takes a licking (most damage points)

Procrustes · Post by **Procrustes** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:53 am

I was playing the Guadacanal MC yesterday and one of my M3-GMC's got straffed and bombed by a Japanese DB. Took multiple hits with the MG/cannon, at least two "turret damaged" reports. The bombs landed in the same hex but didn't hit the vehicle. (Took out a number of nearby infantry men, though.) So when my turn comes, I find that the GMC has 8 damage points and inoperable weapons, but it rallies back!

I don't think I've ever wracked up more than 4 damage points on a single vehicle before - didn't think you could get any higher without it being destroyed. Anyone else?

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:59 am

Each crew member is a damage point.
Each weapon system is a damage point.
Range Finder and Targetting are damage points (I think just 1 point apiece though; maybe 2).
Radio is a damage point.
Track/Suspension is 2-3 damage points (damaged, then immobilized, with a possible second damaged on very fast vehicles?).
Toolbox, if present, is a damage point.
And finally, the Engine can be damaged an infinite number of times.

So technically the damage can be infinite, but usually by about 4 (a crew member, a weapon system, a suspension and an engine) damage points the next one will destroy the vehicle. But again, technically... 8 on it's side.

Procrustes · Post by **Procrustes** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:30 am

Cool, thanks. I had no idea that damage points could get so high, but it makes sense. I also didn't realize how much damage is not reported on the screen - I should try using the log more. I saw two "turret damaged" reports. When I look at the unit more closely I see that I lost all three weapons (as I expected), but also one crewman and the radio is now set to '0'. (Which is odd, because I rallied and have radio contact with the A0 unit. Does that happen?) I also see that the range finder and fire control are now set to zero, so I guess I got damage points for that, too. I didn't take any damage to engine/suspension/etc. Good thing.

Main gun = 1
.50 cal X 2 = 2
Crewman = 1
Radio = 1
Range Finder + Fire Control = 3 I guess, though there could be some other damage you can't see on the unit screen.

BTW, these marines will rally almost every time...!

Toontje · Post by **Toontje** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 5:50 pm

Ive noticed motive system damage with units receiving at least 2 suspension damage hits, and maybe more and still not immobilise. As far as I know suspension can be damaged an infinite number of times, as it appears sometimes the damage is more extensive as other times. Or maybe it's just the being fired upon counting as well, with the ones I think are less damaged spent several turns rallying without being fired upon.

My maximum is 6 damage or so to a truck. With only 2 people in it to start, I don't know what was hit all in there (Who notices.. it's only a truck after all, not your Comet)

Procrustes · Post by **Procrustes** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 8:10 pm

Sometimes you get reduced movement points, but not immobilization, from suspension hits. I think that those "Suspension hit - ineffective" messages mean that you got hit but took no damage, but I've always found that particular message a little enigmatic.

Toontje · Post by **Toontje** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:33 pm

Guess the - no damage meant it bounced of an axle or something, especially with armour taking rifle and mg hits with those results.

More likely, Suspension is a location in the same way turret is a location. Maybe that is the part protected by the armour of the armoured skirts? (I still don't know exacly the effect of skirts.)

Jim1954 · Post by **Jim1954** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:50 pm

Toontje wrote:Guess the - no damage meant it bounced of an axle or something, especially with armour taking rifle and mg hits with those results.

More likely, Suspension is a location in the same way turret is a location. Maybe that is the part protected by the armour of the armoured skirts? (I still don't know exacly the effect of skirts.)

Skirts are meant to defeat heat type weapons, triggering the shape charge to go off far enough away to prevent the "jet" from effectively blowing a hole in the armor. Unless you're talking about the Matilda with it's inherent shirts. I'll bet they were a real pain in the a$$ to change the tracks on one of those. I think they provided a little more resistance to AP rounds too, but how effective they actually were against that, I'm not sure.

Voriax will correct me if I'm wrong.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:55 pm

Jim1954 wrote:
Voriax will correct me if I'm wrong.

Hehe..no need this time.

Btw, I think those damage dots may not go one dot = one system. In a recent game I got 4 dots worth of damage into one of my 105mm Shermans, and it lost 'only' it's main gun and the .50cal. No crew loss nor did it become immobile. I'm not sure if it got suspension damage also, but I don't believe it would get it twice from one hit.

Voriax

Toontje · Post by **Toontje** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:01 am

Ah thanks dudes, now I understand what it is, sorta like the sandbags straped to armour in the closing days of the war, a sort of extra armour. But only for the tracks or else I don't know what part it is.

Sorta like torpedo nets for ships riding anchor. Or a double hull.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri Sep 05, 2003 1:19 am

Toontje, check PzIVj from SPWaW's encyclopedia. Its picture shows the skirts rather well. Those larger ones protecting the hull were hanging from some sort of rack and weren't very sturdily attached..it was not uncommon for a tank to miss a couple. The 'skirts' around the turret were more properly attached.

Voriax

arethusa · Post by **arethusa** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:38 am

Jim1954 wrote: Unless you're talking about the Matilda with it's inherent shirts. I'll bet they were a real pain in the a$$ to change the tracks on one of those. I think they provided a little more resistance to AP rounds too, but how effective they actually were against that, I'm not sure.

The Matildas were so tough in the early part of the war that they got the nickname "Queen of the Desert". With all the weight and small drive wheels, they were slower than snails, but they could take an awful lot of punishment. The skirts were definitelt a big part of it. Why did the Brits make all the rest of their tanks out of paper? And no HE capability?

