Matrix Games Forums

Panzer Leo as it happens check the dispersion on the 4.5 inch rockets fired from tubes in the link .. it is 15 mils in the game the rockets are fired at 150 and 100 yards they are boresighted and harmonized ( Rockets from either wing being aimed to cross at a certain point in front of the aircraft ) using the aircrafts boresight.. they can be single fired , Zuni Rockets I believe , but cannot documant right now ( Those are the 5" ) are a little better accuracy wise( They certainly stayed in service as a standard air to ground weapon much longer and were still being used extensively in Vietnam) and the Brits used some big 6" ( the ones you see in pictures with the warhead bigger than the rocket body ) on Typhoons and Tempests .. Rocket can be fired singlely and repeat runs can be made , check the link. btw a 15 mil dispersion is about 50 inches at 100 yards 75 inches at 150 yards
I agree about the APDS being over issued , I'm Not sure about any tanks being intro'ed to early .. maybe the Wolverine is a month or so early.. as to the AT Pen rating of the various ammo . all I know is that Paul has a formula he applies to all the rounds from all the countries uniformly , so if any one country is over pen'ing then they all are .. same with armor equivalent .. I simply do not have the formulas and the math to contest Pauls calculation on that. As far as APDS goes IIRC the supply figures in a mega sense for the ETO from the History of the US Ordnance Corp was 2 rounds per tube per month ... that does not mean 2 rounds per tank per month .. it is a supply level .. and in Theater supplies would be 60 days idealy. Distribution would be by Corp and by the likely hood of actaully engaging Enemy Armor . However you basic point is VERY VERY Valid .. US tanks should be forced to maneuver for side and rear shots .. force to map area should be low enough to allow such maneuver and arty support should be sufficent to suppress enemy assets to the degree manuver is feasible .. If it isn't most sane commanders will refuse the engagement , The US had that luxury unless suprised ( didn't happen often , the Bulge come to mind ) . My understanding is that APDS is a universal over issue to all nations and is an offset to the fact that every battle is a tank battle and that nobody is getting a 5 to 1 tank ratio with the point system disregarding production .. But Like I said I support Historical issue of all ammo types .. and the US should have to work for side shots and the map should be large enough for maneuver .. You can do that now in Battle ( 100x 240 and maybe 5000 points say) but not campaign . Frontally you can find occasions where the 76 did pen Panthers but it should be rare .. and you should have German tanks running out of fuel and ammo on the battle field .. that happened a lot .
Basically US Tanks could use a relook on ammo if not pen ( I really hate to take on the pen and armor thickness issue because those formulas are just not available ) .. but it would have to go hand in hand with Arty rework .. I have no problem with breaking the Bazookas out from the squads so long as the Company Total remians about the same .. so much of the US Infantry Fire Power was either at the HQ Co or Weapons Co and distrbuted down to Platoon and Squad based on the mission , and those formation are not even in the game. You start adding in the Bazooka Plt from HQ and Players start whining about too many bazookas .
The Point though is to differentiate the various Armies in the Game to the Maximum extent possible so fighting the Brits is not the same as fighting the Russian or as the US . Different priorities in weapons different doctrines , different philosphies make very different armies .. US tanks become Overwhelming Monsters when they support Infantry against an Infantry only oponent, US without Air and Arty should be taking it in the shorts against a Tank heavy German Force. Germany should have to sacrifice Infantry to clear US Infantry to get the tanks thru .. Thats was German doctrine, On offense , Infantry makes the hole .. not the tanks .. the Tanks exploit the hole. On Defense later in the war it was different .. anything at hand was thrown in to fill gaps . But whats the most played setup .. meeting engagements with Heavy tanks up front running into over ammoed Shermans like nobody ever did recon .. and I don't mean running a few 222's and jeeps 10 hexes in front of the tanks .. The whole set up stinks as far as running anything resembling actual tactics , mostly because of map/ force ratios, to say nothing of games set to short for a dismounted infantry advance , but also all the little compromises and averaging and offsets and the outright ignorance of tactics by the players . US was different it had the Mechanization and the Tanks to support Infantry Directly in the Breakthru and in the defense .. Could you imagine a German Army with 150 foot Infantry Divisions each with enough attached transport and a Tank Bn a TD Bn a mech AAA Bn and a Regiment of Arty Plus thier Tank and Mech Infanty Divisions ? Scary .. The Germans almost always held their Armor and Mech back either as reserves to counter breakthrus or as the Breakthru exploitive force .. not as the contact force or spread out to support the line. Infantry if it was lucky and elete got a smattering of stugs at divison to handle breakthrus Until Army reserves could show up and they defended in depth 10's of kilometers ... all of this is ignored , units are twisted to accomidate the map and packed sholder to sholder and fiddled with to somehow make it work .
All that aside Infantry weapons should be right .. break the bazookas out of the squads if that works for you .. Rates of fire for things like Sturmis ..hey and a Hellcat only shoots 5 times in 2 minutes, all the rates of fire are way off . PZIV's should be popping 20 times a turn tigers maybe 12 57mm every 4 seconds
Flak 88 maybe 20, intsead we got sturmis shooting twice. go figure ...
Everybody should pick a country and work to make it right .. I am concerned with the US I support reducing the AT ammo IF the Arty gets right .

