HSG Bussard

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: benpark

I'm not lecturing you (in particular) on anything. I have played more than my fair share of HSG scenarios in my many years of playing CM/BB/AK and enjoyed quite a few of them. There's no need to be defensive, I'm simply trying to open up other avenues and discuss how certain things could be more accurate.

I'm just warning people that MM is not going to be the end all, be all, of historical wargaming. Alot of designers work long hard hours to bring you what you get. I'm not being overly defensive except for the part about you did 1 internet search to question my scenario, if I spent more time and $ on my research it could be better. While all of that is true at some point I have to decide if I'm going to actually do something besides research.

The rest of my post was just answering your points.

Most people that play wargames realize that is only possible to a point, but think of the BFC boards when CM first came out- most of the discussions were about relative accuracy compared to historical data.

When I first started HSG I was told that nobody would play historically based scenarios because they weren't balanced and they weren't fun. So much for both those attitudes.

Anyone that produces anything and gives it away for free here is to be thanked (Stridor being the top of that list). As for where all of my scenarios are- I've been too busy producing new models and lots of other things for this game to actually spend time playing it. I had started a series of maps for Operation Spring Awakening that I may get to once I get some more time.

That happens to me as well. I spend so much researching the scenarios and putting them together in the editor that I don't get to play as much as I'd like.

I'm simply stating a few differences of interpretation of how people might go about finding information and dealing with it. Semi-historical is good stuff, too. I just wonder if this location could actually be found (or modelled better at the very least), and wanted to illustrate that it may be possible if one were creative and wished to do so.

That's exactly why you don't see any of my scenarios here on this site but those I tried to learn to use the editor in. The maps don't fit exactly. In this case though...a hill is pretty much a hill. The battle isn't about the hill but about 1 vs 16 or however many it was.

I should probably pull all the ones I have on here since they are CD maps and not of the original places. I just tried to find situations that fit what the maps were showing.

This needs it's own thread. I'll start one later tonight.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Stridor
So how accurate is Steve's (MR's) scenario in the first place?
I don't really have the time right now to do lots of leg work I was kinda hoping I would be provided with all the basic data and then just get on with the work of building them map.
Regards
S.

If you were going to make this scenario the way it is described in the book you would have a larger map and scatter the 6 of the 18 T-34s all over it. And make them really poor shots.

To do this scenario right I need alot of things PC doesn't do.

So, you do the best you can with what you have.

I put the scenario out because it's representative of the action and I thought others may like to play it as well.

I'm good with it. At some later date I may go back and revisit it. Until I can make my own maps I don't see that happening. For this or any of the other scenarios I've made.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

I inspected the photos of Wittmanns StuG and it isn't an Ausf A, it is an early model B.
(No side escape hatch and no brake vent cowlings.) So the book is in error here.

Tried to replace the T26 with the T34 and the StuG just can't handle them even from the side. Wittmann's gunner apparently could target the turret ring at 400m.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I inspected the photos of Wittmanns StuG and it isn't an Ausf A, it is an early model B.
(No side escape hatch and no brake vent cowlings.) So the book is in error here.

Tried to replace the T26 with the T34 and the StuG just can't handle them even from the side. Wittmann's gunner apparently could target the turret ring at 400m.

Is the picture of the StuG from the action on that day? The book may not be in error. It could be a replacement or one that was upgraded at a later date.

This is exactly what's wrong with trying to completely duplicate an action. Even one this basic. You have far too many things that can be wrong. That's why I rarely label my scenarios as historical.

One of two things about the Soviet forces... either almost none of the tanks he fought that day were T-34's or they had no AP ammo. I can't believe that they were since the action makes such a big deal about the KV. The guns were the same. No difference.

That alone tells me there were no T-34's here. I haven't gone back and redone any of my old research though. Anything is possible.

For a learning experience in the editor it works.

No game AI has yet to target the "softer" parts of AFV's that are superior to your own. No such thing as shooting for the turret ring or to fire at the running gear to immobilize it, instead of shooting round after round, at the turret front you can't penetrate.

PC is not alone in that regard.

Thanks for all the comments.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mraah]

Mad Russian,

Have you thought about creating a map that duplicates your CCBB map? I have your CCBB scenario but unfortunately I'm only running CCAK so I can't load the scenario up in that editor. I'll have to scrounge around for my old BB disk and reinstall.

If you don't want to do a map for your scenario can you provide the details of your map from BB? It would only be right to get your map converted into PcK for the true design to come through!

I like the scenario despite a default map. It's the challenge that makes it good.

On that note ... I modified your scenario a wee bit ... Well, I actually converted it into a Random Campaign Battle. It's quite amazing how it all works out. Everything is the same except for the following :

1. Random Setup - Wittmann starts at the East or SouthEast position ... Russians setup West or Northwest (depending on Wittmann start location).
2. New StugIIIA tank - Same as B model but I made it worth 131 points to balance the points (ie, no more premature loss). Also, I added the PanzerAce attribute but I don't know if it the bonus is active (no medal shown so might be a special attribute only for the game engine to add-on).
3. Objectives - random (of course) ... 1-3 flags ... worth roughly 30-40 points, give or take. Again, this balances the points.

