TANKS - models and damage

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
My point is that, averagely, adjusted fire should yield a better chance for a hit.
I have never fired a tank gun but I have done a fair amount of shooting with a rifle (a good while ago!). The basic principle, I would have thought, is the same; provided you spotted where the first shot landed, one or two adjustments would usually get you on target. As you say, it may be that the first shot is obscured in some way but generally that principle holds up.

The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

That may feel wrong too but it happened.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

"PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m." Why is that?

That was a deliberate decision to "spread the maps out" a bit. It makes the extreme range shots on the 1km maps a bit less accurate without affecting the <500m shots much at all. The net result is that despite the 1km x 1km size, the maps feel a bit larger tactically in terms of the ability to maneuver at long range without being immediately destroyed.

Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.
[:@]

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

That may feel wrong too but it happened.

Indeed, the French mle 1897 barrels, mated with Pak 38 or 40 carriages, to create a stop gap AT gun were only barely adequate for the task. The lack of tracer in the Polish rounds and it's negative effect on obtaining hits is interesting, I've not seen that before.

That said, these were low velocity pieces with a maximum effective AT range of 1900, suffered instabilty when fired and a high failure rate of the carriage so perhaps their lack of effectiveness was only to be expected.

Most tank guns, certainly from 1942 onwards, were high velocity and for ranges under 1200m, German gunnery exercises emphasised observing the impact of the shot. For ranges in excess of 1200, then the tracer became the primary method for observing the shot.

So for the majority of shots in PC, well under 1000m, the impact would be the predominant factor, with even the first round fired for effect rather than for acquisition. If the range had been acurately estimated from the onset, only fairly minor corrections would be needed to obtain a hit.

Not sure if any of this proves anything much either way, but it's all interesting stuff and makes sure that my collection of WW2 books gets a bit of an airing.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.
[:@]

Use Smoke. [;)]

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.
[:@]

Use Smoke. [;)]

In the random campaign the hunter can turn out to be the hunted.[:(]

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Use Smoke. [;)]

Speaking of smoke ... the dust and debris and smoke from firing could also obscure the location of the first shot. We know that the US 76mm gun on the Sherman had this problem until they installed a muzzle break.

ORIGINAL: Mobius
The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

You know, I was going to add a little personal 'glow' effect to the heavy shell to make a tracer effect but in light of what you said I'll hold off. It would be nice to have an individual tracer effect for each ammo type, but it's all eye candy and not a big deal.

Considering all the effects of accuracy (tracer,skill, debris, etc) it seems the idea of creating a realistic modifier isn't as simple as I would have thought!!!

Thanks,
Rob

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Considering all the effects of accuracy (tracer,skill, debris, etc) it seems the idea of creating a realistic modifier isn't as simple as I would have thought!!!

You are right. A lot of this is more art than science.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mraah
PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.

A long time ago someone said that when HE is fired the MGs are also fired if in range. I don't know if this is still in effect or if it even is happening. In real life tanks would not bother to fire the coax because it required a distracting control by the gunner.
One reason I don't think the coax may be fired is because when I tried to make a two gun tank the main gun of the primary (first listed) main gun would use its HE (or even AP) on infantry targets and not the best HE if the other gun had a better HE shell.

yes, I aways wanted the LMG in a rifle squad to be able to use their LMG separately from the rifle armed rest of the squad like in PW. But things don't work that way in PC. All squad killpower in PC is a combination of rifles and LMG.

The coax was mostly used for targeting. You would fire the coax if you had to time to give yourself some kind of an idea where the main gun round would hit.

That sounds funny today when we have computers that can get 90% first round hits.

Any coax usage against infantry targets would be if the main gun for some reason wasn't going to be used instead.

Where you could have two separate targets for onboard weapons systems is when the main gun is engaging a target and the bow MG has to defend the tank against an infantry attack. Those situations should be rare but not completely unheard of. The reason it would be rare is if the threat is that dangerous the main gun will soon be involved in resolving it.

The multi-turreted AFV's of WWII were such a bad idea that none were made past 1940 that I know of. So while there were some out there and they were used. I'm not sure that they could effectively engage a handful of targets effectively. The tank commander is in charge of the actions of the vehicle and I can't see him trying to target 2 or 3 targets at a time as something that could be done normally.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Something to consider is the attention factor.

Fire at something on a battlefield and for the most part you get noticed. You draw attention to yourself.

Tanks are attention magnets. They are also fire magnets. Most infantry doesn't want to be within 20 meters of&nbsp; a tank because that big target is going to take alot of incoming fire when things start to get hot. Or they want to be within 3 feet of it because they deal death and destruction...it's a double edged sword.

As for infantry splitting fire. Most infantry units at squad level won't. Again how many targets can the leader direct fire against?

In modern combat with fireteams as the lowest operational unit things are different.

The more fire you put out the more you can expect to get back. The bigger the threat you become the harder the enemy will try to neutralize you.

That's why most combat takes place at very close ranges. In WWII tank engagements averaged 400 meters or less. The German SOP for infantry combat was not to open fire at ranges greater than 100 meters.

You want the enemy close so you can do maximum damage in the shortest amount of time.

