AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

The place to chat on all manner of rules and systems...
dadlamassu
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:01 am

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by dadlamassu »

Timotheus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:57 am (and it's interesting to see HC hits suspension less so than guns do) the thing that sticks out for me is the idea that the HC hand held AT weapons were not as effective at destroying the vehicle so much as disabling it.
Part of the reason is probably the angle of the firer - Hollow charge projectiles were commonly fired by infantrymen in trenches at short range and the closest part of the tank would be the running gear. The chap in the trench probably aimed at the centre of the mass, fired and then moved off or dropped prone in the bottom of the trench to avoid retaliation.

Also one of the reasons for the larger number of side hits is that most nations' tactical doctrine was to shoot from defilade into the flank of the enemy. That gave the largest target and a greater chance of penetration. Also a smaller chance of being spotted and return fire.

My uncle who fought in tanks from the desert to the Baltic said that HE was was quite effective against later German tanks (particularly Panthers) because the quality of manufacture had decreased and the shock of impact and explosion fractured fuel lines and fittings either stopping the target or setting it on fire. He also said that his tank kept shooting until the target burned or the crew bailed out.


User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

Sultanbev wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:55 pm Currently I use a D10 for hit location, 1= tracks/wheels, 2-6 = hull front, 7-9 = turret, 10 = choose turret or hull; from front and rear.
In the side it is:
1-3 = tracks/wheels
4-5 = hull side
6-9 = turret
10 = choose turret or hull
<snip>

Mark
Thanks so much Mark, it's great to see how someone else sets things up. This all sounds very solid and justifiable to me, though some of it is a bit too much detail for the level at which I play (1 vehicle = 1 vehicle and 1 stand = 1 squad/section).

WRT immobilization, I've described the limitations I use in my response to Faustnik, above. As for tracks themselves, I do similar to you, though I give tracks a defence value - so that a hit on a track or side has to do the attack/defence value thing. For hits on the SIDE tracks/suspension, a single effective hit has no effect - notwithstanding your comments on grinding and slowing down, I felt it was easier just to track the number of hits; a second effective hit results in immobilization.

I use an MS Access application I've been using for years to deal with figuring out formula to use with respect to slope (I use the values for slope effectiveness from PRO document WO 185/118 which the very knowledgeable John Salt has mentioned in various places - see http://community.battlefront.com/topic/ ... ive-armor/) and some allowance for overmatch. The great thing about using a program is that I can just alter the procedure that calculates defence and attack values however I please. Here's a screen shot of the armour part of a Pz 38(t) early (I lumped A to D together):

Image

And the same for the KV-1 (in the case, Model 1941 Early). You can see the difference in which what dice roll represents where tracks are hit in the side aspect.

Image

The little grey boxes are individual hit location charts for front, side, rear and are transferred to a data sheet I generate for a game. If turrets are turned a considerable distance, you can use a mix when you roll the d6 for hit location.

Yes, it all looks ridiculously complicated, but it's just me that has to understand it, LOL. My players don't see it except for the data sheets that get generated. Here's the 38(t) on a sheet for an upcoming game (once I get all my new French stuff painted):

Image

Again, ridiculous, I know, but it's just a bunch of us Newfies.... thmbs2)

I don't bother with sight/fire systems damage, though it could be argued I should. I figure I've complicated things enough.

WRT KO and brewed up, I have something similar. Hits on other than track will result in Destroy (brew up), which is hard to achieve, Suppress, or no effect. Suppress is modelled after Crossfire - the vehicle cannot move or fire. From my notes on this, separate from my rules:

What does suppression of an AFV mean? It represents one or a combination of the following:
□ Crew shaken up or stunned inside the vehicle;
□ Surprised by a hit and are furiously trying to locate from where it came;
□ A jammed round in the main armament or a misfire;
□ Optics shaken up, need to adjust somehow or fix the power traverse;
□ The engine has shut down from the blow or the gears slipped out;
□ The AFV has caught fire, outside or inside, and is full of smoke but the fire is small enough that the crew is able to put it out;
□ Power traverse has gone out or transmission has sprung a leak and something needs to be tightened or removed or patched;
□ Some tanks had multiple gas tanks and you had to switch from one tank to another (we did in the Leopard) and maybe that’s caused a problem (i.e. nothing to do with a hit);
□ Some other mechanical problem (A Leopard I was on had it’s turret jammed by – wait for it – a SINGLE 2 or 3 inch nail, nothing else!) and maybe the crew recognizes it as something someone has to jump out for a minute to fix (like they might have to do with an exterior fire I mentioned already).
□ Perhaps the commander has been hurt and is shaking it off;
□ Driver or other crew caught a bit of spall and is out of action until he’s bound up; and/or,
□ There’s probably other stuff one can think of!


The crew has to rally successfully before the vehicle can do anything else in the game.

A second suppression while the vehicle is suppressed destroys it (brews up).

Until the suppressed vehicle is destroyed, it remains a target priority.

Anyway, sorry for the blurb, your description was fascinating and sounds great, I appreciate your taking the time to tell us about it.
Tim (Blame Canada)
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

dadlamassu wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:39 pm
Timotheus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:57 am (and it's interesting to see HC hits suspension less so than guns do) the thing that sticks out for me is the idea that the HC hand held AT weapons were not as effective at destroying the vehicle so much as disabling it.
Part of the reason is probably the angle of the firer - Hollow charge projectiles were commonly fired by infantrymen in trenches at short range and the closest part of the tank would be the running gear. The chap in the trench probably aimed at the centre of the mass, fired and then moved off or dropped prone in the bottom of the trench to avoid retaliation.
That makes a lot of sense.
Also one of the reasons for the larger number of side hits is that most nations' tactical doctrine was to shoot from defilade into the flank of the enemy. That gave the largest target and a greater chance of penetration. Also a smaller chance of being spotted and return fire.
Indeed, I know this one from my heroic service in peace time. I often wondered about this on the game table as when we were planning our pretend defences in real life, you'd assign each tank an "overlapping arc" of responsibility not to the front, but off to the side. Even when playing across the 9 feet of my ping pong table, I could never quite manage this.

More reinforcement of Faustnik's later comments on making the angles representing the aspect of the target much differently from what I have done.
My uncle who fought in tanks from the desert to the Baltic said that HE was was quite effective against later German tanks (particularly Panthers) because the quality of manufacture had decreased and the shock of impact and explosion fractured fuel lines and fittings either stopping the target or setting it on fire. He also said that his tank kept shooting until the target burned or the crew bailed out.
That's interesting. I've read similar with US tanks taking on the very lightly armoured Japanese tanks in the Pacific and in one of my Sherman books about an HE round that went through one side of a Pz IV turret and out the other. Never figured out how to model that and I decided just to stick with anti-armour and anti-personnel aka HE. But then that starts unravelling a bit when you're dealing with tank damage from medium to heavy indirect artillery fire or from SU-122s or any of the Soviet 152mm armed AFVs which generally did not have AP, AFAIK.

Thank you for your thoughts. Was you uncle Polish? I noticed from "desert to the Baltic". :)
Tim (Blame Canada)
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

7dot62mm wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 6:30 am I'd highly recommend the book. Later, Irwin was also the gunner of the only Super Pershing tank of WWII and this is also covered in the book.
THanks, I just ordered it. :) I've recently read 3 British books, a US perspective will be an interesting change.
Tim (Blame Canada)
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

Faustnik wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:03 am
Timotheus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:57 am https://imgur.com/1WX49fb
While I agree with your concept, on the tabletop one must also consider that flanks are targets, which with 1:76~1:76 minis only with a large table is possible. As SultanBev stated, lots of hits on the side, which rarely occur on tabletops.

To model that, without going into a big table and/or a much smaller scale, specially if using a D6 system, try to get the following guide lines (hope this works)
Image

While tinkering a bit, this gives an higher chance of sides hits.
Sorry Faustnik, the image you posted just showed as "image" here. I think because the .webp extension. Here it is from my imgur account (I downloaded it and took a screen shot - let me know if you're not comfortable with it being there and I will happily take it down :) )

Image
URL = ""

I understand your point of making the sides more easily "accessible", but doesn't this approach make longer AFVs easier to get at the sides? Do you make any exceptions for this or have you found this generally satisfactory?

