This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!
My goodness. This sounds awful like many a robust conversation held over on the Steel Panthers site 17 years ago. [X(]
Shame we don't have more synergy between the game titles so all that info isn't lost... [:'(]
Agreed I was part of the SP discussions quite a bit too. Well these 2 games are quite different and for sure the land combat in WITPae is more simplified and cannot compared to a dedicated tactical game... but still some values in this game could be better imo. I read there will be a new SP-WAW version btw.
Yes, things are weighted towards the more vulnerable areas because they are larger and weaker. Given this games mathematical calculation methods, this has the virtue of consistency, ease of application, and rational relation to objective outcome. In terms of first principles, this is as valid today as it was in War-2.
Troops were trained to fire at the more vulnerable areas of vehicles. Engagement ranges and impact zones depended on the type and caliber of weapon available. According to doctrine, high velocity, largish caliber weapons ‘could’ engage target fronts, but the preferential target was always the sides. Alternatively, as expressed by the famous centurian at Ilipa with respect to elephants, you sneak around back and jam your pilum up its a$$. US field manuals taught this explicitly, as did the Soviet training schedules. The Russians widely distributed a series of booklets, Partisan’s Companions, containing diagrams and photos of every German vehicle, describing where the weak points were and how to disable it with every conceivable weapon from AT guns, rifle caliber bullets, bottles of gasoline, to rocks!
Distribution of (immobilization) hits:
Artillery; turret-31% (57% top, 36% sides), upper side-52%, lower side-17%
Hollow charge; turret-44% (72% sides, 26% rear), upper side-48%, lower side-8%
Direct fire; front-37%, side*-60%, rear-3% (* document note: average 30% per side surface)
Distribution of tank casualties:
Direct fire-54%, mines-20%, non-weapon-13%, hollow charge-7.5%, artillery/mortar and misc.-6%
Causes of vehicles destroyed verses vehicles disabled:
Destroyed: Direct fire-51%, artillery/mortar-20%, hollow charge-14%, mines-9%, other-6%
Disabled: Direct fire-28%, artillery/mortar-62%, hollow charge-6%, mines-13%, other-2%
*document summary – The incompleteness of the Allies’ historical records of armored units in World War II obviated any attempt to separate tank casualties from gunfire into categories, e.g., “tank”, “antitank”, or “artillery”.
Coox, Naisawald, “Survey of Allied Tank Casualties of WW-II”, Johns Hopkins, Operations Research Office, Ft. McNair, Washington DC (ORO-T-117); under contract to Dept of the Army, 1951
FM-17 series, Armored Force Field Manual, War Dept., Washington DC
Êîìïàíüîíû ïàðòèçàíàì (Partisan’s Companions), GRU, Moskow (many from 1941-1945).
Here’s a copy of a table from the survey that might be interesting. It shows vehicle casualties from all main theaters, including Burma and the Pacific. Losses to mines and gunfire are fairly equivalent between Europe and the Pacific but losses to “misc” enemy weapons are noteworthy in several Pacific engagements (c.f., Guadalcanal, Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa), where the losses are equivalent to, and in some instances greater than, losses attributed to mines or gunfire.
Thanks for all the comments and data, Matt. You’re right when you say that week points play an important role in the life and death of a tank. Perhaps more so than shear frontal armor thickness.
Most of these "misc enemy weapon"s will have been gruesome to the wielder.
Any idea or explanation what the "misc non-enemy weapon" column is? Operational loses (hardly a "weapon"?!), friendly fire (seems too high)? For some of the early invasions in the pacific, these make up more than 60% of the losses.
I must admit my interest is sparked, but I'll be on vacation for a week. I’ll pick it up again when I’m back and try to go through the statistical data (from here and elsewhere). I would still argue that weighting has to be based on hit received, not fatal hits. There are for example no frontal “hollow charge” fatalities in the data provided, but that doesn’t mean that the front wasn’t hit, just that it couldn’t be penetrated by such weapons. Over optimizing the weighting perhaps is perhaps not sensible (but can be fun), since impact on final results will be small.
The Sherman tank (and the Grant/Lee) were quite tall so I imagine there would be some losses to roll-over accidents, especially if the tank was moving at night and did not see the slope.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
Probably took a while to find out what you can and cannot do with a tank, the sea, and a beach.
