hurt the AT Gun itself but can kill the crew. A tank gun can knock out the gun with AP rounds as the AP round can mess up the gun tube and its mountings and hardware, but AP rounds have very limited effect on the crew and HE rounds will do a number on the crew but will have a very limited chance of hurting the gun. That is the basics on how the issue is handled. Let’s face it, a rifle squad won't be shooting at the AT Gun anyways; they will be going after the crew, as would a good tanker with HE rounds. That is how people have played our game. This issue went through extensive play testing and was refined through the playtesting over the past 10 years.

[Mark 1]

I agree with BBENGE and the MP rules on this issue.Rifles, rifle-caliber MGs, and other small arms DO in fact penetrate armor. There IS real-world data available on how much armor which rounds will penetrate. And there ARE historical cases of AFVs demonstrating in combat their vulnerability to small arms fire.The US M2 and M3 halftracks, and M3 scout cars, were vulnerable to the German Kar-98k rifle and MG-34 & 42 LMGs if they got very solid hits at relatively close range. Of course, with an MG-42 you tended to get LOTS of hits, so the odds of a particularly ideal hit were not so bad. The US M5 and M9 halftracks (provided through lendlease to the Brits and Soviets) were even more vulnerable, not even really requiring a particularly good hit, as their armor had to be more ductile for the forming done by the American Harverster company's manufacturing process, and so was notably softer. This made them somewhat more survivable in the case of a direct hit by a cannon, or a landmine (as the armor was less likely to shatter), but less likely to keep out bullets. The Germans also had special steel-cored AP rounds, which were produced and occasionally used by infantry forces (but more often in AFVs and AA guns), were even more likely to penetrate. The US M18 Hellcat tank destroyer's turret was vulnerable to these AP rounds. The British Bren Carriers and Universal Carriers were always vulnerable to concentrated small arms fire, not to mention being vulnerable due to their open tops (and low height to their armor, which often led to the tops of the crew's heads being visible above the plate). The early-war British light tanks, up through the Mk VI, being based on the earlier Carden Lloyd "Carrier" models, were also vulnerable to small arms fire. The armor on the German SdKfz 221, 222, and 234 armored cars were observed, in combat, to be vulnerable to the French 7.5mm and the Soviet 7.62mm rounds from their sides. The Soviets took to issuing steel-cored rounds as their standard small arms ammo, making this factor even more notable.The Soviet BT-5 fast tank was noted to be vulnerable across the frontal arc to concentrated small arms fire in both the Spanish Civil War and the Nohmonhan incidents against the Japanese along the Manchurian boarder, contributing directly to the development of the BT-7. The demonstrated vulnerabilities to small-arms fire of their "heavy" armored cars (the BA-6 and BA-10), and their amphibious light tanks (the T-37, T-38, and initial versions of the T-40) caused the Soviets to take these otherwise useful units out of production early in the war. In modern times the original M113 APC and the M551 Sheridan light combat vehicle were shown to be vulnerable to close range small-arms fire. There were even cases of Viet Cong soldiers penetrating and damaging Sheridans at (very) close range with Kalashnikov rifles, which fired round that were substantially less powerful than the rounds fired by WW2 era Mosin Nagants and DT LMGs.So to suggest that there is no "real world data" available, or that rifle bullets do not penetrate tanks, haltracks and such, is simply not correct. Heck I've even conducted some "real world" tests myself! (Oh for the dare-devil days of my youth!) Most lead-cored full-power .30 caliber rounds will reliably penetrate about 6 to 8mm of armor grade steel at close range. Hard-cored rounds may penetrate as much as 10 to 15mm, depending on the core and the plate (and your definition of "penetrate").Armor is not an all-or-nothing affair. In fact most AFVs in the 10 ton range will be / were more armored against shell fragments (the biggest killers on most battlefields) than against concentrated direct fire, carrying as little as 5 to 10mm of armor, and although they will resist small arms rounds in most cases, they were / are vulnerable if they try to stand up to concentrated fire. At about 15 tons it is more likely that a vehicle will carry as much as 20mm of armor across its front, making it proofed against small arms across its frontal arc except for vulnerable areas like vision slits or open hatches, although it may well still be vulnerable on its sides. At 20 - 25 tons most vehicles will have 20mm or more even along the sides, although it is quite possible that an early war vehicle might still have some vulnerable vision slits, vents, or hatches along its non-frontal aspects. A more modern vehicle, if truly designed for high-intensity combat (rather than police work) will probably no longer suffer from those vulnerabilities.Hope that helps.-Mark(aka: Mk 1)

[gregoryk]

One other thing about armor data, and why there is a chance to hit a vehicle when the KV goes negative. The armor value listed is cm of thickness for the best armour that the vehicle had. So if a turreted vehicle had its turret better armored than its hull — a smart move since most WWII rounds, surprisingly, hit the turret — then the front armour uses the better value. The negative chance of hit simulates the possibility of hitting the target in a less well-armoured place. Also, there are numerous cases of tank crews bailing out or retreating after taking any kind of fire, much less damaging attacks. All this is modeled in the Kill table.Cheers,Gregory

[Dan Lewis]

boy that really stinks. I spent an hour writing a thoughtfull response and I hit preview...no problem. I hit submit and boom, it kicks me off, everything I wrote is gone. Welll it's too late to start all this again. I see your point about the penetration. I still have a problem with Lee Enfield rifles taking out a PZIIIJ from the side, from 150 meters. No vision slit, no grenaides, no ATR, no PIAT. 30mm of armor. No penetration. I'll finish this tommorow night. I like the rules. I"ve been practicing them and I think they are really good. Artillery is a bit funky, but I'll adjust that a tad. B)

[gregoryk]

Dan,I know the problem — it has happened to me. The original artillery rules are a bit kludgey. The MMG rules are hailed as an improvement, and are faster to resolve. I have posted them in the Player Uploads section of the Mein Panzer Core rules section.Cheers,Gregory

[Dan Lewis]

I tried that file Gregory, tried it twice and it said it was damaged and wouldnt' open for me.

[gregoryk]

Danlewistn wrote:

I tried that file Gregory, tried it twice and it said it was damaged and wouldnt' open for me.

I have just re-uploaded the Chapter 10 file, and confirmed that it works by downloading a file from it. Please have another go at it.Cheers,Gregory