Squad AT weapons (WWII) - which value for HEAT?

[Telumar]

Norm himself classifies Panzerfaust, 2.36in ATRL (bazooka) and PIAT as 'very light RPG' in the appendix of the Equipment.rtf that can be found in the manuals folder. Very light RPG gives the squad the AT- characteristics with an AT value of 5 (HEAT).

However, is there a consensus among long time TOAWers and scenario designers that this shouldn't be or respectively should rather be higher?

I ask as I have compared some data (all people long time "TOAWers", veteran scenario designers, the old guard etc):

In Bill Wilson's WWII database the Bazooka and PIAT have 8 HEAT, the PzFaust 20 (!).
While i can see (and understand) that he sees the PzFaust superior, though a bit too superior to the Allied models, it's still higher as recommended by Norm. Armor values for AFVs in his database are in most cases the same as for the standard equipment base btw.

Derek Weichs (aka PanzerWar) WWII database gives the PzFaust armed squad 7, the Bazooka 14 and the PIAT 9 HEAT. But he increased Armor strengths of most AFVs.

Snefens in OP Neva - Leningrad 1944 gives the PzFaust armed squad 8 HEAT, too.
That would ,according to Norm's recommendation (if it is one), apply to post war US 3.5in ATRL and 'PzSchreck' (8.8cm).

Bob Cross' two France 1944 scenarios give both, Allied and German units a mixture of AT and AT- squads.
AT for the German PzSchreck, okay. But in that quantity? And the Allies..?

DMcBride in 'Berlin - Götterdämmerung' gives the German infantry a mixture of Rifle AT (HEAT 8) and normal Rifle squads.
I *could* see this as a measure of balancing against overwhelming odds. Or later model Panzerfausts

Apart from the inconsistency and attempts/rationale to model the various versions of the Panzerfaust (30, 60, 100) or the early bazooka vs the later M9 version there seems to be one consensus though. That all AT (HEAT) values are generally higher as recommended for these weapons by Norm. Why?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Bob Cross' two France 1944 scenarios give both, Allied and German units a mixture of AT and AT- squads.
AT for the German PzSchreck, okay. But in that quantity? And the Allies..?

For a 1944 scenario, I add one level of AT to front-line squads to account for close-assault abilities of such squads (Molotov cocktails, sticky bombs, etc.). Today, I probably would have edited the equipment instead, but that wasn't available at the time this scenario was created.

[ogar]

My guess is that the scenario designers were working in a mode similar to what Curtis described - trying to model effects in a specific close-in environment for a specific campaign.  The two DB builders (Wilson and Weichs), I think, were trying to put together a more comprehensive model as opposed to one for just the Normandy countryside in summer 1944, for instance.

I'll also guess that earlier trials with scenarios showed that the armor was just too strong.  And that could be because tanks as pixels are not really hampered by terrain, weather, ruins, snipers, etc.  So _something_ has to be added to slow them a bit.  (Again - this is a guess on my part on what other folks have done.)

Note that most of the examples are for pre-TOAW 3.4.  I wonder, if folks were trying to account by increasing HEAT values, for some of the defender improvement that came with TOAW 3.4.

My own inclination is to keep AT- (HEAT = 5) for squads in 1942-43, gradually bringing AT (HEAT = 8) in later 1943-1944.  I think some German squads might go AT+ in 1945, but I'd leave Americans and British at AT, and actually restrict Soviet units to AT- unless the units are sappers.  But that's me, and I can go do my own database and scenario.  That's one of the great things about TOAW.  And I'll be the first to throw out all my theory if/when testing shows the need for stronger infantry AT to maintain game balance.

Also note we haven't even gotten to 1946 let alone Sil's 1947 or Korea... or anything close to modern.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

Bob Cross' two France 1944 scenarios give both, Allied and German units a mixture of AT and AT- squads.
AT for the German PzSchreck, okay. But in that quantity? And the Allies..?