Boggy ground can be deceiving too. During construction of one of our northern highways several pieces of heavy equipment were lost, some almost instantly and a few parked on what looked like terra-firma for the night but missing next day with a big wet spot where the equipment was. Our bogs are muskeg, but I presume quicksand is similar in action.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
ORIGINAL: Rafid
Thanks for all the comments and data, Matt. You’re right when you say that week points play an important role in the life and death of a tank. Perhaps more so than shear frontal armor thickness.
Most of these "misc enemy weapon"s will have been gruesome to the wielder.
Any idea or explanation what the "misc non-enemy weapon" column is? Operational loses (hardly a "weapon"?!), friendly fire (seems too high)? For some of the early invasions in the pacific, these make up more than 60% of the losses.
I must admit my interest is sparked, but I'll be on vacation for a week. I’ll pick it up again when I’m back and try to go through the statistical data (from here and elsewhere). I would still argue that weighting has to be based on hit received, not fatal hits. There are for example no frontal “hollow charge” fatalities in the data provided, but that doesn’t mean that the front wasn’t hit, just that it couldn’t be penetrated by such weapons. Over optimizing the weighting perhaps is perhaps not sensible (but can be fun), since impact on final results will be small.
Have a nice time.
Data came from British, Canadian, French, US Army and USMC reports. Terms and conditions varied among the nationalities and the aggregate was compiled under yet different terms and conditions. It may have been more fair to call some of the ‘side’ things, simply “hull”.
Just looking at reports done in a uniform way, using uniform terminology, you get something like:
37% front, 60% side, 3% rear, 0% top, for gunfire
31% front, 51% side, 10% rear, 8% top, for hollow charge
Don’t believe it will change much if the entire data set was evaluated in this way. One can determine turret, upper, and lower sides from the data as well as turret vs hull front. I’m afraid upper and lower glacis is not differentiable. Japanese did not possess hollow charge so ignoring it does not distort the data. Sticky bombs, Molotov cocktails, rifle grenades, and the like, are weapons whose effects are included in the close assault phase of the algorithm. They do not apply during the various fire phases. Fun to know about all those things, but essentially irrelevant to the system mechanics.
Miscellaneous losses - At Tarawa, 42 tanks were unloaded (14 M4A2, 28 M3A1). Of these, 33 were lost (combat ineffective) and of these, 23 were from misc non-enemy causes; four when their LCMs were sunk, one lost (disabled) to US Navy dive bombers, eighteen lost to electrical failure from immersion or bogging after falling into shell craters (often also water filled). Saipan exhibited similar operational causes of loss; terrain and situational mechanical/electrical failure. Yes, friendly fire is included in that loss column, but incidence was low compared to just plain old something broke or driving over a cliff.
Just a word of caution to anyone recalculating armor vs anti-armor values for AFV's.
A check of ongoing PBEM's reveals that AFV's with heavy plate and effective guns (such as Grant Tanks) do MUCH better in combat than others (such as armored cars and light tanks).
Therefore, without a layman's guide to game-code in front of me - it's logical to assume that the algorithms in code already take into account many factors - facing, probable range, non-combat breakdowns etc.
From what I already know of Naval Surface Warfare code - This does Not surprise me.
So instead of trying to re-create many variables as mentioned above, it looks like a relatively straight forward evaluation of vehicle vs gun may be the simplest and most realistic way to go to get good combat results.
Just a word of caution to anyone recalculating armor vs anti-armor values for AFV's.
A check of ongoing PBEM's reveals that AFV's with heavy plate and effective guns (such as Grant Tanks) do MUCH better in combat than others (such as armored cars and light tanks).
Therefore, without a layman's guide to game-code in front of me - it's logical to assume that the algorithms in code already take into account many factors - facing, probable range, non-combat breakdowns etc.
From what I already know of Naval Surface Warfare code - This does Not surprise me.
So instead of trying to re-create many variables as mentioned above, it looks like a relatively straight forward evaluation of vehicle vs gun may be the simplest and most realistic way to go to get good combat results.
Just saying.
B
Facing? Doubt it hard. It just compares raw numbers-Attack value vs. Defense. It doesn't do anything other than that.
They used to tell us that about the air-2-air combat, till I watched tons of A6m5s getting blazed by B25D1s. You telling me A6M5s always went head to head with B25D1s?
Just a word of caution to anyone recalculating armor vs anti-armor values for AFV's.
A check of ongoing PBEM's reveals that AFV's with heavy plate and effective guns (such as Grant Tanks) do MUCH better in combat than others (such as armored cars and light tanks).
