Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 3:25 am**

One Japanese tank regiment vs my Chinese infantry unit and AT unit with about 30 37mm AT guns. Over the course of the past six months or so the Japanese tank regiment has attacked me about 10-15 times. Always at less than 1-1 odds usually much worse as I am defending in mountain terrain. In all of these attacks I don't think the tank regiment has taken a "single" casualty. Not one... I don't see the AT guns working at all.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 4:45 am**

From memory, AT weapons are not a specific device and there is no code to make them (or any anti-armor device) fire at vehicle/AFV devices specifically. This also applied to stock WITP.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:26 am**

Don't they have 0 assault value like other "artillery" pieces?

Since they don't bombard, then what exactly do they do?

Are they simply game fluff?

This is rether distressing news.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:30 am**

They still are counted and used in combat. But not directly against AFVs.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:39 am**

ORIGINAL: michaelm

They still are counted and used in combat. But not directly against AFVs.

ok, but since they don't bombard and have 0 assault value how exactly are they "counted" in combat?

do they fire rsndomly at any enemy unit, and if so, with what firepower value since they have 0 assault value?

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:33 am**

Individual units get to fire off devices during the attack/defense parts of the combat.
Any hit then would use the anti-soft/hard, etc to evaluate the damage.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 1:07 pm**

At full strength, the units involved here have the following firepower totals (excluding support):

12th Tank Regiment: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps: Anti-Armor 1602, Anti-Soft 4119
56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti Armor 1656, Anti-Soft 432

21st Chinese Corps is split up (/C), so let's assign a third, and we get new aggregates as follows:

IJA 12th Tank Rgt: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps/C, 56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti-Armor 2190, Anti-Soft 1805

From a purely Assault Value perspective, the comparison would be 39 AV for the Japanese Tank Regiment and 81 for the Chinese infantry unit (0 for the AT gun regiment), or initial odds of 2.07:1 in favour of the Chinese (before experience, morale, terrain modifiers).

BUT if you look at the anti-soft and anti-armor ratings, it is 1.12:1 in terms of anti-armor and 2.25:1 in terms of anti-soft.

If the 56th AT Regiment was not included, this would drop anti-soft to 1.7:1 in favour of the Chinese - and anti-armor to 3.65:1 in favour of the Japanese.

So the AT gun regiment - although appearing not to add to assault value - does add considerably to firepower.

In my opinion assault value is just an approximate indication of a unit's offensive capability, it's actually more important to look at firepower (for example, an IJA Inf Squad and a Chinese Inf Squad both have an assault value of 1 but the IJA squad has anti-soft of 20 while the Chinese squad only had 13.

Also, what is the effect of fog of war here?

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:23 pm**

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

At full strength, the units involved here have the following firepower totals (excluding support):

12th Tank Regiment: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps: Anti-Armor 1602, Anti-Soft 4119
56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti Armor 1656, Anti-Soft 432

21st Chinese Corps is split up (/C), so let's assign a third, and we get new aggregates as follows:

IJA 12th Tank Rgt: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps/C, 56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti-Armor 2190, Anti-Soft 1805

From a purely Assault Value perspective, the comparison would be 39 AV for the Japanese Tank Regiment and 81 for the Chinese infantry unit (0 for the AT gun regiment), or initial odds of 2.07:1 in favour of the Chinese (before experience, morale, terrain modifiers).

BUT if you look at the anti-soft and anti-armor ratings, it is 1.12:1 in terms of anti-armor and 2.25:1 in terms of anti-soft.

If the 56th AT Regiment was not included, this would drop anti-soft to 1.7:1 in favour of the Chinese - and anti-armor to 3.65:1 in favour of the Japanese.

So the AT gun regiment - although appearing not to add to assault value - does add considerably to firepower.

In my opinion assault value is just an approximate indication of a unit's offensive capability, it's actually more important to look at firepower (for example, an IJA Inf Squad and a Chinese Inf Squad both have an assault value of 1 but the IJA squad has anti-soft of 20 while the Chinese squad only had 13.

Also, what is the effect of fog of war here?

Whatever...They have had zero effect in over a dozen enemy attacks into mountain terrain. Not one enemy AFV killed or disabled to my recollection. Just my observation. In fact it seems like Japanese pure armor forces are almost immune to any adverse effect vs Chinese units. The same applies to Allied armor vs Japanese but Allied armor units will lose infantry squads and motorized squads but very few tanks. However, Japanese tank regiments are almost solely tanks and just grind away Chinese units without loss. Not surprising considering the lack of AT assets but 30 37mm guns should put the hurt on Japanese crap cans...