Originally posted by AmmoSgt
Panzer Leo as it happens check the dispersion on the 4.5 inch rockets fired from tubes in the link .. it is 15 mils in the game the rockets are fired at 150 and 100 yards they are boresighted and harmonized ( Rockets from either wing being aimed to cross at a certain point in front of the aircraft ) using the aircrafts boresight.. they can be single fired , Zuni Rockets I believe , but cannot documant right now ( Those are the 5" ) are a little better accuracy wise( They certainly stayed in service as a standard air to ground weapon much longer and were still being used extensively in Vietnam) and the Brits used some big 6" ( the ones you see in pictures with the warhead bigger than the rocket body ) on Typhoons and Tempests .. Rocket can be fired singlely and repeat runs can be made , check the link. btw a 15 mil dispersion is about 50 inches at 100 yards 75 inches at 150 yards
I agree about the APDS being over issued , I'm Not sure about any tanks being intro'ed to early .. maybe the Wolverine is a month or so early.. as to the AT Pen rating of the various ammo . all I know is that Paul has a formula he applies to all the rounds from all the countries uniformly , so if any one country is over pen'ing then they all are .. same with armor equivalent .. I simply do not have the formulas and the math to contest Pauls calculation on that. As far as APDS goes IIRC the supply figures in a mega sense for the ETO from the History of the US Ordnance Corp was 2 rounds per tube per month ... that does not mean 2 rounds per tank per month .. it is a supply level .. and in Theater supplies would be 60 days idealy. Distribution would be by Corp and by the likely hood of actaully engaging Enemy Armor . However you basic point is VERY VERY Valid .. US tanks should be forced to maneuver for side and rear shots .. force to map area should be low enough to allow such maneuver and arty support should be sufficent to suppress enemy assets to the degree manuver is feasible .. If it isn't most sane commanders will refuse the engagement , The US had that luxury unless suprised ( didn't happen often , the Bulge come to mind ) . My understanding is that APDS is a universal over issue to all nations and is an offset to the fact that every battle is a tank battle and that nobody is getting a 5 to 1 tank ratio with the point system disregarding production .. But Like I said I support Historical issue of all ammo types .. and the US should have to work for side shots and the map should be large enough for maneuver .. You can do that now in Battle ( 100x 240 and maybe 5000 points say) but not campaign . Frontally you can find occasions where the 76 did pen Panthers but it should be rare .. and you should have German tanks running out of fuel and ammo on the battle field .. that happened a lot .
Basically US Tanks could use a relook on ammo if not pen ( I really hate to take on the pen and armor thickness issue because those formulas are just not available ) .. but it would have to go hand in hand with Arty rework .. I have no problem with breaking the Bazookas out from the squads so long as the Company Total remians about the same .. so much of the US Infantry Fire Power was either at the HQ Co or Weapons Co and distrbuted down to Platoon and Squad based on the mission , and those formation are not even in the game. You start adding in the Bazooka Plt from HQ and Players start whining about too many bazookas .
The Point though is to differentiate the various Armies in the Game to the Maximum extent possible so fighting the Brits is not the same as fighting the Russian or as the US . Different priorities in weapons different doctrines , different philosphies make very different armies .. US tanks become Overwhelming Monsters when they support Infantry against an Infantry only oponent, US without Air and Arty should be taking it in the shorts against a Tank heavy German Force. Germany should have to sacrifice Infantry to clear US Infantry to get the tanks thru .. Thats was German doctrine, On offense , Infantry makes the hole .. not the tanks .. the Tanks exploit the hole. On Defense later in the war it was different .. anything at hand was thrown in to fill gaps . But whats the most played setup .. meeting engagements with Heavy tanks up front running into over ammoed Shermans like nobody ever did recon .. and I don't mean running a few 222's and jeeps 10 hexes in front of the tanks .. The whole set up stinks as far as running anything resembling actual tactics , mostly because of map/ force ratios, to say nothing of games set to short for a dismounted infantry advance , but also all the little compromises and averaging and offsets and the outright ignorance of tactics by the players . US was different it had the Mechanization and the Tanks to support Infantry Directly in the Breakthru and in the defense .. Could you imagine a German Army with 150 foot Infantry Divisions each with enough attached transport and a Tank Bn a TD Bn a mech AAA Bn and a Regiment of Arty Plus thier Tank and Mech Infanty Divisions ? Scary .. The Germans almost always held their Armor and Mech back either as reserves to counter breakthrus or as the Breakthru exploitive force .. not as the contact force or spread out to support the line. Infantry if it was lucky and elete got a smattering of stugs at divison to handle breakthrus Until Army reserves could show up and they defended in depth 10's of kilometers ... all of this is ignored , units are twisted to accomidate the map and packed sholder to sholder and fiddled with to somehow make it work .
All that aside Infantry weapons should be right .. break the bazookas out of the squads if that works for you .. Rates of fire for things like Sturmis ..hey and a Hellcat only shoots 5 times in 2 minutes, all the rates of fire are way off . PZIV's should be popping 20 times a turn tigers maybe 12 57mm every 4 seconds
Flak 88 maybe 20, intsead we got sturmis shooting twice. go figure ...
Everybody should pick a country and work to make it right .. I am concerned with the US I support reducing the AT ammo IF the Arty gets right .