Therefore, without a layman's guide to game-code in front of me - it's logical to assume that the algorithms in code already take into account many factors - facing, probable range, non-combat breakdowns etc.
From what I already know of Naval Surface Warfare code - This does Not surprise me.
So instead of trying to re-create many variables as mentioned above, it looks like a relatively straight forward evaluation of vehicle vs gun may be the simplest and most realistic way to go to get good combat results.
Just saying.
B
Facing? Doubt it hard. It just compares raw numbers-Attack value vs. Defense. It doesn't do anything other than that.
They used to tell us that about the air-2-air combat, till I watched tons of A6m5s getting blazed by B25D1s. You telling me A6M5s always went head to head with B25D1s?
ORIGINAL: Rafid
Thanks for all the comments and data, Matt. You’re right when you say that week points play an important role in the life and death of a tank. Perhaps more so than shear frontal armor thickness.
Most of these "misc enemy weapon"s will have been gruesome to the wielder.
Any idea or explanation what the "misc non-enemy weapon" column is? Operational loses (hardly a "weapon"?!), friendly fire (seems too high)? For some of the early invasions in the pacific, these make up more than 60% of the losses.
I must admit my interest is sparked, but I'll be on vacation for a week. I’ll pick it up again when I’m back and try to go through the statistical data (from here and elsewhere). I would still argue that weighting has to be based on hit received, not fatal hits. There are for example no frontal “hollow charge” fatalities in the data provided, but that doesn’t mean that the front wasn’t hit, just that it couldn’t be penetrated by such weapons. Over optimizing the weighting perhaps is perhaps not sensible (but can be fun), since impact on final results will be small.
Have a nice time.
Data came from British, Canadian, French, US Army and USMC reports. Terms and conditions varied among the nationalities and the aggregate was compiled under yet different terms and conditions. It may have been more fair to call some of the ‘side’ things, simply “hull”.
Just looking at reports done in a uniform way, using uniform terminology, you get something like:
37% front, 60% side, 3% rear, 0% top, for gunfire
31% front, 51% side, 10% rear, 8% top, for hollow charge
Don’t believe it will change much if the entire data set was evaluated in this way. One can determine turret, upper, and lower sides from the data as well as turret vs hull front. I’m afraid upper and lower glacis is not differentiable. Japanese did not possess hollow charge so ignoring it does not distort the data. Sticky bombs, Molotov cocktails, rifle grenades, and the like, are weapons whose effects are included in the close assault phase of the algorithm. They do not apply during the various fire phases. Fun to know about all those things, but essentially irrelevant to the system mechanics.
Miscellaneous losses - At Tarawa, 42 tanks were unloaded (14 M4A2, 28 M3A1). Of these, 33 were lost (combat ineffective) and of these, 23 were from misc non-enemy causes; four when their LCMs were sunk, one lost (disabled) to US Navy dive bombers, eighteen lost to electrical failure from immersion or bogging after falling into shell craters (often also water filled). Saipan exhibited similar operational causes of loss; terrain and situational mechanical/electrical failure. Yes, friendly fire is included in that loss column, but incidence was low compared to just plain old something broke or driving over a cliff.
Matt
Interesting...
TOMLABEL
Art by the Rogue-USMC
WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art
"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln
btw, I have read that the 75mm IJ field gun was among the best anti guns, cause it had a good heat shell...guess the value given for field guns do only take into account the "HE" value vs. armor. Which would mean more indirect fire, tanks can be disabled by indirect HE ofc, but the higher the caliber the better (logo). Light tanks can be overturned by blast effects from eg. 150-203mm howitzers. The HEAT shell however would be used in direct fire mode, the drawback of heat is that the shell travels very slow compared to AP(C) so target that is manouvering can easier take cover if shot with heat shells.
Edit, ofc the travel time of a heat shell is much longer too, so heat is much better at lower distance. In SPWAW you have eg. the Sherman 105 or Stug42/105 both have some heat provided, which can take out a Tiger with side/rear shot easily, but IIRC when longer than 10 hexes range the accurary would drop quite a lot..you would get perhaps a 10-15% hit chance provided the crew exp is good. While eg. a 75/L48 AP would get 30-40% for the same target (as example)
Yes, the muzzle velocity of the Sherman 105 HEAT shell was about 380 m/s, whereas the APCBC round on the Sherman 76mm variant had a muzzle velocity around 790 m/s. The 76mm HVAP/APCR rounds had a muzzle velocity over 1000 m/s.
Mike
When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.