Anyway ... I made it play out as the player wants ... they can run 1 battle or run a gauntlet of 10. Obviously, if Wittmann is destroyed you lose and have to replay the darn thing over again (sigh, I'm with you on that feature). It really makes a good battle since you know what the forces are but you don't know where they will show up!

Let me know if it's ok to post it here to your thread ... It might even interest you into a campaign dabble or two ... albeit another editor for you to learn.

Thanks for your work,

Rob

[Mobius]

Haven't read anywhere that Wittmann replaced 'Buzzard' with 'Buzzard II'.
But the Ausf A and early B were almost exactly the same except for the small external differences that I stated.

The Germans didn't refer to the T34/76 as the T34 when they first encountered it. It was the 30 ton tank. My guess it was something better than the T26 or T26 Model 1939. More likely the uparmored T26S Model 1939. Which had better armor and could deflect (if lucky) a short 75mm AP off the front hull at 400m.

My miniature rules do have an advanced rule for aiming 'high' or 'aiming' low which increases turret hits or track hits but gives a lower overall hit chance as they aren't shooting for center of mass.

[Mobius]

Changed

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Here is the xml for the uparmored T26S Model 1939.

Mobius,

Thanks for your updated XML ... One question ...

I compared the T26 with the new T26s and you have the TRACK( location #4) with a front armor rating of 3 [&:] ...

Did you really mean this or should it go back to 1.5 ?

Rob

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

Haven't read anywhere that Wittmann replaced 'Buzzard' with 'Buzzard II'.
But the Ausf A and early B were almost exactly the same except for the small external differences that I stated.

The Germans only differentiated vehicle models by gun barrel size in their OOB's.

I don't know. If that photo wasn't taken on that day though, there is no way of knowing 100% what he was in. What is far more important is an early StuG would have tremendous difficulty killing a T-34 and no chance at all against a KV. Other than the turret ring, damaging the gun, or immobilization.

The Germans didn't refer to the T34/76 as the T34 when they first encountered it. It was the 30 ton tank. My guess it was something better than the T26 or T26 Model 1939. More likely the uparmored T26S Model 1939. Which had better armor and could deflect (if lucky) a short 75mm AP off the front hull at 400m.

Could have been a T-26E as well. They weren't very common but they had extra armour plating. That's actually what the "E" stands for in this case.

The SW Front had the highest concentration of the new tanks. So, it's possible that he found some of them. The T-34's and KV-1's often went into battle in the early months without AP rounds. The guns were so new that the factories hadn't made enough ammunition for them to fight.

That isn't something I can regulate in PCK. In PCK they all get rounds. In CM I can regulate that as the designer and often do.

My miniature rules do have an advanced rule for aiming 'high' or 'aiming' low which increases turret hits or track hits but gives a lower overall hit chance as they aren't shooting for center of mass.

Did those rules make it into PC though? That comment was aimed soley at tactical computer games.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mraah

Mad Russian,

Have you thought about creating a map that duplicates your CCBB map? I have your CCBB scenario but unfortunately I'm only running CCAK so I can't load the scenario up in that editor. I'll have to scrounge around for my old BB disk and reinstall.

I was going to but I really don't see the point. All that will do is have someone else take time from a project that may be more valuable to do a scenario with a single StuG in it.

Let me know if it's ok to post it here to your thread ... It might even interest you into a campaign dabble or two ... albeit another editor for you to learn.

Thanks for your work,

Rob

Not been much help in this game system. I always thought I was pretty smart but Stridor certainly puts that into perspective. [&o]

Learning editors isn't so bad in PC. The one's I've been in are easy enough.

Of course you can post it in here but it's your work so put it in it's own thread. I didn't do the map. According to others I've got the OOB wrong. [:D]

Apparently if I'd take more time and spend more $ I might actually get it right...sorry BP couldn't resist that shot back at you.... but this scenario is what it is.

At present I don't really care how it turns out. That was done long ago and far away. Something simple to test out how the editor works. It was easy enough to use.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Stridor]

Ok how about this.

I hate to delegate, but I am just so busy in my new work now I really have no time to do much with PCK except read these posts now. This is both good and bad.

How does this sound.

We make this a collaborative effort.

If I may ...

MR designs/tweaks the scenario as the scenario supremo.
Ben does the map as he is a map wizard
Mobius does a custom stug [&o] and or mods the texture to be buzzard specific + creates a new gun entry for the 26/34s that don't have HE. Obviously he is the game mechanics master.
If anyone else can help please raise your hand and state your area of expertise.

As for me ... well I, will play it all when it is done.

So, whadya think?

Regards

S.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Here is the xml for the uparmored T26S Model 1939.