Don't get me wrong, the penetration ratings are excellent. I just put them up to show the difference between a conventional AP shot and an APCR (HVAP), so everyone can see what an impact it has, when the latter gets overdistributed.

Technically you're right about the rockets being able to fire only one at a time. But honestly, how many times of the hundreds you have seen from the shots taken from aircraft cameras on History Channel did a pilot fire one rocket, looked if it hit, fired a second and save six for the next three runs ?
I'm sure you have seen these pictures more times then I have and I saw many...Once I saw a Wildcat in the Pacific fire only two...once ! And never I saw just one rocket leave a plane in a run...honestly, did you ?

Well, and the accuracy of rockets...did you ever sit in a small plane...how much it moves up and down and even sidewards...you know better then me what a nick of just 1 degree up or downwards means for the rockets chances to hit an area of only a few square meters...

But with all you said above, you will find that H2H adresses 99% of your issues...all the things you mentioned drove me mad in 7.1 games...tank heavy...wrong tactics...meeting clashes...just nuts !
(Did I already mention, that I raised the ROF of guns (tank and AT) by one across the board)

H2H is a slower paced game, infantry based and national doctrines following.

If you do not base your forces in H2H on infantry (as you said...they do all the work to let the mechanized troops shine) and your opponent does (and knows to handle them), you will loose...

Germans are weaker in H2H, have less fancy equipement, more focused to the standard, tough to play when not infantry based

US are much weaker (then in 7.1), an Army based on mobile infantry that is not a spectacular force of it's trade, but has the best support from all nations (arty, air, infantry tanks).
If you know how to handle that kind of support, you can handle most situations.

Russians stayed about the same in lethality. The only Army that actually can deploy tank based forces without having a disadvantage, arty though not as good as US is a major factor, too.

