Infantry fire vs tanks (and AT Guns)
#1
Posted 08 June 2010 - 02:59 PM
#2
Posted 09 June 2010 - 03:01 PM
#3
Posted 09 June 2010 - 03:37 PM
#4
Posted 09 June 2010 - 10:21 PM
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.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 ...
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)...and the Italians have 70 tanks! Of course they don't all start at one time. But it will be a challenging first game.
#5
Posted 11 June 2010 - 02:48 PM
#6
Posted 11 June 2010 - 05:27 PM
#7
Posted 12 June 2010 - 10:51 AM
#8
Posted 13 June 2010 - 10:21 AM
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. :)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..."
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.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.
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. Lets 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.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.
#9
Posted 13 June 2010 - 11:24 AM
#10
Posted 13 June 2010 - 01:32 PM
#11
Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:42 PM
#12
Posted 17 June 2010 - 05:49 PM
#13
Posted 18 June 2010 - 03:40 PM
#14
Posted 18 June 2010 - 03:59 PM
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,GregoryI tried that file Gregory, tried it twice and it said it was damaged and wouldnt' open for me.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users