antipersonnel (AP) ratings for direct and indirect fire equipment in TOAW 4

[cathar1244]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_98_320_mm_mortar

The attached shows how I modeled it in my Okinawa 1945 scenario.

Ah, yes, that mortar is better documented. I'll provide an AP rating for it, for comparison purposes.

Regards--

[Curtis Lemay]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_98_320_mm_mortar

The attached shows how I modeled it in my Okinawa 1945 scenario.

Ah, yes, that mortar is better documented. I'll provide an AP rating for it, for comparison purposes.

Regards--

In my Osprey "Okinawa 1945" book, there is a photo with this caption:

"ABOVE A marine intelligence team examine a weapon first encountered on Iwo Jima, the 320mm spigot mortar. The black-painted projectile with a thin red band, weighted 675 lb and had a range of 1,000 yds. Manned by the Japanese 1st Independent Mortar Regiment, its 24 mortars were inaccurate and proved to be none too effective despite their massive warhead. (USMC)"

[cathar1244]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_98_320_mm_mortar

The attached shows how I modeled it in my Okinawa 1945 scenario.

Ah, yes, that mortar is better documented. I'll provide an AP rating for it, for comparison purposes.

Regards--

In my Osprey "Okinawa 1945" book, there is a photo with this caption:

"ABOVE A marine intelligence team examine a weapon first encountered on Iwo Jima, the 320mm spigot mortar. The black-painted projectile with a thin red band, weighted 675 lb and had a range of 1,000 yds. Manned by the Japanese 1st Independent Mortar Regiment, its 24 mortars were inaccurate and proved to be none too effective despite their massive warhead. (USMC)"

Data -- shell had a picric acid bursting charge of 46.8 kilograms, per Leland Ness' "Rikugun", volume 2; max range of 1200 meters.

Brisance -- I've seen picric acid rated as 1.17 times as effective as TNT. Could be included in the calc if one desires.

Unit of fire = ( 645.16 / (16 * 16 * PI) ), or 0.802

Raw calculation -- 0.802 * 46.8 * 8 = 300.34

Range penalty calculated as ( (1.2 ^0.5) + 1) / 3.24 = 0.647

Calculation with range penalty is 300.34 * 0.647 = 194.32

My suggestion for heavy artillery is to divide that result by ( the bore diameter in mm / 100 ), so, 3.2, resulting in--

194.32 / 3.2 = 60.73 (AP rating for the equipment file, but would be entered as 61).

Your example showed the rating as displayed during gameplay, so divide 61 by 8 ... 7.625, or, rounded up, 8. Which matches what you assigned for the equipment in the scenario.

Regards--

[golden delicious]

Thanks for taking the time to write this out. The point about an operational volume of fire that can be delivered from a fixed and constant logistical effort is highly illuminating, and fits very well with TOAW's overall supply system where the % supply level doesn't exactly translate into the % of shells that the unit has, but is more of a reflection of the rate at which supply reaches fighting men. Considering the constraints of TOAW as it was written, it's a very sensible abstraction and must have been a lightbulb moment for Norm when he came up with the idea.

As with any model, it is weakest at the edges: on the one hand, opening artillery barrages typically occur after a long period of stockpiling supplies and in these cases artillery is typically firing as fast as possible. For example, in the specific case of multiple rocket launchers that you refer to, an enormous amount of ammunition can be delivered in a very short space of time; far more than could be sustained by continuous deliveries, and because TOAW must deal with such offensives artillery is probably overrated in other circumstances since there is no way to stockpile supply. On the other hand, when artillery is cut off from supply the shells do run out and at that point the notional pallet becomes irrelevant and the rate of fire falls to zero in a way which is impossible in TOAW. These are problems that would demand attention in a future operational wargame.

I completely take your point about not breaking past scenarios. If properly tested (which all scenarios should be but few are), then consciously or unconsciously the problems that the database introduce will have been addressed. I can think of at least one designer who routinely nerfs the anti-personnel strengths of anti-aircraft guns, for example. However, with a view to the future, it would be good to have an equipment list which removes the inconsistencies and errors of the TOAW standard which players can use as an alternate and designers as a starting point, either for new scenarios or for revised releases, in particular updating the existing list of equipment rather than modifying it (most custom equipment lists butcher the equipment not needed for a particular scenario). I'm a little out of touch so I'm not sure if such a thing exists. Previously, I've been loathe to adopt a new standard developed by someone else, but given your obvious intimate knowledge of the subject I'm less reluctant.