What about turret facings? Since I play with 1/72 and I always take extra time with knife and/or sand paper to ensure turrets traverse easily with just light pressure from a finger on the gun barrel, there are often times that a Panther, for example, might have its turret at 3 or 9 oclock, exposing the thinner turret side to a shot from the front.
Last edited by Timotheus on Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Tim (Blame Canada)
dadlamassu
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:01 am

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by dadlamassu »

Timotheus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:00 pm
Thank you for your thoughts. Was you uncle Polish? I noticed from "desert to the Baltic". :)
He was Scottish - Scots Greys in the desert then 5RTR italy and NW Europe.
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

Fire at Will wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:52 am Over time I have regularly run back to back games where the players only see what their units see. They also don't know the effect of the hits unless it is visible e.g. brewed or bailed. Players will then just keep on firing until they see an observable result.
Thanks. The fire until a visible result really seems to be a consistent theme.

By back to back - you mean double blind sort of thing? I've run up to three separate Crossfire games at the same time and I almost literally feel my brain being torn in three, or even two as I've frequently run two games at a time. Coordinating back to back games must be a headache, though I bet rewarding.
Tim (Blame Canada)
Fire at Will
Supporting Member
Posts: 943
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:18 pm

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Fire at Will »

Timotheus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:44 pm
Fire at Will wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:52 am Over time I have regularly run back to back games where the players only see what their units see. They also don't know the effect of the hits unless it is visible e.g. brewed or bailed. Players will then just keep on firing until they see an observable result.
Thanks. The fire until a visible result really seems to be a consistent theme.

By back to back - you mean double blind sort of thing? I've run up to three separate Crossfire games at the same time and I almost literally feel my brain being torn in three, or even two as I've frequently run two games at a time. Coordinating back to back games must be a headache, though I bet rewarding.
Yes, just like the two player tables in kriegspiel without the umpires table. It also allows the every tank a tiger effect by putting down a "black" tank for an identified target.
User avatar
Faustnik
Supporting Member
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:34 pm
Location: Amadora, Lisbon, Portugal

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Faustnik »

Timotheus wrote: Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:14 pm I understand your point of making the sides more easily "accessible", but doesn't this approach make longer AFVs easier to get at the sides? Do you make any exceptions for this or have you found this generally satisfactory?

What about turret facings? Since I play with 1/72 and I always take extra time with knife and/or sand paper to ensure turrets traverse easily with just light pressure from a finger on the gun barrel, there are often times that a Panther, for example, might have its turret at 3 or 9 oclock, exposing the thinner turret side to a shot from the front.
The basic concept is to correct the problems with not too width tables and lack of possibility for sides hits.

As in reality smaller AFVs are/were harder to hit from the side - that's their concept idea, and it seems to work in reality.

As all things in a wargames rule, this is a personnel interpretation, and used only to correct what I see as a «flaw» in tabletop gaming.

On the turret facing, easy: use the same concept, and as you roll for hit location, apply it.
User avatar
SABOT
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: Normandy

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by SABOT »

I have recently retired from a career of 30 years on main battle tanks. My speciality was always Gunnery. I have fought in the sand on two tours etc. So, I would like to help where I can from the technical aspects of tank gunnery etc. My aim, always to help.

Bearing in mind it’s at least a six week full time course to become a basic qualified Gunner - then years of experience to gain a fuller knowledge.

Dadlamassau has his finger on it with his explanations.

The jump in technical quality from WW2 to present day is staggering , yet we still cannot aim at a certain point on the target and hit it there - not possible at any range because of dispersion. When everything is lined up correctly, the gun sight relationship is boresighted 100 per cent and range is spot on - even then you cannot pin point your fall of shot. The main reason is because of the Gunner aims at the centre of the observed mass in order to overcome dispersion. That variation in lateral and vertical movement cannot be made consistent due to manufacturing tolerances and therefore in Gunnery terms cannot be compensated for by the fire control computer. In tank gunnery consistency is far more important than accuracy.