British forces stayed unchanged in strength. Because Germans and US got weaker, the British got competitive again...a good mix of weapons is what makes them dangereous...they win battles because they have no weaknesses...and no strengths also

This list goes on even for smaller countries...in H2H you have to "learn" to use a nation...they differ much more then in 7.1

Give up your crusade against Tigerkiddies and for a completely overhauled SPWAW v8.

H2H is by far not perfect, but somehow I got the feeling it comes much closer to your likings than you might think...

Wanna play a battle ?

H2H fr, C&C ON, you US, me GER...infantry based with real tactics

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
Germans are weaker in H2H, have less fancy equipement, more focused to the standard, tough to play when not infantry based.

I'm fighting a PBEM as the Germans, set in Feb 1945.
And I'm losing.

The battleground is largely urban (the map is in the game under the name Winter City).Meeting engagement, my oponent is playing the Soviets.

My Kampfgruppe includes what is roughly an infantry Bn with a reinforced tank company in support. However I have to say my infantry has been pretty useless, even inside the city. The Panthers on the other hand have had some success. The lesson I'm drawing is that infantry are toast while tanks kill things.

Panzer Leo


If you are willing to go CC off I would like to play you.

Well, and the accuracy of rockets...did you ever sit in a small plane...how much it moves up and down and even sidewards...you know better then me what a nick of just 1 degree up or downwards means for the rockets chances to hit an area of only a few square meters...

There are a few things that cause alot of difficulty in aiming any air to surface weapons in strafing runs.

1. When you are flying low, the ground surface disturbs the winds a lot. The edges of forests and other obstacles form windrotors that shake your plane a lot, and are pretty unpredictable. There are also thermals (raising airmasses) that do the same. This means that you have your hands full flying the plane when you are aiming at things.

2. AA. When you are attacking a ground target you must fly in low altitudes, and you come in effective range of all small caliber AA. If somebody is flying on a straight path, an experienced AA crew has an fairly easy job of shooting hits to the strafing aircraft. This is why only soon to be dead rookies fly straight for more than a few seconds. You must dive, climb, side-slip and twist the plane all the time to mess with the AAs aim. Infantry smallarms are also really deadly to low flying planes.

3. You must fly low and at high speeds. This is not easy with all the other madness going on, and when you are in a position to start shooting your target, it will close so fast that you have only a couple of seconds or so to fire your weapons.

4. All of the previous reasons made strafing runs pretty dangerous, and these missions weren't particularly popular ones. I doubt that in the presence of any AA, anybody would save their rockets for next runs, getting out alive from the first one was considered good enough.

IMO these reasons make SP:WAW aircrafts totally wrongly modelled, and are the reasons why I allmost never accept Strike elements used in my games.

I think this could be fixed by giving the rocket firing aircrafts only one rocket, and adjusting its damage values to represent a salvo, plus the accuracy shuld be adjusted down radically.

Originally posted by wulfir
I'm fighting a PBEM as the Germans, set in Feb 1945.
And I'm losing.

The battleground is largely urban (the map is in the game under the name Winter City).Meeting engagement, my oponent is playing the Soviets.

My Kampfgruppe includes what is roughly an infantry Bn with a reinforced tank company in support. However I have to say my infantry has been pretty useless, even inside the city. The Panthers on the other hand have had some success. The lesson I'm drawing is that infantry are toast while tanks kill things.

it´s called national caracteristics which causes this, which is still in the game taken over from the orig. ssi steel panther. i don´t know how much is it changed though. must take a look in my ssi steel handbooks - there are tables for each nations capabilities i believe.

in 44 + 45 germany is getting weaker + weaker esp. on the foot inf. arm. perhaps the change is a bit too drastic - because in reality even in the late war months much german inf. units fought good...while allied ( esp. russian + US ) forces getting better + better. no wonder much players favor the US - despite ammo sgt´s opinion.

Originally posted by Frank W.
in 44 + 45 germany is getting weaker + weaker esp. on the foot inf. arm. perhaps the change is a bit too drastic - because in reality even in the late war months much german inf. units fought good...while allied ( esp. russian + US ) forces getting better + better. no wonder much players favor the US - despite ammo sgt´s opinion.