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:51 am**

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

At full strength, the units involved here have the following firepower totals (excluding support):

12th Tank Regiment: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps: Anti-Armor 1602, Anti-Soft 4119
56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti Armor 1656, Anti-Soft 432

21st Chinese Corps is split up (/C), so let's assign a third, and we get new aggregates as follows:

IJA 12th Tank Rgt: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps/C, 56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti-Armor 2190, Anti-Soft 1805

From a purely Assault Value perspective, the comparison would be 39 AV for the Japanese Tank Regiment and 81 for the Chinese infantry unit (0 for the AT gun regiment), or initial odds of 2.07:1 in favour of the Chinese (before experience, morale, terrain modifiers).

BUT if you look at the anti-soft and anti-armor ratings, it is 1.12:1 in terms of anti-armor and 2.25:1 in terms of anti-soft.

If the 56th AT Regiment was not included, this would drop anti-soft to 1.7:1 in favour of the Chinese - and anti-armor to 3.65:1 in favour of the Japanese.

So the AT gun regiment - although appearing not to add to assault value - does add considerably to firepower.

In my opinion assault value is just an approximate indication of a unit's offensive capability, it's actually more important to look at firepower (for example, an IJA Inf Squad and a Chinese Inf Squad both have an assault value of 1 but the IJA squad has anti-soft of 20 while the Chinese squad only had 13.

Also, what is the effect of fog of war here?

and where in game is all this wonderful hidden data we should be considering instaed of the only data they actually give us in game, which is firepower?

I've been saying for years that half the actual data needed to understand what is going on and make good decisions in game should be provided to the player in game instead of hidden from the player in the editor!

Posted: **Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:22 pm**

Ive had pretty good luck all game with the Allied anti-tank guns:

Ground combat at Myitkyina (64,42)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 47234 troops, 526 guns, 809 vehicles, Assault Value = 1823

Defending force 34565 troops, 401 guns, 250 vehicles, Assault Value = 1270

Japanese adjusted assault: 2133

Allied adjusted defense: 5527

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 6)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
5419 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 257 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 364 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Vehicles lost 237 (7 destroyed, 230 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1311 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 149 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 53 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
55th Division
20th Recon Regiment
14th Tank Regiment
9th Armored Car Co
56th Division
3rd Tank Regiment
1st Recon Regiment
2nd Division
2nd Tank Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
1st Tank Regiment
26th Recon Regiment
6th RF Gun Battalion
15th Army
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
41st Air Defense AA Regiment
4th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Ind.AA Gun Co
3rd Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
BFF Brigade
16th Indian Brigade
3rd Burma Battalion
31st Infantry Regiment
44th Indian Brigade
Railway BAF Battalion
4th Burma Battalion
1st Burma Brigade
46th Indian Brigade
2nd Burma Brigade
1st Burma Battalion
13th Indian Brigade
45th Indian Brigade
36th Chinese Division
2nd Burma Battalion
641st Towed TD Bn /1
102nd RAF Base Force
103rd RN Base Force
106th RAF Base Force
27th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
Burma Corps
107th RAF Base Force
103rd RAF Base Force
101st RAF Base Force
1st Burma Auxiliary AA Regiment
85th British AT Gun Regiment
2/215th Bty 80th AT Rgt /1
272/273rd Bty 80th AT Rgt /1
100th RAF Base Force
104th RAF Base Force
109th Tank Attack Rgt /1

That was about 25% of the IJA armor vehicles disabled/killed in 1 attack. Are you certain that your anti-tank guns in China have suffucient supplies?

Chinese LCUs on the other hand are nearly helpless against IJA armor....even when the Japanese are attacking at 1:99 odds:

Ground combat at 83,59

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1410 troops, 0 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 221

Defending force 19184 troops, 157 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 660

Japanese adjusted assault: 24

Allied adjusted defense: 2377

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Allied ground losses:
272 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
12th Tank Regiment
58th Infantry Regiment
9th Tank Rgt /2

Defending units:
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
46th Chinese/B Corps
86th Chinese/C Corps
71st Chinese/C Corps
46th Chinese/A Corps
65th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Division
49th Chinese/C Corps
7th War Area

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:48 am**

I think one of the main issues is that Chinese units have very low anti-armor ratings. Chinese infantry units carry almost no anti-tank weapons, whereas the Commonwealth units in your defense at Myitkyina have organic anti-tank weapons, which help a lot.