I will pause here and if any interest I will answer any questions but overall you lads have pretty much got it covered. Not bad for a bunch of ‘Civvies’ 😁
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

SABOT wrote: Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:38 pm I have recently retired from a career of 30 years on main battle tanks. My speciality was always Gunnery. I have fought in the sand on two tours etc. So, I would like to help where I can from the technical aspects of tank gunnery etc. My aim, always to help.

Bearing in mind it’s at least a six week full time course to become a basic qualified Gunner - then years of experience to gain a fuller knowledge.

Dadlamassau has his finger on it with his explanations.

The jump in technical quality from WW2 to present day is staggering , yet we still cannot aim at a certain point on the target and hit it there - not possible at any range because of dispersion. When everything is lined up correctly, the gun sight relationship is boresighted 100 per cent and range is spot on - even then you cannot pin point your fall of shot. The main reason is because of the Gunner aims at the centre of the observed mass in order to overcome dispersion. That variation in lateral and vertical movement cannot be made consistent due to manufacturing tolerances and therefore in Gunnery terms cannot be compensated for by the fire control computer. In tank gunnery consistency is far more important than accuracy.

I will pause here and if any interest I will answer any questions but overall you lads have pretty much got it covered. Not bad for a bunch of ‘Civvies’ 😁
Congratulations on your retirement. thmbs2) I had to leave after 10 years (4 of that being university and training in the Summer) due to medical release myself, but my service was all peacetime/Cold War and mostly on the 6 wheeled Cougar pieces of crap we had in Canada as opposed to Leopards.

I'd be really interested in your thoughts and experience are on the frequency of immobilize results?

My training also emphasized aiming for the centre of visible mass and I never tried anything else during my own gunnery training and neither did any of my gunners at the regiment and on the range or live fire exercises. But I've since read and listened to WWII vets who claim they did try to aim for certain areas, but as Faustnik has pointed out, there were in desperate circumstances against Tigers or Panthers. In the 1990s, I was shocked to hear our former honourary commandant of the Armour School on a documentary describing how he instructed his squadron's (company) gunners to aim for the very small area of the lower part of the Panther's mantlet.
Tim (Blame Canada)
ianrs54
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:28 pm
Location: Birkenhead

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by ianrs54 »

Memory seems to indicate that at least 2/3's of hits were on the turret, which is why it has the heaviest armour. If you want to go into the detail have an optional table for special effects. Personally I no longer think it's worth the effort - an immobilised vehicle would normally be abandoned, PDQ, since the next round is going to kill. I very much doubt that a vehicle crew would be able to tell what had just halted their vehicle.

IanS
Anything bigger than 6 is too big
Bob_Mackenzie
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Bob_Mackenzie »

Hi Ian

I fear you have it the wrong way around, its 2/3rds on the hull

Image

From ORO T-117 - which is a $1.99 download and worth every cent

https://www.merriam-press.com/surveyofa ... warii.aspx

Cheers

Bob
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

Hi Bob,

Dadlamassu mentioned a world of tanks article on p1 which has a similar picture (http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-a ... n-the-eto/).

$1.99 is not bad, I'm downloading your suggestion now, thanks so much!
Tim (Blame Canada)
ianrs54
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:28 pm
Location: Birkenhead

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by ianrs54 »

Figures were taken from action reports. Empirical evidence would also indicate more hits on the turret than the hull, hence more armour there !
Anything bigger than 6 is too big
User avatar
Timotheus
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:48 pm

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Timotheus »

ianrs54 wrote: Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:15 am Figures were taken from action reports. Empirical evidence would also indicate more hits on the turret than the hull, hence more armour there !
[EDIT] Sorry, looking at what I wrote below, it could sound like I'm being a tool. I'm really not trying to be but often end up sounding that way. :) I'm just very interested in any sources I might be able to go in an read this. Sorry again.

