Jump to content


Photo

soft-skinned vehicles


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 05:27 PM

Trucks, jeeps, kubelwagens, etc, all have DV's of '0'. They are fairly well-protected from HE fire, which should shred them reasonably well. This is something that has not felt right for sometime now. Has anyone had a direct hit on a truck (DV=0) with a 50mm mortar round (HE OV=-1) bounce?Gregory

#2 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 17 May 2006 - 05:40 PM

I have an idea on how this could be fixed reasonably easily. If the DV=0, there is no protection. Use the HE FP value, same as for "unprotected" infantry. So that 50mm mortar that had a 20% chance of knocking out a truck or jeep if it lands virtually on top of it, now would have a:[ul][li]30% chance of brewing it up[/li][li]50% chance of knocking it out[/li][li]10% chance of immobilizing it[/li][li]10% chance of Suppression.[/li][/ul]Seems reasonable to me...Gregory

#3 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 20 May 2006 - 10:39 PM

Bob,For a soft-sided vehicle, e.g., a truck, can their DV be listed as simply 'S?' This would indicate that they should be attacked with the HE FP of a round, rather than the HE OV (armor-piercing). So a jeep or truck would have an 'S' in the DV columns for F, S, R, and T.Ideas?Cheers,Gregory

#4 Kenny Noe

Kenny Noe

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 894 posts

Posted 21 May 2006 - 06:25 PM

This change would affect ALL vehicles with DV = 0....

#5 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 21 May 2006 - 07:56 PM

Not necessarily. I would leave alone any armored open-topped vehicle, since that would represent the inherent difficulty of hitting them and also the fact that they did have some protection. Also, I would not make any change to guns with '0' DV. The suggestion has to do with non-armored vehicles which have problems being properly represented in the current system, e.g., canvas-sided or open trucks, jeeps or equivalent, motorcycles, etc. The ineffectiveness of HE fire and small arms vs soft-sided or even open-sided vehicles has been brought up a number of times at our games, and has been discussed on some other forums, as well.No need to make this more than it is...Cheers,Gregory

#6 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 22 May 2006 - 04:03 PM

I agree there is an issue with soft skin vehicles as you outlined Gregory. Actually this recommended change would effect all vehicles that have a F,S,R and T DV of 0 and not any vehicles with the occasional 0 on the T DV only. The change would be very simple to implement using find and replace on the work book and in the modified values. Since there is a Soft skin section a majority of the changes would occur there. Another change that will have to be made is to Chapter 9 that details the stats for the tables. Again this would be simple. My question is what will do for us? Is this to denote the use the procedure you outlined previously with attacks against soft skinned vehicles? My next question is if we use the HE FP value against the softskin vehicle are we still using the left side to-kill table? If so, this could instill a bit of confusion in a multi-target type environment with tanks, trucks and infantry invovled. I can see the procedures get confused for the different types of targets and how they are attacked and killed. The system you describe is easy for us, well some of us anyway ( :lol: ), but this introduces a third way of dealing with a target. Is there any other way we can fix this within the current system? What about giving soft skin vehicles a consistent negative (-) armor value?

#7 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 22 May 2006 - 06:34 PM

bbenge wrote:

I agree there is an issue with soft skin vehicles as you outlined Gregory. Actually this recommended change would effect all vehicles that have a F,S,R and T DV of 0 and not any vehicles with the occasional 0 on the T DV only.

Yes.

The change would be very simple to implement using find and replace on the work book and in the modified values. Since there is a Soft skin section a majority of the changes would occur there. Another change that will have to be made is to Chapter 9 that details the stats for the tables. Again this would be simple. My question is what will do for us? Is this to denote the use the procedure you outlined previously with attacks against soft skinned vehicles?

Yes.

My next question is if we use the HE FP value against the softskin vehicle are we still using the left side to-kill table?

Yes.

If so, this could instill a bit of confusion in a multi-target type environment with tanks, trucks and infantry involved. I can see the procedures get confused for the different types of targets and how they are attacked and killed. The system you describe is easy for us, well some of us anyway ( :lol: ), but this introduces a third way of dealing with a target. Is there any other way we can fix this within the current system? What about giving soft skin vehicles a consistent negative (-) armor value?