For a 1944 scenario, I add one level of AT to front-line squads to account for close-assault abilities of such squads (Molotov cocktails, sticky bombs, etc.). Today, I probably would have edited the equipment instead, but that wasn't available at the time this scenario was created.

Thanks Bob. I just was interested in your rationale. Let's see if Snefens 'pops up' and adds something. The others seem to be no more active.

I'm compiling the OOB/TOE for a new project (Sept - Oct 43), using Brian Wilson's database and came across these increased AT values, and wondered..

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: ogar

My guess is that the scenario designers were working in a mode similar to what Curtis described - trying to model effects in a specific close-in environment for a specific campaign.  The two DB builders (Wilson and Weichs), I think, were trying to put together a more comprehensive model as opposed to one for just the Normandy countryside in summer 1944, for instance.

That's what i thought, too. The close-in environment in Normandy. But then, shouldn't - or doesn't - the combat model account for that? I.e. Infantry Defense Bonus in this kind of terrain or the Visibility factor in AT combat.

ORIGINAL: ogar

I'll also guess that earlier trials with scenarios showed that the armor was just too strong.  And that could be because tanks as pixels are not really hampered by terrain, weather, ruins, snipers, etc.  So _something_ has to be added to slow them a bit.  (Again - this is a guess on my part on what other folks have done.)

Note that most of the examples are for pre-TOAW 3.4.  I wonder, if folks were trying to account by increasing HEAT values, for some of the defender improvement that came with TOAW 3.4.

Guess - yeah. That's why i thought i'd ask the people who did this.

ORIGINAL: ogar
My own inclination is to keep AT- (HEAT = 5) for squads in 1942-43, gradually bringing AT (HEAT = 8) in later 1943-1944.  I think some German squads might go AT+ in 1945, but I'd leave Americans and British at AT, and actually restrict Soviet units to AT- unless the units are sappers.  But that's me, and I can go do my own database and scenario.  That's one of the great things about TOAW.  And I'll be the first to throw out all my theory if/when testing shows the need for stronger infantry AT to maintain game balance.

Also note we haven't even gotten to 1946 let alone Sil's 1947 or Korea... or anything close to modern.

According to what i've read the US infantry company had 3 bazookas in 43. I would go with a third of the squads in a US combat unit being AT- (HEAT 5) in 43. The pieces at the Mortar and AT platoon of the Hvy Company could be modeled as single pieces of eqp (AT- team) maybe or as Light Rifle AT- squads. Same for the British. For the Germans at that period in that theater (Italy) i would do the same. Will edit Brian Wilson's eqp base then as he has AT- = 8 (HEAT).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

But then, shouldn't - or doesn't - the combat model account for that? I.e. Infantry Defense Bonus in this kind of terrain or the Visibility factor in AT combat.

Those two factors will make it harder for tanks to kill infantry or enemy tanks. I don't think they will enhance infantry's ability to kill tanks. For that, you have to raise the infantry's AT factor. And that AT factor is a measure of a squad's ability to kill tanks - by any means (at least, that's how I saw it).

For CFNA (a 1940-42 scenario), I added no such bonus. I would consider 1939-41 to be the "happy days" for tanks. It took time for infantry to develop the equipment and tactics to defend themselves from tanks. But by 1944, tanks weren't so "happy". That was what I was trying to model.

It would be better if the game system accounted for this separately, of course. But that's for the future.

[LLv34_Snefens]

No consensus that I know of. The value of the HEAT property of infantry will always be sort of arbitrary as you need to combine several factors (ROF, range, accuracy and penetration) into a single value.

Where I sticked with uniform formulas for determining what AT value I would give to guns, mostly their penetration capability, it didn't make sense giving the short ranged PzFaust the same AT value as a gun that could knock out enemy tanks from over 1km away, even if they theoretically could penentrate the same thickness.

So the values I ended up using for infantry is mostly just set to what I'd think would bring the results I think was close to what I would expect. So far it's working ok.