Mobius,
Thanks for your updated XML ... One question ...
I compared the T26 with the new T26s and you have the TRACK( location #4) with a front armor rating of 3 [&:] ...
Did you really mean this or should it go back to 1.5 ?
Rob

Crumbs! No that is an error. It should be 1.5
-Steve

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Of course you can post it in here but it's your work so put it in it's own thread. I didn't do the map. According to others I've got the OOB wrong. [:D]

Apparently if I'd take more time and spend more $ I might actually get it right...sorry BP couldn't resist that shot back at you.... but this scenario is what it is.

At present I don't really care how it turns out. That was done long ago and far away. Something simple to test out how the editor works. It was easy enough to use.

Understood.

I'm looking at this whole thread in this perspective ...

MR, you have planted a seed when it comes to a challenging scenario. It grew a little to generate some interest/debates. Everyone got a new T26sM39 ... whereas, without your "test" scenario there wouldn't be.

Now, I've got to polish up the "7/41 Bussard Gauntlet" campaign. I don't care if it's accurate or not (heck, how many times does Wittman have to fight the same battle over and over!!) ... what's interesting to me is the mechanics behind a scenario being converted into an RCG battle ... The same battle but with a little random twist to the plot.

I hope you (and everyone) will have a go at it. It will definately help everyone create a little RCG by simply looking at the structure of the files. Maybe it will continue growing ... maybe it will die.

Rob

[Mraah]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Crumbs! No that is an error. It should be 1.5
-Steve

Ok ... I figured you got a little trigger-happy when changing the front armor values [;)].

Now, since we're off topic (sorry MR to hijack your thread) but still on the T26sM39 ... Look at Locations # 2 and 3 ... I'm assuming this is the lower hull ... Did these parts contain the extra armor?

I hate to compare this with the "other game" ... CCBB ... but, they do have quite the data base to compare ... Now, whether they are incorrect I don't know ... Their lower hull (F/S/R) for the T26sM39 remains unchanged from the T26.

Any thoughts?

Thank you for your time,
Rob

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mraah

Now, since we're off topic (sorry MR to hijack your thread) but still on the T26sM39 ... Look at Locations # 2 and 3 ... I'm assuming this is the lower hull ... Did these parts contain the extra armor?

I hate to compare this with the "other game" ... CCBB ... but, they do have quite the data base to compare ... Now, whether they are incorrect I don't know ... Their lower hull (F/S/R) for the T26sM39 remains unchanged from the T26.

Any thoughts?

Thank you for your time,
Rob

The vehicle I think we are looking for is the T-26E. It had the extra armour plating bolted onto it.

"Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" by Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen show exactly the same armour ratings for both the T-26 Model 33 and the T-26S Model 37.

The comment they make for up-armoured T-26S is this:

....the T-26S was too thinly armoured to resist contemporary anti-tank guns, or even modern anti-tank rifles. As a result, a small number of T-26S were rebuilt with added turret and hull armour bringing the thickness to 50mm.

These were called the T-26E(E-s ekranami: with applique)

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The vehicle I think we are looking for is the T-26E. It had the extra armour plating bolted onto it.

"Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two" by Steven J. Zaloga and James Grandsen show exactly the same armour ratings for both the T-26 Model 33 and the T-26S Model 37.

The comment they make for up-armoured T-26S is this:

....the T-26S was too thinly armoured to resist contemporary anti-tank guns, or even modern anti-tank rifles. As a result, a small number of T-26S were rebuilt with added turret and hull armour bringing the thickness to 50mm.

These were called the T-26E(E-s ekranami: with applique)

Good Hunting.
MR

T-26S Model 1939

The final version of the T-26S was given a redesigned wider superstructure with sloped sides. This increased the effectiveness of the side armour, and provided the space for extra fuel and ammunition. The turret was given a drop-forged or cast mantlet, which simplified the manufacturing process. As a result the T-26S Model 1939 looked a far more modern vehicle than the earlier Model 1931 or Model 1933, but in fact was still very vulnerable to anti-tank weapons.

T-26E

During the Winter War with Finland it became clear that the 25mm frontal armour of the T-26S was vulnerable to modern anti-tank weapons. In an attempt to improve the usefulness of the T-26 extra 25mm armour plates were added to a number of tanks to produce the T-26E.

OK, I have some work to do and run this through my spreadsheet.

[Mobius]

T26E

[Mobius]

Buzzard

[Mraah]

Mobius and MR,

Great !! Nice photo ... the lack of torsion bars is interesting.

I'll run the T26E through the Bussard campaign ... So far, the change with the T26sM39 makes a difference ... reduces the one-shot-one-kill.

Thanks for your work (both of you),

Rob

EDIT NOTE .... What do you two think about the lower hull armor? Any evidence they bolted that far down?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mraah
EDIT NOTE .... What do you two think about the lower hull armor? Any evidence they bolted that far down?

I don't. That would be a rather heavy piece. If it was 25mm thick it is at 62° so would be equivalent to 5 cm any ways.

You might want to let the front hull location 2 on the StuG be 6+2 as it has some applique armor from the tracks.