Well, I thought it might be easy given the knowledge that folks bring with them, that soft-skinned vehicles have virtually no protection. In fact, it has given us more problems figuring out how to deal with this issue (50mm mortars "bouncing") than having a way to handle it.I tried to think of this in terms of a person approaching the game for the first time. If they see an 'S' in the DV table, that would trigger the knowledge that they do not use HE OV but HE FP. All other procedures remain the same. The problem with dropping the armor value may occur around the negative numbers of medium mortars for HE OV, and the higher values for small arms HE OV. I tried dropping the DV to '-2,' but that created problems around basic infantry HE OV's, and still did not give an adequate feel for the chance of a jeep, for example, to get knocked out from a mortar round. Also, somehow, nobody could wrap their minds around the "negative armor" concept.Bottom line is a well-placed mortar round should almost always disable a truck. That is why they never tried to go onto a battlefield.Cheers,Gregory

#8 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 22 May 2006 - 08:02 PM

I tried dropping the DV to '-2,' but that created problems around basic infantry HE OV's, and still did not give an adequate feel for the chance of a jeep, for example, to get knocked out from a mortar round. Also, somehow, nobody could wrap their minds around the "negative armor" concept.

Okay, that answers that question. ;) I can go along with this. Lets see if anyone else has some thoughts on this.

#9 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 09 August 2007 - 02:17 PM

Recent Crete game brought up the issue of soft-skinned vehicles again. German DFS gliders have armor values of '1,' which everyone thought should be 0(s) since it is just fabric stretched across tubes of steel and wood.one source (my apologies for the grammar):

The structural design of the DFS 230 was thoroughly conventional. The wing comprised a single main spar at approximately one-third chord with plywood covering forward and fabric the long-span ailerons with inset tabs were fabric covered, the wing was braced to the fuselage at quarter-span by light struts. The fabric-covered welded steel-tube fuselage was rectangular section, and built up on a central keel member, boom intended to absorb the impact loads transmitted to the sprung steel skid.

another source:

It was a lightweight glider made of tubing and fabric...

They were definitely susceptible to small arms fire. Any thoughts?Gregory

#10 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 10 August 2007 - 08:38 AM

Good point. Aircraft Defensive Values, however, represent the amount of punishment the aircraft can absorb as much as how well a plane is armored. While the glider's occupants may be highly susceptable to small arms fire, the glider itself will be harder to bring down with that same fire. This is along the same theory as destroyers taking AP shells and no damage being done. The Military Channel ran a Crete Invasion episode of the Battlelines series this past week and I seemed to recall that it took a lot of AA fire to bring down the gliders and don't recall many being shot down.It may be prudent though to come up with some kind of rule about the passengers within gliders that are shot at with small arms.

#11 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 11 August 2007 - 09:34 AM

DV is armor — how much punishment they can deflect, which is none. DM is considerations such as relative size while airborne. They are moving, so they add in that mod. In all, they are hard to hit due to several factors, but easy to bring down, as in fact they were. These are not halftracks. I think they should be 0s.Gregory

#12 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 13 August 2007 - 10:58 AM

With that said I guess I'll have to redo ALL aircraft for MP. :)The Mosquito will be a DV 0 also as it is wood. Very few aircraft where actually armored. So with your theory all most all aircraft would have a DV of 0. Metal skinned aircraft are not armored and would do little to deflect bullets more than wood or doped canvas. The Aircraft DV are not calculated the same as vehicles in MP. The DV is calculated on the aircraft's construction. If changes are made to this then every aircraft in all of the published and soon-to-be published books will have to be redone. In our gaming, aircraft already seem pretty easy to shoot down/drive off. IMO I just don't see this is anything more than a perception view rather than a mechanics problem. Feel free to make the change yourself though. ;)

#13 gregoryk

gregoryk

    GQ3 Product Manager

  • ODGW Retired Staff
  • 1,048 posts

Posted 14 August 2007 - 07:33 AM

bbenge wrote:

With that said I guess I'll have to redo ALL aircraft for MP. :)

Well, not really. The difference here is this is an aircraft that lands with troops, like a truck. Other aircraft stay at altitude moving at speed under power. The dynamic is different, and the effect on firing upon them is certainly different. Gliders are lower, slower, (relatively) bigger, and suffered because of it. In the game that should be measureable.Perhaps it should have a DR=2, and if it takes a hit it should have the troops roll on the troop survival table? This could also be a Meine Truppen effect?Gregory

#14 Bob Benge

Bob Benge

    Mein Panzer Guru

  • ODGW Staff
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationLas Cruces, NM

Posted 15 August 2007 - 07:52 AM

Got me there. I think we can go with that. May want to have the Troop Survivability Check done when landing then since bail out is not an option in the air. :side:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users