Is there a list somewhere of the empirical evidence or somewhere on line that mentions the numbers you spoke about? Barring that, a book?

I used to think that the turret would be hit a lot more, especially late war when the concept of taking a hull down where ever possible when halting to fire. But then a lot of tanks will get hit on the move, too, where the whole profile is exposed. Plus you can't always take a proper hull down. I know the Germans uparmoured hulls first before turrets, at least in the development of the Panzer III and IV, as did Patton's tanks that had chopped up armour (versus sand bags which Patton didn't like for some reason) received the hull front as well, though I think I've seen pictures of some of these Sherman 76s with armour welded on the side of the turret. :)
Tim (Blame Canada)
ianrs54
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:28 pm
Location: Birkenhead

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by ianrs54 »

AP rounds fly flat and will hit the upper hull/turret. IAT and possibly towed guns should hit the hull, but super-elevation (jacking it up a bit to reach the target) will tend to raise the hit location. At close range and in close quarters there would be more hull hits, and hits from artillery bombardment would be random. Crews using the 17pdr though that Sabot was inaccurate because they kept applying the same elevations they had used for APCBC. The Sabot being much faster did not require this. To give some idea of the sort of ballistic drop that a sabot round has the L7 105mm drops by 2m in 3000m, ie it's flat. The long german guns - L70's are too long, and the barrel eiher droops slightly, under its own weight, or whips on firing.

Bear in mind that this is a very complex topic.

IanS
Anything bigger than 6 is too big
User avatar
SABOT
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: Normandy

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by SABOT »

It is a very complex subject but in a nutshell Bob has got it spot on. In general the hull represents approx 2/3rd of the target size so therefore if hit in the open you would expect approx that percentage to hit in the hull area. It’s down to dispersion as I pointed out earlier and what is known as Standard Deviation (SD) .

Sorry Ian but you are a bit off in your explanations. If you elevate higher you generally miss . The graticule pattern is applied by range to ammo type. It takes account of the trajectory at all known ranges , taking into account the drop of the projectile. In that sense the projectile will perform correctly to the quadrant elevation applied - that’s the final angle of the gun at the point of final lay immediately prior to firing . That angle incorporates the Angle of Sight (AOS) that will be either positive or negative and also Tangent Elevation.

In simple terms it reads like this. You need to get the range correct - lay the correct aiming mark on the centre of the observed mass. At least 80% of your rounds fired will hit the target allowing for dispersion/SD . Two thirds are likely to hit the hull area when target is side on. 50% between hull and turret when head on or oblique.

Obviously then, being hull down reduces the chances of being hit because the lay of the gun taking into account the observed mass means you alter the MPI ( grouping) of the rounds as more will now miss. You can adjust your percentage chances of a hit in line with the percentages above. Not as simple on a moving target as it is harder to hit both side on and head on movers with oblique movers the hardest of all to hit.

So, as a wargamer what is more important is to recognise that the fighting compartment is made up of the turret and the hull. The turret floor is only just off the hull floor on a turntable . So in a modern MBT a hit in the hull does not always mean it affects mobility.

Do crews dismount when hit once? You will read lots of different historical accounts that vary. Crews are at least trained to fight their tank as it degrades but morale is always the decider in my experience.
Bob_Mackenzie
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by Bob_Mackenzie »

Timotheus wrote: Mon Apr 09, 2018 8:20 pm Hi Bob,

Dadlamassu mentioned a world of tanks article on p1 which has a similar picture (http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-a ... n-the-eto/).

$1.99 is not bad, I'm downloading your suggestion now, thanks so much!
In a similar vein (and free)

http://lmharchive.ca/the-ronnie-shephar ... gust-1944/

http://lmharchive.ca/wp-content/uploads ... alysis.pdf

http://lmharchive.ca/?p=1326

http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/albu ... -1945.205/ (be aware that the pages are in an odd order on this one)

Cheers

Bob
User avatar
SABOT
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:59 pm
Location: Normandy

Group Builds

Re: AT Fire Immobilize Historical Results?

Post by SABOT »

Great references Bob. Many thanks.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Discussion”