The German hull skirts just had pegs on the top that fit into holes along the edges of the fenders. Not much for staying on but the reason was that if the tanks tried to go over an obstacle such that the skirt hit the ground, instead of bending the skirt and getting it jammed in the tracks, the skirt pegs just lifted up in the holes but they would fall off if lifted too high. The benefit of that over the Matilda skirts was that the German tanks could go over rougher terrain, faster and still have long skirts that covered the suspension more completely.

Toontje wrote:Ah thanks dudes, now I understand what it is, sorta like the sandbags straped to armour in the closing days of the war, a sort of extra armour. But only for the tracks or else I don't know what part it is.

Sorta like torpedo nets for ships riding anchor. Or a double hull.

Yes, very much like torpedo nets on ships in appearance and like a double hull in practice.

Fallschirmjager · Post by **Fallschirmjager** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:29 am

I had a Panther take 11 damage once

It still had two MG's left so I used it as a large steel machine gun bunker

Next battle it was all patched up and ready to roll

K62_ · Post by **K62_** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 5:53 am

arethusa wrote: Why did the Brits make all the rest of their tanks out of paper? And no HE capability?

How about the Churchill? It's certainly not made of paper, and its 3 inch howitzer has pretty good HE capability.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 8:19 am

Fallschirmjager wrote:I had a Panther take 11 damage once

It still had two MG's left so I used it as a large steel machine gun bunker

Next battle it was all patched up and ready to roll

Wow! I always assumed 10=destroyed. I had a Crusader that sustained 7 damage points and the lone remaining crewman bailed; when he remounted a couple (!) turns later the tank still moved and had its 2lb'er. By the end of the battle this guy (must have been named McGyver) had even 'fixed' the MG...I don't know where he found the time!

arethusa · Post by **arethusa** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:05 am

K62 wrote:How about the Churchill? It's certainly not made of paper, and its 3 inch howitzer has pretty good HE capability.

Pretty much all the British tanks, with the notable exception of the Matilda, before late 1941 were lightly armoured and armed. If you look in the specs, the thickest frontal armour was '36' and the rest of the armour was less than that.

Compare this with a StuG Aus B of the same period with frontal armour of '75' or the Pzkfw IIIj's with a '54' which were very devestating in N Africa.

Yes, the Churchills were much better armoured but they didn't come in until later and the original Churchills even then only had a 2 pdr, which wasn't enough to counter the panzers.

The Germans captured a number of Churchills at Dieppe and they put them through tests to find out what the new tanks they'd be facing were like. To put it bluntly, the Reich was not impressed and didn't consider Churchill to be much of a threat.

Later on in the war, Churchills were upgunned and uparmoured (as were tanks of all combatants) and when they next confronted the Wermacht, they were significantly imroved from the earlier models.

The Churchill IV's with the 75mm(I think that must be what you mean by a 3" since I couldn't find any with that gun, 3" actually works out to 76.2mm), didn't come in until 1943. By then they were facing Tigers so it seemed to be still a game of catch-up for the Brits.

arethusa · Post by **arethusa** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 10:24 am

tracer wrote:Wow! I always assumed 10=destroyed. I had a Crusader that sustained 7 damage points and the lone remaining crewman bailed; when he remounted a couple (!) turns later the tank still moved and had its 2lb'er. By the end of the battle this guy (must have been named McGyver) had even 'fixed' the MG...I don't know where he found the time!

Since the Crusader is a 4 or 5-man AFV, he must have been busy indeed. I don't think the driver has an MG, so for this guy to fire it, he'd have to stop the tank, get out of the driver's compartment and somehow get into either the turret or the other side of the tank (not a quick easy trip if you've ever seen the inside of a tank), relocate his target and then open fire.

Other than that, I could see him fixing the MG if it was something simple like a cartridge jam. It's not a cliché that soldiers are trained to disassemble and reasemble their small arms while blindfolded. They actually made us do it to a stopwatch. Clearing the main gun on a tank is a little bit more difficult though since it may involve getting out of the tank under fire.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 8:49 pm

arethusa wrote: I don't think the driver has an MG, so for this guy to fire it, he'd have to stop the tank, get out of the driver's compartment and somehow get into either the turret or the other side of the tank (not a quick easy trip if you've ever seen the inside of a tank), relocate his target and then open fire.

Exactly! At the time I pictured him driving a bit, stopping to scramble from the driver's compartment to the turret, loading and firing, then surrying back to drive a bit more. IIRC that tank still was alotted 3 main-gun shots and 7 movement points per turn...I wondered what that Tommy was putting in his tea!

arethusa · Post by **arethusa** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:42 am

The one and only time I was in a tank, I went from the turret to the driver's seat and back. It must have taken at least a minute to make the trip each direction. The inside of the AFV was so cramped and the path was not direct but you had to twist your body into all kinds of weird shapes to get past the equipment inside, the cage hanging down from the turret to support the turret floor and the ammunition racks.

At the time, I was not wearing any military gear such as webbing belts with canteens, small arms, helmets, etc. that I think would be typical of a tanker going into battle.

Make that a damaged tank, in the heat of battle, with the turret perhaps not in the easiest position for access, and wearing all that gear while being shot at, and I'd bee surprised if a single person could move and fire in one turn.

Add to that he'd have to do his own loading, and then change seats from one side of the main gun to the other to sight and fire it, I doubt if he could really do more than one shot per turn even if he didn't move.

Something in his tea indeed! :p

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 3:43 am

arethusa wrote: Make that a damaged tank, in the heat of battle, with the turret perhaps not in the easiest position for access, and wearing all that gear while being shot at, and I'd bee surprised if a single person could move and fire in one turn.

You forgot to add the presense of 4 dead or injured crewmates.

I think we agree on the same point: SPWAW gives too many shots to damaged/suppressed units.

arethusa · Post by **arethusa** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:30 am

You're right Tracer. A serious oversight that would indeed make it much more difficult.