When looking at the AT-values I use, also remember that I used custom armor values for the tanks as well, usually slightly higher than the default values.

[Oberst_Klink]

I tend to be one who doesn't equip any pre-1944 troops with Heavy Rifle Squads, especially not 'pure' Infantry Units. An exception are the Elite Units or Panzergrenadiere from 1942 onwards. The AT+/- I might have to reconsider in my update of Joao's Kharkov '43 scenario. As a rule of thumb I follow Norm's recommendations.

What is an infantry squad? Which should I use for my scenarios?

Infantry squads in TOAW are intended to represent standard units of about 10 soldiers with their personal weapons and any heavy weapons normally assigned at squad level. For many rifle squads in the game this includes one or more attached light machine guns. It does not include weapons sometimes attached at the platoon level, including light mortars or medium machine guns. The "correct" type of squad for any particular type of unit varies with nationality and time period. Here are a few examples:

Irregular squad – lightly armed troops with no heavy or automatic weapons.
Light rifle squad – standard early WWII infantry armed with bolt action rifles and some light
automatic weapons.

Rifle squad – standard WWII infantry with bolt action rifles and some automatic weapons.

Heavy rifle squad – U.S. and late WWII (1944+) German or Soviet infantry armed with automatic rifles, and German WWII infantry with more than the usual number of attached light machine guns.

SMG squad – U.S. and German paratroopers, German and Soviet SMG units. The majority of troops in these units carry sub machine guns.

Squads with "RL" designations are intended to represent squads with light anti-tank weapons assigned. These weapons include things like the U.S. 2.36" bazooka used from 1942 to 1950. "HRL" squads have weapons such at the German Panzerfaust series weapons and the U.S. 3.5" bazooka deployed in Korea.

Which EQP DB are you using Snefens?

Klink, Oberst

[sPzAbt653]

Which EQP DB are you using Snefens?

He rolls his own. Check out Neva.

Squads with "RL" designations are intended to represent squads with light anti-tank weapons assigned. These weapons include things like the U.S. 2.36" bazooka used from 1942 to 1950. "HRL" squads have weapons such at the German Panzerfaust series weapons and the U.S. 3.5" bazooka deployed in Korea.

What is an 'RL designation' and what is an 'HRL squad' ? I've never seen these anywhere except in this paragraph.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

What is an 'RL designation' and what is an 'HRL squad' ? I've never seen these anywhere except in this paragraph.

These squads has Norm in TOAW I. Later in a update they changed
? RL Squad in ? AT Squad
? HRL Squad in ? AT+ Squad

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

What is an 'RL designation' and what is an 'HRL squad' ? I've never seen these anywhere except in this paragraph.

These squads has Norm in TOAW I. Later in a update they changed
? RL Squad in ? AT Squad
? HRL Squad in ? AT+ Squad

Thanks Jo; that explains some mismatch I experienced using Jon Martina's TO&E. So, basically the TOAW I HRL = Rifle Squad AT+ etc.

Klink, Oberst

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

What is an 'RL designation' and what is an 'HRL squad' ? I've never seen these anywhere except in this paragraph.

These squads has Norm in TOAW I. Later in a update they changed
? RL Squad in ? AT Squad
? HRL Squad in ? AT+ Squad

Thanks Jo; that explains some mismatch I experienced using Jon Martina's TO&E. So, basically the TOAW I HRL = Rifle Squad AT+ etc.

Klink, Oberst

Still that's not in sync with the appendix in the equipment.rtf in ACOW and TOAW III. It says AT- (HEAT=5) for PzFaust, 2.36in RL bazooka, PIAT. But in the end, every designer decides for himself.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
[...] equipment and tactics to defend themselves from tanks.

Good point.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym




These squads has Norm in TOAW I. Later in a update they changed
? RL Squad in ? AT Squad
? HRL Squad in ? AT+ Squad

Thanks Jo; that explains some mismatch I experienced using Jon Martina's TO&E. So, basically the TOAW I HRL = Rifle Squad AT+ etc.