I don't have the firepower information at hand now, but that 1:99 attack against the Chinese looks like the Japanese had a significant anti-armor firepower disparity, but I would have expected the anti-soft advantage of the Chinese (coupled with terrain advantage) would have resulted in the Japanese 58th Infantry Regiment getting bloodied.

I think I will try some tests of my own, I am sure that the Japanese in that attack suffered considerable disruption and must have had squads and vehicles disabled, if not destroyed.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:56 pm**

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: CT Grognard

At full strength, the units involved here have the following firepower totals (excluding support):

12th Tank Regiment: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps: Anti-Armor 1602, Anti-Soft 4119
56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti Armor 1656, Anti-Soft 432

21st Chinese Corps is split up (/C), so let's assign a third, and we get new aggregates as follows:

IJA 12th Tank Rgt: Anti-Armor 1950, Anti-Soft 804
21st Chinese Corps/C, 56th AT Gun Rgt: Anti-Armor 2190, Anti-Soft 1805

From a purely Assault Value perspective, the comparison would be 39 AV for the Japanese Tank Regiment and 81 for the Chinese infantry unit (0 for the AT gun regiment), or initial odds of 2.07:1 in favour of the Chinese (before experience, morale, terrain modifiers).

BUT if you look at the anti-soft and anti-armor ratings, it is 1.12:1 in terms of anti-armor and 2.25:1 in terms of anti-soft.

If the 56th AT Regiment was not included, this would drop anti-soft to 1.7:1 in favour of the Chinese - and anti-armor to 3.65:1 in favour of the Japanese.

So the AT gun regiment - although appearing not to add to assault value - does add considerably to firepower.

In my opinion assault value is just an approximate indication of a unit's offensive capability, it's actually more important to look at firepower (for example, an IJA Inf Squad and a Chinese Inf Squad both have an assault value of 1 but the IJA squad has anti-soft of 20 while the Chinese squad only had 13.

Also, what is the effect of fog of war here?

and where in game is all this wonderful hidden data we should be considering instaed of the only data they actually give us in game, which is firepower?

I've been saying for years that half the actual data needed to understand what is going on and make good decisions in game should be provided to the player in game instead of hidden from the player in the editor!

If you are referring to the various squads or other devices anti-hard and anti-soft values (just for example), then for quite some time that information has been conveniently displayed in Tracker. I know that it would be wonderful if the game itself had a modern interface and could therefor easily include such info. But we do have Tracker, and it helps immensely.

BTW, I see that CT Grognard must have added up the values for the numbers of squads/guns there. I'm not sure if that's close to how the code does it internally, so I would not hang my hat on it. Still, it does illustrate the point about the individual squads' firepower multiplying their effect.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:12 pm**

sorry, but I refuse to go outside the game for info that should be supplied in game.

the bastard step child nature of the manner in which land warfare has been treated ever since the beginning days of WiTP has always been and continues to be one of my greatest pet peeves

I will admit that GREAT STRIDES have been made in improving it, but the confusing manner in which ground combat results are presented to the player has never been improved

we still see every last unit in the hex listed as participating in every combat even if only one or two units actually participate, we still see combat odds presented to us that apparently can't be relied upon to represent anything meaningful or convey any information to the player relating to the outcome, we are constantly reminded by the fanbois that it is our responsibility to read between the lines and count up the number of opposing guns rather than relying on the more often than not useless combat odds (and of course counting guns means nothing because the "guns" total inlcudes gun types that don't prticipate in land combat like AA guns).............

I could go on but there is really no need.....

If the firepower value is what matters with regard to antitank guns then what good does it do to provide me with the information concerning it's zero assault value, which is useless to me, while hiding it's firepower value from me?