Not fire on a dozen different targets all over the map.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The coax was mostly used for targeting. You would fire the coax if you had to time to give yourself some kind of an idea where the main gun round would hit.

The British tried this with some post WWII Centurion models using a .50cal ranging MG. It had the same ballistics as the maingun out to maybe 600m. I don't think any tank used the 7.62/7.92mm MG for ranging.

It was used by the Israelis too during some Arab/Isreali war. I heard there was a case where Arab tankers bailed when the MG bullets started plinking on their tank, expecting a main gun round to be shortly arriving.

[Mraah]

Hi Mobius,

I'm on the 'modifier and data table' binge again [8|] ...

Questions ... reference PCOWS ...

1. When the armor value shows 2^5 I've understood that the resultant value could either be 2 (track), 5 (hull), or both (7) ??
In the case where it's both, which part of the vehicle is subject to damage ... in other words, do you roll twice for each part?

2. Can the armor values be coded for more than two? ie, 2/5 means 50/50 chance to be either value ... can you use a 2/5/7 meaning there's a 33% chance to use one value?

3. Track damage ... I feel that a deflection shot on tracks result in numerous track hits with no damage, ie the track value is using a flat rating getting hit at 45 degrees. I'm not an expert on how much damage a track could take but I would think any hit might put a kink in the mobility except for shell sizes maybe 20mm or less?

A suggestion for more detail armor hits ...[X(]. You are currently modeling the vertical components for location hits, 1 thru 10 (Y -axis). Have you thought about adding a horizontal component (X-axis) running the length of the vehicle? Basically superimposing a graphic sheet over the vehicle.

Also, if a vehicle can have a 10x10 location diagram it could have more detailed armor values in each "hit box", plus there might be room for cumulative damage to those 'box' locations as well as other types of collateral damage, crew and stun effects ... etc etc, the suggestions keep flowing out the more I babble . Oh yeah, cumulative track damage maybe??

Sorry to carry on as such .... the longer I wait for PcK the more I spend thinking ... hint hint [:D].

Thanks for listening,

Rob

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
1. When the armor value shows 2^5 I've understood that the resultant value could either be 2 (track), 5 (hull), or both (7) ??
In the case where it's both, which part of the vehicle is subject to damage ... in other words, do you roll twice for each part?

It should be through total armor. So if it goes through 2 it may do track damage. If it goes through 5 it may do hull damage too.

ORIGINAL: Mraah
2. Can the armor values be coded for more than two? ie, 2/5 means 50/50 chance to be either value ... can you use a 2/5/7 meaning there's a 33% chance to use one value?

No.

ORIGINAL: Mraah
3. Track damage ... I feel that a deflection shot on tracks result in numerous track hits with no damage, ie the track value is using a flat rating getting hit at 45 degrees. I'm not an expert on how much damage a track could take but I would think any hit might put a kink in the mobility except for shell sizes maybe 20mm or less?

I don't know if there is deflection on tracks. Tracks seem to need two full damages to knock them out. They can receive a partial damage and this just slows down the tank. "Track" also includes suspension, road and drive wheels. So a hit on an ider wheel isn't going affect much.

ORIGINAL: Mraah
A suggestion for more detail armor hits ...[X(]. You are currently modeling the vertical components for location hits, 1 thru 10 (Y -axis). Have you thought about adding a horizontal component (X-axis) running the length of the vehicle? Basically superimposing a graphic sheet over the vehicle.

The only x factor is the "/". Many data files are an improvement over the minatures rules as we can break down the exposed area to a more detailed degree and it won't impact playability. Too many "/" in miniatures play requires another roll of the dice and would bog down play.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Oh yeah, cumulative track damage maybe??

Well, currently track damage on one side slows the vehicle's speed by 50%. Track damage on both sides is equivalent to mobility damage in that the vehicle can no longer move. Of course, a mobility hit does this in one hit, but it takes two track hits to accomplish the same thing.

[Staggerwing]

Are you saying that there are no single-hit mobility kills of the 'drive in circles' kind
(aside from the obvious penetrating hit on engine or transmission)?
I was under the impression that getting de-tracked on one side was fairly common (which is
why spare track pieces were often carried) and that a good gun crew could and would often
target a drive sprocket or return sprocket (terms?) when facing a tank with serious frontal
armor (along with, of course, vision blocks and any shot-traps between glacis and turret).

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Staggerwing
Are you saying that there are no single-hit mobility kills of the 'drive in circles' kind
(aside from the obvious penetrating hit on engine or transmission)?

Strictly from track damage? No, that takes two hits. It can be two hits on the same side, but it still takes two hits.

The only way to get a single hit mobility kill is to penetrate the internal space and hit engine or transmission, driver, etc.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Staggerwing
that a good gun crew could and would often target a drive sprocket or return sprocket (terms?) when facing a tank with serious frontal armor (along with, of course, vision blocks and any shot-traps between glacis and turret).

I've heard this too, but I haven't actually see an AAR where this was reported. As it would simply place a large seriously armored pillbox right in front of the gun crew.

What a good gunner could do against a stationary AFV is target a cast amoured bit or a point near a hatch. German guinners considered this to be 15% weaker armor. (Whether it really was is a different matter.)

Gunners did not have time to target anything but center of mass at moving targets.