Klink, Oberst

Still that's not in sync with the appendix in the equipment.rtf in ACOW and TOAW III. It says AT- (HEAT=5) for PzFaust, 2.36in RL bazooka, PIAT. But in the end, every designer decides for himself.

In toaw i has the
rifle,heavy rifle or smg squad a anti-armor value of 5
rifle RL,heavy rifle RL or smg RL squad a anti-armor value of 14
rifle HRL,heavy rifle HRL or smg HRL squad a anti-armor value of 24

[orabera]

Has anyone tried creating an equipment item for WWII RL such as Bazzooka or PIAT? Similar to the AT rifle early in the war and then using Base Infantry squads with AT capability of 1?

[sPzAbt653]

There are Bazookas, Piats and Panzerfausts in the Alt Databases.

[governato]

+1 this thread was such a useful classic, so time to bump it up.

I think 'ogar' came up with a great eqp file (included in his Orel scenario) since Summer 2012, but it stops at Summer 43. Maybe if he wanted to add a few comments on his equipment database and how it differs from the others... it'd be very useful ! I seem to notice that in `Orel' his Red Army IDs had a lot of firepower.

[ogar]

That is praise indeed, governato. Thanks.

But the reality of the Orel .eqp file is that most (85%-95%) of the work is direct from the SWWDB Second World War DataBase from Bill Wilson and ... (I'm forgetting the name of his collaborator, sorry.). Another 10 or 15% comes from my "borrowing" ideas from either Snefens' Operation Neva .eqp file, or from Telumar's Anzio scenarios -- and from extended discussions with each of these on minutae of .eqp. My thanks and acknowledgements to all -- I do acknowledge this in the Orel scenario doc, btw.

I stopped my .eqp file in summer 1943 because so many things change in the next 6 months -- panzerfausts, bazookas, the flood of automatic weapons for infantrymen, many,many heavy tanks, etc. I think the .eqp file is at best a snapshot of the values at a point in time (vs something like SWWDB or the WWII 2.0 database, or other alternatives, which span a period). So, the .eqp file in Operation Kutuzov (same time as Orel) is almost the same as Orel, with a few tweaks. The .eqp file for project K89A1 (winter 1943-44) will be based on Orel's .eqp but already contains new equipment, and mods based on the technology changes in those 6 months.

Getting back to thread topic... I think of the four "states" of infantry AT as {no_real_AT, AT-, AT, AT+} applicable for the period 1936-1955, with only no_AT or AT- available for 1936-1940. I think mass distribution of panzerfausts, PIATs, M-9 bazookas, faustpatrones are what tips an infantry (rifle) squad from AT- to AT. And for me, that distribution occurs in 1943-1944, at different rates in different theaters of war. But whether a designer chooses to stuff all the 'extra' equipment available into a squad's AT rating, or chooses to make each of the weapons systems available independently, is the designer's choice based on the scale of the scenario and what the designer chooses as a focus.

And not to forget Curtis' excellent point -- "weapons and tactics" determine the AT (or AP) values. It was the Red Army's organized use of the masses of AT rifles that kept those weapons potent at a time when other armies had moved on to other weapons.
It was the British and American Armies' use of Typhoons or P-47s as flying AT-rifles that allowed them to move away from the infantryman-lugged version.

[r6kunz]

Considering infantry AT weapons, we are looking at relatively small increments (AT values of 4,5,6,8,etc).

But consider the AP values they bring with them. Norm's AT teams all have an AP value of 16. And Norm's .eqp files simply add those AT and AP values to the squad's base value. They do have a certain "shock and awe" value against infantry but I fell this value is overstated. Almost the same a Lt Rft Sqd.

I note at least one mod.eqp file simply adds the AT value but 0 for the AP value. Any thoughts for future .eqp values?