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:16 pm**

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

Ive had pretty good luck all game with the Allied anti-tank guns:

Ground combat at Myitkyina (64,42)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 47234 troops, 526 guns, 809 vehicles, Assault Value = 1823

Defending force 34565 troops, 401 guns, 250 vehicles, Assault Value = 1270

Japanese adjusted assault: 2133

Allied adjusted defense: 5527

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 6)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
5419 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 257 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 364 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Vehicles lost 237 (7 destroyed, 230 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1311 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 149 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 53 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
55th Division
20th Recon Regiment
14th Tank Regiment
9th Armored Car Co
56th Division
3rd Tank Regiment
1st Recon Regiment
2nd Division
2nd Tank Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
1st Tank Regiment
26th Recon Regiment
6th RF Gun Battalion
15th Army
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
41st Air Defense AA Regiment
4th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Ind.AA Gun Co
3rd Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
BFF Brigade
16th Indian Brigade
3rd Burma Battalion
31st Infantry Regiment
44th Indian Brigade
Railway BAF Battalion
4th Burma Battalion
1st Burma Brigade
46th Indian Brigade
2nd Burma Brigade
1st Burma Battalion
13th Indian Brigade
45th Indian Brigade
36th Chinese Division
2nd Burma Battalion
641st Towed TD Bn /1
102nd RAF Base Force
103rd RN Base Force
106th RAF Base Force
27th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
Burma Corps
107th RAF Base Force
103rd RAF Base Force
101st RAF Base Force
1st Burma Auxiliary AA Regiment
85th British AT Gun Regiment
2/215th Bty 80th AT Rgt /1
272/273rd Bty 80th AT Rgt /1
100th RAF Base Force
104th RAF Base Force
109th Tank Attack Rgt /1

That was about 25% of the IJA armor vehicles disabled/killed in 1 attack. Are you certain that your anti-tank guns in China have suffucient supplies?

Chinese LCUs on the other hand are nearly helpless against IJA armor....even when the Japanese are attacking at 1:99 odds:

Ground combat at 83,59

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1410 troops, 0 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 221

Defending force 19184 troops, 157 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 660

Japanese adjusted assault: 24

Allied adjusted defense: 2377

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Allied ground losses:
272 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
12th Tank Regiment
58th Infantry Regiment
9th Tank Rgt /2

Defending units:
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
46th Chinese/B Corps
86th Chinese/C Corps
71st Chinese/C Corps
46th Chinese/A Corps
65th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Division
49th Chinese/C Corps
7th War Area

Sorry, this would not be a good example as there are plenty of other Allied assets in your massive stack that will easily kill Japanese tanks. If this battle is after 1943 then your average Commonweath infantry squad has excellent AT values and can stand up to any Japanese tanks. Not to mention your own tanks which seem to be working fine in the game. I am not sure about AT guns that are found in an infantry unit either. My example was a pure AT unit.

Note that your defending Chinese pure infantry defenders did not even disable one tank. Hells Bells, we are talking about Japanese tanks and tankettes. I would expect 10% to be lost to mechanical breakdowns in any attack regardless of the defenders. And eventually some Chinese "Dare Death" squad (ASL players will know [;)]) is bound to throw a grenade bundle into a weak spot.

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm**

Forget AT guns crsutton .. P40 Warhawks straffing from the rear on a narrow mountian road disabled these tankettes ..

At least in advanced squad leader the 37mm had a good chance of penatration on a takette ...[;)]

BTW) in this thread somebody discounts flak .. but a flak gun can shoot HE/AT shells and lots of them .. in ASL a quad 20 mm flak gun is extermly deadly to infantry and can be deadly to real tanks with a side or rear shot because of the probably of extra shots ... it took only one "snake eyes" and a critical hit to take down a real tank let alone these tankettes ..

ahhh I digress [:D]

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:47 pm**

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

sorry, but I refuse to go outside the game for info that should be supplied in game.

Best of luck! [8D]

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:17 pm**

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Forget AT guns crsutton .. P40 Warhawks straffing from the rear on a narrow mountian road disabled these tankettes ..

At least in advanced squad leader the 37mm had a good chance of penatration on a takette ...[;)]

BTW) in this thread somebody discounts flak .. but a flak gun can shoot HE/AT shells and lots of them .. in ASL a quad 20 mm flak gun is extermly deadly to infantry and can be deadly to real tanks with a side or rear shot because of the probably of extra shots ... it took only one "snake eyes" and a critical hit to take down a real tank let alone these tankettes ..

ahhh I digress [:D]

I am going to go to Winter Offensive for a day or two next week. ASL is the only board game that I still play. And, that is getting pretty rare these days. Still, the best game ever made. You guys think AE is a tough one to master....[:-]

Posted: **Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:28 pm**

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Forget AT guns crsutton .. P40 Warhawks straffing from the rear on a narrow mountian road disabled these tankettes ..