On the East front, morale was good all the way up to the last weeks. This was due to tradition and training ofcourse, but most of all borne out of desperation to stem the Russian tide. Everyone knew that there would be no mercy from the Red Army, so fighting it out was the better option, and preventing the Red Army from reaching the homes of families and friends was probably a big booster on the will to fight on. On the west front I can imagine things being quite different, the attitude towards the western Allies was much more lenient.

Originally posted by Frank W.
it´s called national caracteristics which causes this, which is still in the game taken over from the orig. ssi steel panther.

National carecteristics or not... my advice is to NEVER take any King Tigers out on a field trip when there are Soviets around. King Tigers miss their shots, are big targets and die.

Infantry, well hmmm... smaller targets maybe, but they pretty much just die too ( well I guess somebody has got to keep Iwan busy).

PzKfw V Panther has mobility, protection and killing power.
Use the Panthers, lose the Tigers.

Have you used a H2H Tiger yet

Originally posted by VikingNo2
Have you used a H2H Tiger yet

No, but I'd like to get my hands on a couple of T34/85's. As my oponent said: it's a piece of 'tracked Russians art'.

In all my years of SP...including the original work of art, I dont think i've ever had a battle where i've managed to get my money's worth out of the few King Tiger's i could afford to purchase.

Airpower was the major culprit in all of them. After that it was those huge flanks just begging for a shot to be put through them.

One is probably better off purchasing a couple of 88/71 AT guns, especially in WAW

The Tiger in H2H is very scary, I ran a test I had one take out 8 T34s in a turn:eek:

Originally posted by VikingNo2
The Tiger in H2H is very scary, I ran a test I had one take out 8 T34s in a turn:eek:

In ONE turn?! Darn, that's not only a hefty rate of fire, it's also one hell of an accuracy AND kill ratio.....

Yep it just kept OP firing, if you are attacking something with high expereince watch out.

Set up a little battle against the AI to test some tigers...
Had one platoon of Tigers and one platoon of King Tigers along with a few other units.

H2H April 1945...

Quickly lost count of the enemy AFVs getting blown up by my two platoons (AI tactics, know what I mean?).

Anyway, but tiger platoons were swarmed and KO'd. Them T34/85s are a downright nasty piece of equipment.

Originally posted by Nikademus
In all my years of SP...including the original work of art, I dont think i've ever had a battle where i've managed to get my money's worth out of the few King Tiger's i could afford to purchase.

Airpower was the major culprit in all of them. After that it was those huge flanks just begging for a shot to be put through them.

One is probably better off purchasing a couple of 88/71 AT guns, especially in WAW

Just remembered a Long Campaign I played way back with SP1, when my core force, lovingly handled since 1939 got obliterated by the American airforce...

I had set up my troops and the first thing that happens is a gigantic airstrike... stopped counting when the 14th P38 came screaming in blasting the h3ll out of my sorry Germans...

Originally posted by VikingNo2
Panzer Leo


If you are willing to go CC off I would like to play you.

Sorry, was out of town for a couple of days...

Well, there's one preference that is non-negotiatable in games I play...that's C&C...
I played one battle with C&C OFF a couple of months ago and it really was no big fun...I simply miss a whole bag of tactics and realism, when it's turned off...

If you want to try it with ON, we can start anytime...

BTW, I see a lot of players around here, that I can't find over at the Blitz Club...I joined last year and found a lot of very good opponents there...it is very easy to find someone who likes your types of game played.

So if you like PBEM, just take a look and give it a try:

Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club - SP-section

i´m already in the blitz, my codename is alpha there. probably i´m on rank 150 or so in the ladder

edit: no. 172

Well SPWAW 7.1 and H2H had their good and bad point.

Ammo is right about the data and so is Panzer.

Well I have some point to raise

It is true that SIG 33 are used as an artillery in some case but the German classification of calling them assault artillery because they are using artillery gun but not because they were really intented as an artillery pieces. But it is a fact that From America to Germand and Russian, the main gun of any tank is at some point written that they were used as an artillery. The American use their Sherman 75 and do bombarment regulary. The German love to use their 88 as an artillery so is the Russian using their 152. I understand that Russian 152 can only raise about 20 to 30 deg though only to fire at shorter range but when fire in company level, they are hell. But why werent they allow to do.