At least in advanced squad leader the 37mm had a good chance of penatration on a takette ...[;)]

BTW) in this thread somebody discounts flak .. but a flak gun can shoot HE/AT shells and lots of them .. in ASL a quad 20 mm flak gun is extermly deadly to infantry and can be deadly to real tanks with a side or rear shot because of the probably of extra shots ... it took only one "snake eyes" and a critical hit to take down a real tank let alone these tankettes ..

ahhh I digress [:D]

I am going to go to Winter Offensive for a day or two next week. ASL is the only board game that I still play. And, that is getting pretty rare these days. Still, the best game ever made. You guys think AE is a tough one to master....[:-]

My favorite also .. I did a campaign Fotress Europa to handle the operations ..each point was 1K ASL points .. the special units allowed automatically rarity odds of 1.6 otherwise you had to roll for it ..wrote rules to gnerate the terrain based on the FE terrain ...it worked out quite well for generating battles ..lasted a year ...

What was really neat from my standpoint reff'ing the campaign was the 20% causuality drops morale '1' rule in ASL. Now players could not simply attack until the last man standing .. once 20% was exceeded a simple drop from '7' to '6' instantly caused great concern . hit the drop of '2' in morale and rout was ineventiable ... so the interaction of campaign and tatical results worked very well ...

Ok back to AT guns and WitP AE [:D]

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:09 am**

ORIGINAL: AdmSpruance

Ive had pretty good luck all game with the Allied anti-tank guns:

Ground combat at Myitkyina (64,42)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 47234 troops, 526 guns, 809 vehicles, Assault Value = 1823

Defending force 34565 troops, 401 guns, 250 vehicles, Assault Value = 1270

Japanese adjusted assault: 2133

Allied adjusted defense: 5527

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 6)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
5419 casualties reported
Squads: 15 destroyed, 257 disabled
Non Combat: 14 destroyed, 364 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Vehicles lost 237 (7 destroyed, 230 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1311 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 149 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 53 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
55th Division
20th Recon Regiment
14th Tank Regiment
9th Armored Car Co
56th Division
3rd Tank Regiment
1st Recon Regiment
2nd Division
2nd Tank Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
1st Tank Regiment
26th Recon Regiment
6th RF Gun Battalion
15th Army
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
41st Air Defense AA Regiment
4th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
21st Ind.AA Gun Co
3rd Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
BFF Brigade
16th Indian Brigade
3rd Burma Battalion
31st Infantry Regiment
44th Indian Brigade
Railway BAF Battalion
4th Burma Battalion
1st Burma Brigade
46th Indian Brigade
2nd Burma Brigade
1st Burma Battalion
13th Indian Brigade
45th Indian Brigade
36th Chinese Division
2nd Burma Battalion
641st Towed TD Bn /1
102nd RAF Base Force
103rd RN Base Force
106th RAF Base Force
27th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
Burma Corps
107th RAF Base Force
103rd RAF Base Force
101st RAF Base Force
1st Burma Auxiliary AA Regiment
85th British AT Gun Regiment
2/215th Bty 80th AT Rgt /1
272/273rd Bty 80th AT Rgt /1
100th RAF Base Force
104th RAF Base Force
109th Tank Attack Rgt /1

That was about 25% of the IJA armor vehicles disabled/killed in 1 attack. Are you certain that your anti-tank guns in China have suffucient supplies?

Chinese LCUs on the other hand are nearly helpless against IJA armor....even when the Japanese are attacking at 1:99 odds:

Ground combat at 83,59

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1410 troops, 0 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 221

Defending force 19184 troops, 157 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 660

Japanese adjusted assault: 24

Allied adjusted defense: 2377

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 99

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Allied ground losses:
272 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 13 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
12th Tank Regiment
58th Infantry Regiment
9th Tank Rgt /2

Defending units:
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
46th Chinese/B Corps
86th Chinese/C Corps
71st Chinese/C Corps
46th Chinese/A Corps
65th Chinese Corps
93rd Chinese Division
49th Chinese/C Corps
7th War Area

Sorry, this would not be a good example as there are plenty of other Allied assets in your massive stack that will easily kill Japanese tanks. If this battle is after 1943 then your average Commonweath infantry squad has excellent AT values and can stand up to any Japanese tanks. Not to mention your own tanks which seem to be working fine in the game. I am not sure about AT guns that are found in an infantry unit either. My example was a pure AT unit.