The Pz 39H RAK which was used by Rommel in the desert battle was configured to fire 5 Flame rocket and 1 HE.... with 4 of that, I can kill everything outright. The Wuffaemen configuration is 4HE 4 HE and 4 Flame. I know their ROF is 2 is but with good ammo truck support it is still too powerful. Sometime I think back to historical of 5 HE and 1 Flame and give it ROF 6 is good enough.

The Pz IV was carrying HEAT round which can kill even a Russian T-34 M42 alright at 30 to 40 hex is bull XXXXX. Why are they given HEAT? Do they have HEAT at that early on war. No wonder nobody wants Pz III anymore. The Pz III are quite accurate in the game cause it is really that hard to kill a T-34 for 50 mm low velocity gun but the 75 mm with HEAT is even a KV killer.

The last version to reduce all spotting to 60 percent... from this version onwards, I never attack first, I hide and let them come, they cant even spot me....60 percent spotting is good for defend and total disadvantage to attacker. I discover this it after a few PEMM game with my friends.

The disadvantge in original OOB 7.1 is that why SIG 33 cannot use their gun as in direct fire. Maybe if somebody can change the indirect bombardment need not required the direct line of sight should correct everything and need not change the SIG 33 to an onboard artillery at all.

I only know one trick in OOB 7.1 is that you station at somewhere and one spotted the enemy in the hex, you use indirect fire on it and move out of sight. Then you press F again and the indirect fire will continue even if the line of sight is no more. Well if the indirect fire can deminish the requirement of direct line of sight then there will be no more argument of which is artillery and which is not.

Sturm with a ROF of 1 and use indirect fire rather than an artillery. He use it on one hex and boom one round off and only for that turn. No more second round of fire. So all tanks now has the ability to use indirect fire and no more dispute about what tanks is an artillery and which is not.

Originally posted by o4r

It is true that SIG 33 are used as an artillery in some case but the German classification of calling them assault artillery because they are using artillery gun but not because they were really intented as an artillery pieces.

That is the general thinking, but it is only partly true. First of all it starts with the US classification of this weapon (the sIG33 in all it's appearances) as infantry gun. It is not a gun, it is a howitzer (like the Handbook on German Military Forces calls it correctly), as it can fire in the upper and lower register (upper means elevation higher then 45 degrees).
It has the same optics like a 105mm FH18 and the platoons have rangefinding and calculating troops like mortar units.
Although it was used in a forward role and also in direct fire missions, to support infantry, it always was intended to give indirect support aswell.
I have more pics of a sIG33 in action with indirect fire as with direct.
That is why it is modeled in H2H as onboard arty.

The Pz IV was carrying HEAT round which can kill even a Russian T-34 M42 alright at 30 to 40 hex is bull XXXXX. Why are they given HEAT? Do they have HEAT at that early on war. No wonder nobody wants Pz III anymore. The Pz III are quite accurate in the game cause it is really that hard to kill a T-34 for 50 mm low velocity gun but the 75 mm with HEAT is even a KV killer

PzIV was the better T-34 killer and had HEAT from the start on. What actually is wrong, is the amount of tanks players use in their games...they were much rarer then their appearance on SP battlefields...

The last version to reduce all spotting to 60 percent... from this version onwards, I never attack first, I hide and let them come, they cant even spot me....60 percent spotting is good for defend and total disadvantage to attacker. I discover this it after a few PEMM game with my friends.

It goes down to your tactics...attacking has become more difficult, as it was in history...no more "race for the vic hexes and the first one to capture it wins"...that is completely intentional...

The disadvantge in original OOB 7.1 is that why SIG 33 cannot use their gun as in direct fire. Maybe if somebody can change the indirect bombardment need not required the direct line of sight should correct everything and need not change the SIG 33 to an onboard artillery at all.

Not an option...this cannot be changed...we're stuck with what we have...and imagine all the stuff used as arty...wouldn't be very historical...just imagine your 75mm offboard arty support is not a field gun, but a platoon of Shermans...to have tanks as indirect arty support on the board is completely unnecessary, IMHO...