Note that your defending Chinese pure infantry defenders did not even disable one tank. Hells Bells, we are talking about Japanese tanks and tankettes. I would expect 10% to be lost to mechanical breakdowns in any attack regardless of the defenders. And eventually some Chinese "Dare Death" squad (ASL players will know ) is bound to throw a grenade bundle into a weak spot.

_____________________________

"Many years ago, I once had a conversation with a prostitute in Chile."

Sorry.....this is an excellent example of AT guns in action. First of all...this battle was from 8/42. Nearly all the Allied brigades are crap Burma Corps and the only brigade that has any AT guns at all(other than 31st Inf. Regiment) is the 16th Indian and they have a total of 4 AT guns.

The 31st Inf. Regiment was purchased with PPs from Luzon and sent to China specifically because it had 18 organic 37mm AT guns. Then it was airlifted from China to Myitkina just a couple of days before this assault.

Im not sure about your tank comment. I didnt have a single Allied tank involved in the battle. If you are referring to the 109th Tank Attack Regiment it consists of 36 2-pdr AT guns. So this virtual IJA panzer corps was thrashed by 108 AT guns from five AT gun LCUs and 22 organic AT guns from infantry formations.

If you still dont like this example Ive got another from 2/14/42 thats even more impressive. Here the IJA Panzer korps is still in China and they are thrashed by the two Chinese AT regiments in the forests S of Sian:

Ground combat at 85,44

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 148847 troops, 1309 guns, 1420 vehicles, Assault Value = 5690

Defending force 126774 troops, 821 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4515

Japanese adjusted assault: 2838

Allied adjusted defense: 5476

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
9264 casualties reported
Squads: 29 destroyed, 740 disabled
Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 478 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 44 disabled
Vehicles lost 190 (5 destroyed, 185 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
5775 casualties reported
Squads: 103 destroyed, 723 disabled
Non Combat: 21 destroyed, 563 disabled
Engineers: 5 destroyed, 49 disabled

Assaulting units:
7th Ind.Mixed Brigade
17th Division
14th RGC Temp. Division
3rd Tank Regiment
26th Recon Regiment
20th Recon Regiment
3rd Ind.Mixed Brigade
35th Division
15th Tank Regiment
12th RGC Temp. Division
6th Division
34th Division
1st Recon Regiment
6th Ind.Mixed Brigade
36th Division
41st Division
116th Division
4th Ind.Mixed Brigade
23rd Tank Regiment
11th Tank Regiment
13th Ind.Mixed Brigade
10th Tank Regiment
37th Division
8th Recon Regiment
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade
9th Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
13th Tank Regiment
18th RGC Temp. Division
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
Mongol Garrison Army
4th RF Gun Battalion
6th RF Gun Battalion
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
1st Mortar Battalion
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
22nd AA Regiment
4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Bn /5

Defending units:
45th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese/C Corps
57th Chinese/A Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry/ Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry/ Corps
90th Chinese/C Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry/ Corps
57th Chinese/C Corps
16th Chinese/B Corps
90th Chinese/B Corps
77th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese/B Corps
4th Construction Regiment
59th Chinese/A Corps
30th Chinese/C Corps
67th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese/C Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry/ Corps
30th Chinese/B Corps
36th Chinese/B Corps
59th Chinese/B Corps
55th Chinese Corps
76th Chinese/A Corps
16th Chinese/A Corps
48th Chinese Corps
57th Chinese/B Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry/ Corps
92nd Chinese/B Corps
3rd Chinese/B Corps
30th Chinese/A Corps
3rd Chinese/C Corps
1st Chinese/A Corps
92nd Chinese/A Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry/ Corps
92nd Chinese/C Corps
36th Chinese/A Corps
16th Chinese/C Corps
59th Chinese/C Corps
4th Group Army
21st Group Army
33rd Group Army
57th AT Gun Regiment
5th War Area
22nd Group Army
2nd Group Army
56th AT Gun Regiment

Thats over 1200 IJA armor vehicles being turned back by 72 Chinese 37mm AT guns.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:23 am**

I'll do some testing with DaBigBabes on a variety of terrains with fog-of-war off. Let's see what the empirical results show.

Matrix Games Forums

Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.

RE: Starting to think that AT guns don't work.